Shiite cleric warns Iraqis against working with US

[rdean]

BAGHDAD -- A powerful Iranian-backed Shiite bloc put forward its own candidate for prime minister Friday

The INA, which includes followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, vehemently opposes al-Maliki staying on as prime minister primarily because Al-Maliki jailed thousands of al-Sadr supporters during U.S.-Iraqi bruising offensives in al-Sadr's strongholds of Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City.

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM - World AP - MiamiHerald.com

BAGHDAD – A powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq has warned the country's security forces against working with the remaining American troops in the country.

Shiite cleric warns Iraqis against working with US - Yahoo! News

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM

BAGHDAD – A powerful Iranian-backed Shiite bloc put forward its own candidate for prime minister Friday, further complicating Iraq's fractured political scene as the country stumbled into month six without a new government.

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM - Yahoo! News

This is what Democrats have been trying to explain to Republicans.

The American right wing doesn't understand why Islam being written into the Iraqi constitution as the "national religion" is a mistake or why they can't base all their legislation on Islam. After all, they want to do that here in this country with "Christianity".

All the rhetoric about how we "won" in Iraq. This is winning? All their women, which is MORE than half their population are now enslaved. They hate our guts when only Saddam did before. We have created another Iran. This has bankrupted our country, killed our youth and all to create a brand new enemy. It's not like Iraqis hating us is a secret.

If American conservatives could be so disastrously and tragically wrong about Iraq, what else are they wrong about? In fact, the question could be, "What have they gotten right?"

 

[hipeter924]

BAGHDAD -- A powerful Iranian-backed Shiite bloc put forward its own candidate for prime minister Friday

The INA, which includes followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, vehemently opposes al-Maliki staying on as prime minister primarily because Al-Maliki jailed thousands of al-Sadr supporters during U.S.-Iraqi bruising offensives in al-Sadr's strongholds of Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City.

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM - World AP - MiamiHerald.com

BAGHDAD – A powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq has warned the country's security forces against working with the remaining American troops in the country.

Shiite cleric warns Iraqis against working with US - Yahoo! News

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM

BAGHDAD – A powerful Iranian-backed Shiite bloc put forward its own candidate for prime minister Friday, further complicating Iraq's fractured political scene as the country stumbled into month six without a new government.

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM - Yahoo! News

This is what Democrats have been trying to explain to Republicans.

The American right wing doesn't understand why Islam being written into the Iraqi constitution as the "national religion" is a mistake or why they can't base all their legislation on Islam. After all, they want to do that here in this country with "Christianity".

All the rhetoric about how we "won" in Iraq. This is winning? All their women, which is MORE than half their population are now enslaved. They hate our guts when only Saddam did before. We have created another Iran. This has bankrupted our country, killed our youth and all to create a brand new enemy. It's not like Iraqis hating us is a secret.

If American conservatives could be so disastrously and tragically wrong about Iraq, what else are they wrong about? In fact, the question could be, "What have they gotten right?"

Then why are you following Bush's pull out plan? Unless behind the scenes Democrats were just as involved or even supportive of the war. Maybe what you said might have been believable had Obama announced an immediate pull out of all troops and personnel and assistance to Iraq in 2009. BUT Obama and the Democrat Congress agreed to stay in Iraq and it is now 2010. Whether you like it or not (and even if you believe the Dems followed the Republicans blindly) the fact remains you are involved now, its the Democrats fault too, so tough cheese.

 

[johnrocks]

Of course they were just as involved. Saddam was a son of a bitch but sometimes some people just need a son of a bitch as a ruler to maintain stability, we need to write that region that is ;to this day; still partying like it's 436 B.C. the fuck off and if they blow each other back to the stone age then so be it.

 

[hipeter924]

Saddam was a son of a bitch but sometimes some people just need a son of a bitch as a ruler to maintain stability, we need to write that region that is ;to this day; still partying like it's 436 B.C. the fuck off and if they blow each other back to the stone age then so be it.

