ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

revel wrote:

Actually foxfrye it was entirely to the point. From the standpoint of those who supported the war in Iraq because they wanted to "fight Islamic terrorism" (or whatever) it is just ironic that the removal of Saddam Hussien put in place a government that is so closely aligned with Iran/Hezbollah.

I think the present government of Iraq is in no way closely aligned with Iran or Hezbollah. The present government in Iraq is as anti-Israel as you are though and so takes Hezbollah's side. I would think you would think it was great.

Bush, Iraqi PM differ on Mideast crisis as local Democrats look to boycott his address to Congress

BY CRAIG GORDON AND GLENN THRUSH
Newsday Washington Bureau

July 26, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki yesterday refused to condemn Hezbollah guerrillas for their role in the Israel-Lebanon crisis, prompting Sen. Charles Schumer and other local Democrats to declare a boycott of his address to Congress today.

Al-Maliki touched off the diplomatic dustup when he clashed with President George W. Bush yesterday over who was to blame for the fighting. Al-Maliki criticized the "damage and destruction" caused by Israeli attacks but said nothing on Hezbollah's role.

The Iraqi leader also pressed Bush to seek an immediate cease-fire, something Bush has pointedly refused to do even as Israel has stepped up its attacks.

Al-Maliki addresses a joint meeting of Congress today, but Schumer, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Jamaica Estates) and Rep. Nita Lowey (D-Westchester) say they'll stay away.

Schumer is breaking with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who called al-Maliki's comments "unfortunate and discouraging" but said she planned to attend.

"I think it's a personal decision for everybody, given his position on Hezbollah and offering amnesty for those who kill American soldiers. I could not sit there," Schumer told Newsday yesterday.

Schumer was referring to Al-Maliki's proposal to grant amnesty to some former insurgents as part of a national reconciliation plan.

Other Democrats called on the Republican leadership in Congress to cancel al-Maliki's comments outright, but Republicans said the speech would go on.

Al-Maliki's comments were remarkable in that the survival of his government depends directly on U.S. military support.

Bush grimaced slightly as he acknowledged that he and al-Maliki had a "frank exchange" over the Lebanon situation - oft-used diplomatic code words for a sharp disagreement. But Bush stood by his call for "sustainable cease-fire" - meaning one that either disarms or disables Hezbollah enough to prevent the group from threatening Israel again.

The dispute overshadowed what the White House had tried to promote as a historic meeting between Iraq's first fully sovereign leader and his political and military partner.

Yet in some ways, it would be extraordinary for al-Maliki to rebuke Hezbollah guerrillas, because of his leadership role in the Dawa Party. The Dawa Party in Lebanon merged with Hezbollah in 1983 or 1984.

Maliki was the exiled representative of the Iraqi Dawa Party in Syria and Lebanon in the mid-1980s. Hezbollah also has very close ties to followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, an important element of Maliki's ruling coalition, area experts said.

Asked later about Dawa's ties to Hezbollah, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said he was unaware there was a relationship.

I think the present government of Iraq is in no way closely aligned with Iran or Hezbollah. The present government in Iraq is as anti-Israel as you are though and so takes Hezbollah's side. I would think you would think it was great.

The Islamic Dawa Party or Islamic Call Party is, historically, a militant Shiite Islamic group and, presently, an Iraqi political party. Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq are two of the main parties in the religious-Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, which won a plurality of seats in both the provisional January 2005 Iraqi election and the longer-term December 2005 election. The party is led by Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a doctor, who served as the Prime Minister of Iraq in the Iraqi Transitional Government from 2005 until May 20, 2006. The party's deputy leader, Nouri al-Maliki, is the current Prime Minister of Iraq.

Hezbollah is Israel's enemy!
Lebanon is Hezbollah's ally!
Syria is Hezbollah's ally!
Iran is Hezbollah's ally!
Allies of your enemy are also your enemy!
A Rational Peace Process:
(1) Hezbollah stops shooting rockets at Israel;
(2) Hezbollah returns its captured Israelies;
(3) Hezbollah leaves Lebanon;
(4) Israel leaves Lebanon.

Another Rational Peace Process:
(1) Israel destroys Hezbollah;
(2) Israel leaves Lebanon.

And using pre-Saddam history to establish current relationships is a little silly don't you think? The whole purpose of removing Saddam was to a) remove him as a threat to peace among people who desire people, and then b) to make Iraq into something different (and better) than it was. There is no question that Saddam courted, financed, encouraged, and utilized terrorist groups and organization. There is no evidence that the current Iraqi leadership does so.

And using pre-Saddam history to establish current relationships is a little silly don't you think? The whole purpose of removing Saddam was to a) remove him as a threat to peace among people who desire people, and then b) to make Iraq into something different (and better) than it was. There is no question that Saddam courted, financed, encouraged, and utilized terrorist groups and organization. There is no evidence that the current Iraqi leadership does so.

Foxfyre wrote:

And using pre-Saddam history to establish current relationships is a little silly don't you think? The whole purpose of removing Saddam was to a) remove him as a threat to peace among people who desire people, and then b) to make Iraq into something different (and better) than it was. There is no question that Saddam courted, financed, encouraged, and utilized terrorist groups and organization. There is no evidence that the current Iraqi leadership does so.

