Military Coup In Iraq: Prime Minister Maliki Refuses To Step Down; Security Forces On

[paulitician]

Our Government wants a new puppet. More 'Regime Change.' When will Americans learn? Looks like Maliki won't go quietly though. They'll probably have to kill him. Stay tuned.

 

[rdean]

This thread is a good example of conservatives having no interest in a bad situation that they cannot really blame on Obama.

This comes down to a real simple problem

Obama is good at arming the folks he wants to 'save' and then remove
.

-Geaux

That doesn't make sense.

 

[rdean]

Obama is putting Isis in charge of both Syria and Iraq

Links?

Still waiting for those links.

 

[Moonglow]

Miliki was replaced this morning

 

[Peach]

Meanwhile, just who is Obama supporting? I can't keep up with his endless moving targets

-Geaux

Maliki was chosen by Bush, the President has been quite open in his request that Maliki step down; Maliki has chosen not to do so. Bad choice by Bush, yes. Zero Hedge is........not worth -0- on this; Maliki called in the troops to be available when he announces he is running for a third term. There was a thread on this yesterday.

Yup.

to catch some people up ...


Latest update : 2014-08-11
Iraq’s highest court ruled on Monday that Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s bloc is the biggest in parliament, meaning that he could retain his position according to his supporters.

According to the Iraqi constitution, the president must now ask the biggest group in parliament to form a new government.

The ruling was interpreted by Maliki’s supporters as a sign that the embattled premier could retain his position. However, court spokesman Abdelsattar Bereqdar told the BBC that the court had asked the president to choose the bloc with the largest number of MPs without naming any specific bloc.

Maliki, serving in a caretaker capacity since an inconclusive election in April, has defied calls from Sunnis, Kurds, some fellow Shiites and regional power broker Iran to step aside to make room for a less polarising figure.
A senior Iraqi official told the Reuters news agency that the ruling allowing Maliki to serve a third term was “very problematic”.

“This will make the situation very, very complex,” said the official, who asked not to be named due to sectarian sensitivities in Iraq.


On Sunday night, police said special forces loyal to Maliki were deployed in strategic areas of Baghdad after he delivered a tough speech on television accusing Iraq’s Kurdish president of violating the constitution by missing a deadline to ask the biggest bloc in parliament to nominate a prime minister.

Middle East - Pressure mounts on Iraq's Maliki amid political turmoil - France 24

This is REALITY, the Townhall heads WILL implode.

 

[rdean]

Obama is putting Isis in charge of both Syria and Iraq

Links?

Still waiting for those links.

Waiting.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This thread is a good example of conservatives having no interest in a bad situation that they cannot really blame on Obama.

True. Republicans put Maliki in charge because they relate to him. Especially the part about an exclusionary government. Clearly, that's what the GOP wants to do here.

So much for a nuanced analysis of the regional realities, eh?

Obama is a dunce when it comes to geopolitics. The ISIS is his creation, the result of his blustering red line in the sand against a regime killing our most unpredictably dangerous enemies, as the latter were simultaneously draining blood and treasure from another enemy, Iran, which backs the Assad regime. Bonus! Notwithstanding, no one in their right mind would want the militant Sunnis to spill over into the surrounding countries, especially into Iraq where America vested large sums of blood and treasure. In other words, if the Obama Administration's arming of Al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISLA in Syria was a calculated move to eventually undermine/punish Maliki's government, it was a rather stupid move.

Further, Obama intentionally allowed the status forces agreement to collapse at the point of the provisional extension for troop deployment past the targeted date. Maliki initially supported an extension of troop deployment in accordance with the provision in the original status forces agreement, but he was undermined by the Iranian friendly Shia faction of the Iraqi Parliament. Obama should have never allowed that to happen in the first place. I have discussed that here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bama-s-press-conf-on-iraq-35.html#post9605380

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bama-s-press-conf-on-iraq-29.html#post9599559

Finally, the Obama Administration's so-called inclusive-government strategy is in fact the very same dunderheaded doctrine as that of the Bush Administration, which, in spite of your nonsense, incessantly pressed Maliki to provide for a more inclusive cabinet during the Surge. While the Surge was wildly successfully, the Bush doctrine is predicated on the WWII-era relic of a united Iraq, when the best approach for securing an enduringly stable Mesopotamia among the irrevocably balkanized factions in Iraq would have been a three-nation solution carved out among the region's sectarian groups under the umbrella of an extended military presence of American forces, which would have been facilitated by the fact that the three major groups of people are already regionally divided within Iraq anyway.

More on that here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bama-s-press-conf-on-iraq-29.html#post9598811

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bama-s-press-conf-on-iraq-27.html#post9598269

This bickering along partisan lines about who is at fault favored by you leftists is the amateurish tripe of the geopolitically naïve, and the idea that Obama consciously mastermind the current crisis, let alone anticipated it, is risible.

This Administration is out of its depth and always has been, though its contempt for Israel and the calculated nature of much of its other actions in the region to the determent of Israel's security are manifest, including its arming of Al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISLA in Syria. Oops.

Now there's your real, albeit, latent motive . . . compounded by the fumbling attempts of a rank narcissist who tried to save face.

Obama is a contemptible piece of work. His name should be listed somewhere in the definition of the term lame in Merriam Webster. In fact, the spelling for lame should be changed to O-b-a-m-a to avoid confusion in usage.

Examples:

"Man, that last play by the Redskins sure was Obama."

"The umpire made an Obama call."

"Obama made another Obama excuse for his policies."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is pretty obvious at this point that a strongman is best for most countries in the region of the world in question. They aren't ready for democracy.

Then why is Obama determined to oust Assad ? Doesn't he get it ?

I have no idea what Obama's plans are for Syria and Iraq. He's, unfortunately, continuing the policies started by those before him.

Bingo! Though with some exceptions. . . .

We don't need a strongman in Iraq, just the vision to understand that the solution favored by most of the world since WWII is unworkable. What is needed is a three-state solution, with a second U.S. backed and U.S. friendly democracy in the region along with Israel: namely Kurdistan.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Meanwhile, just who is Obama supporting? I can't keep up with his endless moving targets

-Geaux

Maliki was chosen by Bush, the President has been quite open in his request that Maliki step down; Maliki has chosen not to do so. Bad choice by Bush, yes. Zero Hedge is........not worth -0- on this; Maliki called in the troops to be available when he announces he is running for a third term. There was a thread on this yesterday.

I assume the far left has a link showing that Bush chose Maliki without using far left blog sites to prove this assertion. Otherwise it is nothing more than far left lore like 99% of the claims made on this board and in the far left blog o sphere.

Certainly, the notion that Bush chose Maliki as such is silly. Lefty incessantly makes baby talk about partisan politics, by which he means the "outrage" of those who oppose him, though his analysis of the world never gets beyond partisanship.

 

[Geaux4it]

Obama's FP is just a plain disaster. Who does this clown surround himself with? Where all these trumped up Czars? LMAO

-Geaux

 

[dilloduck]

Obama's FP is just a plain disaster. Who does this clown surround himself with? Where all these trumped up Czars? LMAO

-Geaux

Lots of women