Sounds like Pakistan. Where once we had a strong leader that reduced terrorism and created stability in the region, we now have an inept democratic government that bitches and curses every time the US makes a mistake on their border while simultaneously failing to protect their own citizens from terrorism, let alone the people of India.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

BAGHDAD -- A powerful Iranian-backed Shiite bloc put forward its own candidate for prime minister Friday

The INA, which includes followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, vehemently opposes al-Maliki staying on as prime minister primarily because Al-Maliki jailed thousands of al-Sadr supporters during U.S.-Iraqi bruising offensives in al-Sadr's strongholds of Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City.

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM - World AP - MiamiHerald.com

BAGHDAD – A powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq has warned the country's security forces against working with the remaining American troops in the country.

Shiite cleric warns Iraqis against working with US - Yahoo! News

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM

BAGHDAD – A powerful Iranian-backed Shiite bloc put forward its own candidate for prime minister Friday, further complicating Iraq's fractured political scene as the country stumbled into month six without a new government.

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM - Yahoo! News

This is what Democrats have been trying to explain to Republicans.

The American right wing doesn't understand why Islam being written into the Iraqi constitution as the "national religion" is a mistake or why they can't base all their legislation on Islam. After all, they want to do that here in this country with "Christianity".

All the rhetoric about how we "won" in Iraq. This is winning? All their women, which is MORE than half their population are now enslaved. They hate our guts when only Saddam did before. We have created another Iran. This has bankrupted our country, killed our youth and all to create a brand new enemy. It's not like Iraqis hating us is a secret.

If American conservatives could be so disastrously and tragically wrong about Iraq, what else are they wrong about? In fact, the question could be, "What have they gotten right?"

Do you live on a different planet, or is the real problem that you just do not read?

The women in Iraq are not enslaved, they go to school, own businesses, and even run for, and get elected to, political offices. Somehow that makes them slaves, and worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein, who was known to "invite" foreign women to his palace and rape them in front of their friends.

The articles you linked to describe a tactic that is commonly used in Parliamentarian governments. One group is nominating its own candidate in order to split off enough votes to force the winning bloc to change who it is nominating. No one, including the people who nominated him, expect him to have any chance of winning. Everyone knows that Al Miliki's party is going to name the PM, they just do not want it to be him.

I would comment on how this is something you should have learned in civics class, but sense you do not even understand how your own government works, I am not surprised that you do not understand how the one we are modeled on works.

They deliberately chose a radical, anti American candidate to emphasize their displeasure with the candidate they are opposing, thus exercising their new found right to dissent, free speech, and not to be arrested and executed for disagreeing with the existing power structure.

Yet somehow you look at this, and see a victory for tyranny and oppression. All this because the Constitution says something about Islam, while guaranteeing religious freedom. Christians openly build churches and worship, and you claim that this is a bad thing.

Then you get all huffy, and claim anyone who thinks that the GZM is a bigot, and that all Republicans are racists.

How the fuck does your mind work without getting caught up in the endless paradoxes you believe?

How can people be racist bigots for thinking that the mosque is a bad idea, and you not be one when you pout that Republicans set up an Islamic theocracy? How does your brain allow you to contradict yourself like that, and not blow a fuse?

 

[rdean]

BAGHDAD -- A powerful Iranian-backed Shiite bloc put forward its own candidate for prime minister Friday

The INA, which includes followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, vehemently opposes al-Maliki staying on as prime minister primarily because Al-Maliki jailed thousands of al-Sadr supporters during U.S.-Iraqi bruising offensives in al-Sadr's strongholds of Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City.

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM - World AP - MiamiHerald.com

BAGHDAD – A powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq has warned the country's security forces against working with the remaining American troops in the country.

Shiite cleric warns Iraqis against working with US - Yahoo! News

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM

BAGHDAD – A powerful Iranian-backed Shiite bloc put forward its own candidate for prime minister Friday, further complicating Iraq's fractured political scene as the country stumbled into month six without a new government.

