View Full Version : Iraq Needs a New Prime Minister
ClydeR
07-20-2008, 06:00 PM
Iraq's prime minister, that Maliki person, needs to go. He has repeatedly misspoken to the press, requiring the White House and CENTCOM to clean up after him by releasing clarifications of what he actually said. Most recently, he seems to think he is the governor of America's 51st state (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Political_leverage_in_the_51st_state.html), when he should realize that he is just the head of a weak foreign country that is dependent on the United States for its continued liberation.
To protect our long-term interests in Iraq, we should install someone like Ahmed Chalabi, who recognizes that Iraq's best interests and the United States' best interest are both served by President Bush's new vision for a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080718.html)." Obama's and Maliki's, even though Maliki misspoke, desire for a "timetable" would be disastrous.
Nieninque
07-20-2008, 06:01 PM
Because "installing" other countries' heads of state has always been a positive move.
TheEschaton
07-20-2008, 06:27 PM
Err, Ahmed Chalabi works for the CIA and gave us the faulty information that Iraq had WMD. Why? Because he had a personal interest in seeing Saddam overthrown, as he WAS the odds-on favorite to have Maliki's job. I'm glad the GOP is trying to get him back in, I dare them to push this issue.
Parkbandit
07-20-2008, 06:31 PM
Err, Ahmed Chalabi works for the CIA and gave us the faulty information that Iraq had WMD. Why? Because he had a personal interest in seeing Saddam overthrown, as he WAS the odds-on favorite to have Maliki's job. I'm glad the GOP is trying to get him back in, I dare them to push this issue.
Wait.. I thought George W Bush gave us the faulty information!
W T F!?
Keller
07-20-2008, 06:39 PM
Wait.. I thought George W Bush gave us the faulty information!
W T F!?
Within mere minutes of posting that Stan's retardation would never be surpassed on the internet.
Great success!
Warriorbird
07-20-2008, 07:15 PM
We found Chalabi involved in a bunch of actually criminal malfeasance. I'd think Maliki would be a much better puppet. None of this will stop the Shiites from cuddling up to Iran though.
Iraq's prime minister, that Maliki person, needs to go. He has repeatedly misspoken to the press, requiring the White House and CENTCOM to clean up after him by releasing clarifications of what he actually said. Most recently, he seems to think he is the governor of America's 51st state (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Political_leverage_in_the_51st_state.html), when he should realize that he is just the head of a weak foreign country that is dependent on the United States for its continued liberation.
To protect our long-term interests in Iraq, we should install someone like Ahmed Chalabi, who recognizes that Iraq's best interests and the United States' best interest are both served by President Bush's new vision for a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080718.html)." Obama's and Maliki's, even though Maliki misspoke, desire for a "timetable" would be disastrous.
So... spreading freedom and democracy isn’t enough.
ClydeR
07-20-2008, 07:24 PM
So... spreading freedom and democracy isn’t enough.
That sums it up very well, if you're talking about the Iraqis. Spreading freedom and democracy was never our primary reason for liberating Iraq. From the Iraqi's point of view, it should be enough for the Iraqis that we have set them free. But they want to have their cake and eat it too.
I think the guy is fine, their government is making good progress.
That sums it up very well, if you're talking about the Iraqis. Spreading freedom and democracy was never our primary reason for liberating Iraq. From the Iraqi's point of view, it should be enough for the Iraqis that we have set them free. But they want to have their cake and eat it too.
This is such a tight bundle of rationalization (rationalism) I don’t even know where to start unravelling it. Oh wait, whats that? Spreading freedom and democracy was never our primary reason for liberating Iraq.
Dude, have we come full circle in our cynicism? You sound like a hippie liberal.
FWIW news headline this morning, Maliki denouncing the german article, saying he was misquoted. Betcha the correction doesn't get as much MSM airplay as the original story though.
Chalabi is a bit on the dirty side when it comes to criminal matters, He would not be the best choice... let alone Maliki was elected...
ClydeR
07-21-2008, 11:48 AM
Dude, have we come full circle in our cynicism? You sound like a hippie liberal.
No, I sound honest. Ever since I first started posting on this forum, I have maintained that a primary reason for invading Iraq was oil. Obviously we would not have invaded Iraq for the oil alone. But the presence of other reasons, like WMDs, terrorism and social injustice, justified the invasion to preserve Iraq's oil production. Without the oil, we would not have invaded based on the other reasons.
If President Bush had emphasized the oil angle more before the war, then the public would be more understanding today of the need for a long-term occupation of Iraq.
If we just pack up and leave Iraq in the next few years, then the 4,100 American soldiers killed in Iraq, the 30,000 injured and the $500 billion spent on the war will have been in vain. Our soldiers fought and died for oil, and we should not just walk away from it.