Do you even try to understand what you are reading? Al-Dawa was fighting Saddam Hussein. The current Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was and still is a leader of al-Dawa. And that's the same al-Dawa that was and still is courted, financed, encouraged, and utilized by Iran, the same al-Dawa that was considered to be a terrorist organization, the same al-Dawa that committed the attacks on American and French embassies in Kuwait, and the same al-Dawa that has close ties to Hezbollah.

You're not even trying, Foxy!

...
Al-Dawa was fighting Saddam Hussein. The current Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was and still is a leader of al-Dawa. And that's the same al-Dawa that was and still is courted, financed, encouraged, and utilized by Iran, the same al-Dawa that was considered to be a terrorist organization, the same al-Dawa that committed the attacks on American and French embassies in Kuwait, and the same al-Dawa that has close ties to Hezbollah.
...

Have you forgotten that al-Dawa also sided with Saddam against the most recent coalition invasion of Iraq?

There is no evidence that the current government is not trying to choose that road to peace and prosperity.

I think the present government of Iraq is in no way closely aligned with Iran or Hezbollah.

Foxfyre wrote:

Have you forgotten that al-Dawa also sided with Saddam against the most recent coalition invasion of Iraq?

Actually, I've never heard of it. Al-Dawa sided with Saddam? I don't think so. Al-Dawa tried to assasinate Tariq Aziz, tried to kill Saddam Hussein (twice) and reportedly attempted later to kill Saddam's son Uday. Al-Dawa membership in Iraq was made punishable by death.

I think you're making the mistake that, because al-Dawa was also fighting America, it must have been an ally of Saddam. Using that logic, you could also say that the USA sided with Iran and Hezbollah when they decided to invade Iraq.

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no evidence that the current government is not trying to choose that road to peace and prosperity.

I don't know about that, but wouldn't argue against that. However, that's not what you initially said. Not at all. You said

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the present government of Iraq is in no way closely aligned with Iran or Hezbollah.

And I don't see how anything I've said contradicts that the PRESENT GOVERNMENT of Iraq is in no way closely aligned with Iran or Hezbollah. That is vastly different from saying that they "never were" or "have never been" closely aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. A little precision please. You can find plenty to hang me on without having to change what I say into what you want me to have said.

Foxfyre wrote:

And I don't see how anything I've said contradicts that the PRESENT GOVERNMENT of Iraq is in no way closely aligned with Iran or Hezbollah. That is vastly different from saying that they "never were" or "have never been" closely aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. A little precision please. You can find plenty to hang me on without having to change what I say into what you want me to have said.

Okay. I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

So let's say that the guys who now form the present government of Iraq were, until 3 years ago, closely aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. That doesn't mean that they are now closely aligned with Iran or Hezbollah.

And al-Dawa was, until 3 years ago, a fundamentalist group that was affiliated with Hezbollah, which had openly declared its intentions to target American soldiers and civilians in Iraq for assassination. But that doesn't mean that al-Dawa still is a fundamentalist group affiliated with Hezbollah.

And al-Dawa was, until 3 years ago, trying to kill Saddam and members of the Saddam regime, because they opposed Saddam's secular regime and wanted to institute a theocracy. But that doesn't mean that al-Dawa wasn't fighting the American invasion, and therefore it can be said that they sided with Saddam.

Did I catch your drift?

but we can hope that they will adopt principles and policies that will no longer target Israel to be obliterated from the face of the Earth.

And then we can hope that idea will catch on.

Encouraging democracy in that region is a generational commitment. It's also a difficult commitment, demanding patience and resolve -- when the headlines are good and when the headlines aren't so good. Freedom has determined enemies, who show no mercy for the innocent, and no respect for the rules of warfare. Many societies in the region struggle with poverty and illiteracy, many rulers in the region have longstanding habits of control; many people in the region have deeply ingrained habits of fear.

For all these reasons, the chances of democratic progress in the broader Middle East have seemed frozen in place for decades. Yet at last, clearly and suddenly, the thaw has begun. The people of Afghanistan have embraced free government, after suffering under one of the most backward tyrannies on earth. The voters in Iraq defied threats of murder, and have set their country on a path to full democracy. The people of the Palestinian Territories cast their ballots against violence and corruption of the past. And any who doubt the appeal of freedom in the Middle East can look to Lebanon, where the Lebanese people are demanding a free and independent nation. In the words of one Lebanese observer, "Democracy is knocking at the door of this country and, if it's successful in Lebanon, it is going to ring the doors of every Arab regime."

Across the Middle East, a critical mass of events is taking that region in a hopeful new direction. Historic changes have many causes, yet these changes have one factor in common. A businessman in Beirut recently said, "We have removed the mask of fear. We're not afraid anymore." Pervasive fear is the foundation of every dictatorial regime -- the prop that holds up all power not based on consent. And when the regime of fear is broken, and the people find their courage and find their voice, democracy is their goal, and tyrants, themselves, have reason to fear. (Applause.)