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM - Yahoo! News

This is what Democrats have been trying to explain to Republicans.

The American right wing doesn't understand why Islam being written into the Iraqi constitution as the "national religion" is a mistake or why they can't base all their legislation on Islam. After all, they want to do that here in this country with "Christianity".

All the rhetoric about how we "won" in Iraq. This is winning? All their women, which is MORE than half their population are now enslaved. They hate our guts when only Saddam did before. We have created another Iran. This has bankrupted our country, killed our youth and all to create a brand new enemy. It's not like Iraqis hating us is a secret.

If American conservatives could be so disastrously and tragically wrong about Iraq, what else are they wrong about? In fact, the question could be, "What have they gotten right?"

Do you live on a different planet, or is the real problem that you just do not read?

The women in Iraq are not enslaved, they go to school, own businesses, and even run for, and get elected to, political offices. Somehow that makes them slaves, and worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein, who was known to "invite" foreign women to his palace and rape them in front of their friends.

The articles you linked to describe a tactic that is commonly used in Parliamentarian governments. One group is nominating its own candidate in order to split off enough votes to force the winning bloc to change who it is nominating. No one, including the people who nominated him, expect him to have any chance of winning. Everyone knows that Al Miliki's party is going to name the PM, they just do not want it to be him.

I would comment on how this is something you should have learned in civics class, but sense you do not even understand how your own government works, I am not surprised that you do not understand how the one we are modeled on works.

They deliberately chose a radical, anti American candidate to emphasize their displeasure with the candidate they are opposing, thus exercising their new found right to dissent, free speech, and not to be arrested and executed for disagreeing with the existing power structure.

Yet somehow you look at this, and see a victory for tyranny and oppression. All this because the Constitution says something about Islam, while guaranteeing religious freedom. Christians openly build churches and worship, and you claim that this is a bad thing.

Then you get all huffy, and claim anyone who thinks that the GZM is a bigot, and that all Republicans are racists.

How the fuck does your mind work without getting caught up in the endless paradoxes you believe?

How can people be racist bigots for thinking that the mosque is a bad idea, and you not be one when you pout that Republicans set up an Islamic theocracy? How does your brain allow you to contradict yourself like that, and not blow a fuse?

Christians openly build churches and worship? You know the Christian population was 1.4 million and now is less than 500,000, you know that, right?

Women going to school and owning businesses?

Please, please put up some links. Inform me. Teach. I want to know.

You know I'm going to be asking so you need to "put up".

----------------------

BAGHDAD — Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year's maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders — and many of them are under Iranian influence.

Women in Iraq had it better under Saddam Hussein | International | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

 

[SFC Ollie]

BAGHDAD -- A powerful Iranian-backed Shiite bloc put forward its own candidate for prime minister Friday

The INA, which includes followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, vehemently opposes al-Maliki staying on as prime minister primarily because Al-Maliki jailed thousands of al-Sadr supporters during U.S.-Iraqi bruising offensives in al-Sadr's strongholds of Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City.

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM - World AP - MiamiHerald.com

BAGHDAD – A powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq has warned the country's security forces against working with the remaining American troops in the country.

Shiite cleric warns Iraqis against working with US - Yahoo! News

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM

BAGHDAD – A powerful Iranian-backed Shiite bloc put forward its own candidate for prime minister Friday, further complicating Iraq's fractured political scene as the country stumbled into month six without a new government.

Shiite bloc names new candidate for Iraqi PM - Yahoo! News

This is what Democrats have been trying to explain to Republicans.

The American right wing doesn't understand why Islam being written into the Iraqi constitution as the "national religion" is a mistake or why they can't base all their legislation on Islam. After all, they want to do that here in this country with "Christianity".

All the rhetoric about how we "won" in Iraq. This is winning? All their women, which is MORE than half their population are now enslaved. They hate our guts when only Saddam did before. We have created another Iran. This has bankrupted our country, killed our youth and all to create a brand new enemy. It's not like Iraqis hating us is a secret.