No, I sound honest. Ever since I first started posting on this forum, I have maintained that a primary reason for invading Iraq was oil. Obviously we would not have invaded Iraq for the oil alone. But the presence of other reasons, like WMDs, terrorism and social injustice, justified the invasion to preserve Iraq's oil production. Without the oil, we would not have invaded based on the other reasons.
If President Bush had emphasized the oil angle more before the war, then the public would be more understanding today of the need for a long-term occupation of Iraq.
If we just pack up and leave Iraq in the next few years, then the 4,100 American soldiers killed in Iraq, the 30,000 injured and the $500 billion spent on the war will have been in vain. Our soldiers fought and died for oil, and we should not just walk away from it.
Then you're a moron, historical fact does not indicate we invaded Iraq for oil.
1. We were already getting oil from Iraq through the UN oil for food program.
2. The French and the Russians, both of which had sweetheart deals with Saddam, tried, repeatedly, to lift the UN sanctions to allow more oil to flow. Had we wanted more Iraqi oil all we had to do was nothing. Instead we vetoed the resolution each time they tried it.
3. Mid East oil, other than saudi arabia, quite frankly is not as important to us as to others. Because of transportation costs we get more of our oil from sources closer to home. You can look up the 02 or 03 oil imports for the US, Canada, mexico, venezuela, nigeria, these are all closer than Iraq and provide most of our oil (Saudi Arabia being the main provider from the mideast).
4. One can also point to the price of oil, if we invaded to get their oil, obviously we failed.
The oil argument is tired and old and wrong. Right or wrong, we invaded because of WMDs and terrorist ties, not oil.
BigWorm
07-21-2008, 03:27 PM
Then you're a moron, historical fact does not indicate we invaded Iraq for oil.
1. We were already getting oil from Iraq through the UN oil for food program.
2. The French and the Russians, both of which had sweetheart deals with Saddam, tried, repeatedly, to lift the UN sanctions to allow more oil to flow. Had we wanted more Iraqi oil all we had to do was nothing. Instead we vetoed the resolution each time they tried it.
3. Mid East oil, other than saudi arabia, quite frankly is not as important to us as to others. Because of transportation costs we get more of our oil from sources closer to home. You can look up the 02 or 03 oil imports for the US, Canada, mexico, venezuela, nigeria, these are all closer than Iraq and provide most of our oil (Saudi Arabia being the main provider from the mideast).
4. One can also point to the price of oil, if we invaded to get their oil, obviously we failed.
The oil argument is tired and old and wrong. Right or wrong, we invaded because of WMDs and terrorist ties, not oil.
You're right. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with oil
ClydeR
07-21-2008, 03:48 PM
Then you're a moron, historical fact does not indicate we invaded Iraq for oil.
We'll see.
1. We were already getting oil from Iraq through the UN oil for food program.
Just a small amount. Most of Iraq's oil reserves -- the third largest in the world, easily extractible for the most part -- are untapped. If there is a stable government in Iraq that won't use its oil revenue for terrorism purposes, then American oil companies can extract that oil better than anyone else in the world.
2. The French and the Russians, both of which had sweetheart deals with Saddam, tried, repeatedly, to lift the UN sanctions to allow more oil to flow. Had we wanted more Iraqi oil all we had to do was nothing. Instead we vetoed the resolution each time they tried it.
Sacrebleu! Who wants the French to get their hands on that wealth?
3. Mid East oil, other than saudi arabia, quite frankly is not as important to us as to others. Because of transportation costs we get more of our oil from sources closer to home. You can look up the 02 or 03 oil imports for the US, Canada, mexico, venezuela, nigeria, these are all closer than Iraq and provide most of our oil (Saudi Arabia being the main provider from the mideast).
Oil is fungible. If the Middle East produces more oil, then the price of oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria will be cheaper.
4. One can also point to the price of oil, if we invaded to get their oil, obviously we failed.
That's because our work in Iraq isn't finished.
The oil argument is tired and old and wrong. Right or wrong, we invaded because of WMDs and terrorist ties, not oil.
In their hearts, most people know I am right on this issue. We would never have invaded Iraq if it did not have large oil reserves.
Kembal
07-21-2008, 04:23 PM
I have to believe whoever is ClydeR is breaking down under the strain of keeping up the pretense of a right-winger.
Kembal
07-21-2008, 04:37 PM
FWIW news headline this morning, Maliki denouncing the german article, saying he was misquoted. Betcha the correction doesn't get as much MSM airplay as the original story though.
Bad news for you:
1. The audio and transcript were posted, and the translation has been independently confirmed as correct.
2. The U.S. government has confirmed that it called Maliki's office to complain about his comments, and only then did the "clarification" come out. And it came out via CentCom, which kind of makes it suspect.
3. Maliki's office just said today they would like U.S. troops out in 2010 sometime. (translation question as to "sometime in 2010" or by "the end of 2010")
This will hurt McCain bad.
ClydeR
07-21-2008, 04:42 PM
I have to believe whoever is ClydeR is breaking down under the strain of keeping up the pretense of a right-winger.