If American conservatives could be so disastrously and tragically wrong about Iraq, what else are they wrong about? In fact, the question could be, "What have they gotten right?"

Do you live on a different planet, or is the real problem that you just do not read?

The women in Iraq are not enslaved, they go to school, own businesses, and even run for, and get elected to, political offices. Somehow that makes them slaves, and worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein, who was known to "invite" foreign women to his palace and rape them in front of their friends.

The articles you linked to describe a tactic that is commonly used in Parliamentarian governments. One group is nominating its own candidate in order to split off enough votes to force the winning bloc to change who it is nominating. No one, including the people who nominated him, expect him to have any chance of winning. Everyone knows that Al Miliki's party is going to name the PM, they just do not want it to be him.

I would comment on how this is something you should have learned in civics class, but sense you do not even understand how your own government works, I am not surprised that you do not understand how the one we are modeled on works.

They deliberately chose a radical, anti American candidate to emphasize their displeasure with the candidate they are opposing, thus exercising their new found right to dissent, free speech, and not to be arrested and executed for disagreeing with the existing power structure.

Yet somehow you look at this, and see a victory for tyranny and oppression. All this because the Constitution says something about Islam, while guaranteeing religious freedom. Christians openly build churches and worship, and you claim that this is a bad thing.

Then you get all huffy, and claim anyone who thinks that the GZM is a bigot, and that all Republicans are racists.

How the fuck does your mind work without getting caught up in the endless paradoxes you believe?

How can people be racist bigots for thinking that the mosque is a bad idea, and you not be one when you pout that Republicans set up an Islamic theocracy? How does your brain allow you to contradict yourself like that, and not blow a fuse?

Christians openly build churches and worship? You know the Christian population was 1.4 million and now is less than 500,000, you know that, right?

Women going to school and owning businesses?

Please, please put up some links. Inform me. Teach. I want to know.

You know I'm going to be asking so you need to "put up".

----------------------

BAGHDAD — Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year's maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders — and many of them are under Iranian influence.

Women in Iraq had it better under Saddam Hussein | International | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

Another political event takes place in Iraq without much mention of women. And in the rare occasion that women are mentioned, it is often with the token spirit about how wonderful it is that they now have 25 percent of political seats in the Iraqi parliament.
Foreign Policy: Iraq's Forgotten Women : NPR

 

[zzzz]

We need to get the crap out of there and let them decide on what they want. The whole Islamic arc is an area where we have no real business having a say in the way they govern. We cannot even govern our own country and here we are trying to lead Others!

 

[rdean]

Do you live on a different planet, or is the real problem that you just do not read?

The women in Iraq are not enslaved, they go to school, own businesses, and even run for, and get elected to, political offices. Somehow that makes them slaves, and worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein, who was known to "invite" foreign women to his palace and rape them in front of their friends.

The articles you linked to describe a tactic that is commonly used in Parliamentarian governments. One group is nominating its own candidate in order to split off enough votes to force the winning bloc to change who it is nominating. No one, including the people who nominated him, expect him to have any chance of winning. Everyone knows that Al Miliki's party is going to name the PM, they just do not want it to be him.

I would comment on how this is something you should have learned in civics class, but sense you do not even understand how your own government works, I am not surprised that you do not understand how the one we are modeled on works.

They deliberately chose a radical, anti American candidate to emphasize their displeasure with the candidate they are opposing, thus exercising their new found right to dissent, free speech, and not to be arrested and executed for disagreeing with the existing power structure.

Yet somehow you look at this, and see a victory for tyranny and oppression. All this because the Constitution says something about Islam, while guaranteeing religious freedom. Christians openly build churches and worship, and you claim that this is a bad thing.

Then you get all huffy, and claim anyone who thinks that the GZM is a bigot, and that all Republicans are racists.

How the fuck does your mind work without getting caught up in the endless paradoxes you believe?

How can people be racist bigots for thinking that the mosque is a bad idea, and you not be one when you pout that Republicans set up an Islamic theocracy? How does your brain allow you to contradict yourself like that, and not blow a fuse?

Christians openly build churches and worship? You know the Christian population was 1.4 million and now is less than 500,000, you know that, right?

Women going to school and owning businesses?

Please, please put up some links. Inform me. Teach. I want to know.

You know I'm going to be asking so you need to "put up".

----------------------

BAGHDAD — Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year's maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders — and many of them are under Iranian influence.

Women in Iraq had it better under Saddam Hussein | International | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

Another political event takes place in Iraq without much mention of women. And in the rare occasion that women are mentioned, it is often with the token spirit about how wonderful it is that they now have 25 percent of political seats in the Iraqi parliament.
Foreign Policy: Iraq's Forgotten Women : NPR

From your article:

The story of how the world ignored what happened to women in Iraq is an indicator for the direction of the last seven years. Vocal, educated women were some of the first to be kidnapped and assassinated in Iraq, and violence against women increased rapidly in the country.

Iraqi men wanted 0%. The Bush administration forced them to accept this 25%. Iraqi women wanted 40%.

In recent years, the women's movement has gone through an advance and a retreat. In 2004, the American occupational authority, led by Paul Bremer, established a 25 percent quota for female representatives in Iraq's parliament. When the country's security began to erode the following year, however, the women's movement fell by the wayside.

The quota is still in effect, but women's advocates say there has not been much progress since.

She says the women currently occupying seats in Iraq's parliament were voted in for the wrong reasons.

"The majority have been chosen not from the women's movement," Edward says. "They were chosen because of family, tribal or narrow political party relations. They are not from strong women leaders; they are just women who want to obey what their leaders say.

Iraqi Women Taking Aim At Parliament Again | 89.3 KPCC

----------------------------------------------

Americans were able to force them to accept the 25%. Americans could have set up a secular government, after all, we destroyed their other government and had guns. Bush and the Republicans didn't see that as being important. Now we can see why it was important.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Iraq is a "sow's ear". Spin it all you want. Women in Iraq are screwed.

 

[rdean]

I'm surprised this thread attracted even a couple of right wingers. Usually, they don't want to discuss their failures.

 

[SFC Ollie]

We did not fail in Iraq. Any failure there is by the Iraqi people and government. We made some mistakes, but mistakes are so easy to see in hindsight.

We gave the Iraqi people a blank slate, what they did and do with it is their problem. But if we desert them before they are stable, it's another bad mistake.

 

[Colin]

Shiite cleric warns Iraqis against working with US

I guess the shiite is about to hit the fan!

 

[rdean]

We did not fail in Iraq. Any failure there is by the Iraqi people and government. We made some mistakes, but mistakes are so easy to see in hindsight.

We gave the Iraqi people a blank slate, what they did and do with it is their problem. But if we desert them before they are stable, it's another bad mistake.

When you "help" people who didn't ask for your "help"? How can they be the ones who "failed"?

Please define "stable". They were stable before we invaded.

 

[Truthmatters]

They will NEVER admitt it was a mistake until they can figure out a way to blame it on Clinton or Obama.

 

[rdean]

They will NEVER admitt it was a mistake until they can figure out a way to blame it on Clinton or Obama.

They've already figured out those ways. Only they aren't working.

When Iraq explodes into civil war, they will blame it on Obama. This was predicted during the presidential campaign.

 

[zzzz]

Failure. Failue in what? What was the purpose of the invasion and occupation? To me the purpose was to overthrow Saddam and his regime. The WMDs were just an igniter in the debate used to get the fence sitters to cross over. But the Bush administration had a habit of letting the inital purpose of any adventure expand beyond that purpose. We should have gotten out of there within a year of occupation and let the Iraqis figure it out for themselves. The same thing in Afghanistan. Our inital forays into each country was a success (with the exception of getting you know who) and the failure was letting mission creep take over. Democratize the Islamic World? Good luck!