I have always said that oil was our primary reason for invading and staying in Iraq. I think oil companies have cheated the American public. I'm not enthusiastic about John McCain. And I believe that the United States has justifiably tortured prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have expressed each of those opinions on more than one occasion in this forum. I don't conform to anybody's narrow stereotype of "a right-winger." You should be open minded enough not to assume that my views parrot the White House spin on every issue.
Parkbandit
07-21-2008, 05:36 PM
I have to believe whoever is ClydeR is breaking down under the strain of keeping up the pretense of a right-winger.
LOL.. you have to give it to him/her though.. he/she's been able to keep this up for far longer than I would have thought! It's not hard to be a bleeding heart liberal and post like a retarded religious conservative consistently!
Well done imo.
:clap:
In their hearts, most people know I am right on this issue. We would never have invaded Iraq if it did not have large oil reserves.
You're like that twit Charles Rangel. He went on the Today show in late 03 or early 04 when Nigeria was having "issues" and the International community wanted us to get involved and said "If Nigeria had oil we'd be there already like we're in Iraq."
:wtf:
This guy is a congressman? How stupid do you have to be to work in Washington?
Just because a country has a natural resource doesn't mean that is the reason for going in. Why aren't we in venezuela? Nigeria? Canada? Why not just open up the sanctions and fuck the kurds, and fuck the no-fly zone that Saddam repeatedly violated. Let it all go to hell, we'll get our oil.
No, of course, we invaded Iraq, thereby using up vast sums of oil mobilizing our military, to get a natural resource we could have gotten merely by saying "okay" to the UN Security Council.
Oh, and you're whole "and let the french get it point" is beat by your acknowledgement that oil is a global market. Hehehe. I knew someone would try that argument.
Bad news for you:
1. The audio and transcript were posted, and the translation has been independently confirmed as correct.
2. The U.S. government has confirmed that it called Maliki's office to complain about his comments, and only then did the "clarification" come out. And it came out via CentCom, which kind of makes it suspect.
3. Maliki's office just said today they would like U.S. troops out in 2010 sometime. (translation question as to "sometime in 2010" or by "the end of 2010")
This will hurt McCain bad.
Hmm... I kinda go with the second statement rather than the first. It is easy to mispeak and have your words construed differently than what you mean. I really can't see Obama taking an Iraq advantage, what is he going to say?
Option 1: "The surge has failed, Iraq is in shambles, it doesn't matter, lets throw in the towel and let it descend into chaos, as it surely will, since the surge failed. Instead, lets bring a surge to Afganistan, because it will work there, even though I'm saying it didn't work in Iraq."
Option 2: "The surge has succeeded. I was wrong, I said it would never work. I said it was a bad decision, boy did I miss the boat on that one? Since the surge in Iraq worked so well, lets duplicate it in Afganistan."
It requires a suspension of disbelief to believe the first statement (the one he is currently trying) and the second statement would require him to admit a mistake - which, like Bush, is something he has a hard time doing.
ClydeR
07-21-2008, 06:47 PM
Oh, and you're whole "and let the french get it point" is beat by your acknowledgement that oil is a global market. Hehehe. I knew someone would try that argument.
The issue with the French was not whether the French were capable of extracting the oil. The are, but American companies are better. The issue was who gets the profits from selling the oil. That should go to American companies.
Oh I get it, you want their oil now to help us, so you think we must have gone there for the oil to begin with.
... when by the way oil was what? 30 a barrel?
I’d love to know who ClydeR thinks perpetrated 9/11.
Apathy
07-21-2008, 07:45 PM
Rebuilding a country in civil war should only take about 3 or 4 years, tops.
ClydeR
07-21-2008, 09:04 PM
Oh I get it, you want their oil now to help us, so you think we must have gone there for the oil to begin with.
... when by the way oil was what? 30 a barrel?
The $100 per barrel increase since then is not entirely due to the Iraq War. When we stabilize Iraq and increase its oil production in a few years, the price of oil will be affected in a good way, and the oil revenue will probably pay for the Iraq War, just like President Bush predicted before the Iraq War.
ClydeR
07-21-2008, 09:06 PM
I’d love to know who ClydeR thinks perpetrated 9/11.
Your wish is my command. It was...drum roll...Osama Bin Laden.
The $100 per barrel increase since then is not entirely due to the Iraq War. When we stabilize Iraq and increase its oil production in a few years, the price of oil will be affected in a good way, and the oil revenue will probably pay for the Iraq War, just like President Bush predicted before the Iraq War.
I need a good facepalm.
Clyder you're using the current oil crisis as retroactive justification for an Iraq invasion that happened when we didn't have an oil crisis.
Your wish is my command. It was...drum roll...Osama Bin Laden.
A Saudi.
Whatever. I agree that the mess needs to be cleaned up, thoroughly... the sooner the better.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.