Topic: Iraq's al-Maliki has to go? (Read 938 times)

Tribal loyalties that go back centuries, a nation carved out indiscriminately by British mandate ignoring those tribal loyalties and now we expect (and even demand) these folks to embrace the democratic idea of inclusiveness. Only a westerner could come up with such a numbskull solution to such a basic problem.

And in the case of Iraq, these folks are interested only in majority rule and tribal loyalty where Kurds and Sunnis need not apply. That is exactly why Maliki booted every Sunni he could find out of the government and replaced them with Shiites, it is the reason the Iranian Shiites are supporting the Maliki government and it is the reason for this civil war now taking shape in Iraq. A blind man could have seen this coming.

And no, Maliki isn't going anywhere at the behest of Obama or any other western politican and if he is replaced...it will be another Shiite with the same tribal loyalties and the same mindset towards both the Sunnis and the Kurds. Nothing in Iraqi politics will change.

This is just the beginning of something that was bound to happen.

He didn't say it was terrorism.  But ISIS/ISIL are terrorists, specifically al Q offshoots even al Q considers too extreme, and you'd be hard pressed to argue they aren't engaging in acts of terror to gain control of cities as we speak.   And it more than an internal civil war...it is a regional power struggle unfolding. 

 I would agree that al Maliki has to go.  Jim is correct in that he took what at least had the promise of  fair(er) representation and turned into Shiite dominance/oppression.  Where I'm sure I would part company with Jim and others is that our complete withdrawal left a vacuum too big for this not to be inevitable.  Furthermore, we didn't just withdraw our military presence, we essentially disengaged altogether outside of window dressing.   



Obama sent over 300 troops to assess the situation.  That tells you right there we have retained no real connection to who the movers and shakers are.  We have not played any significant role in keeping the peace, despite knowing full well Iraq was not ready to go it alone.  What is problematic about our government opining on what should happen is that we aren't willing to back up the rhetoric.   So in that Cathy is right in that this is no different than any of Obama's other blunderings in superficially calling/aiding the ouster of the old guard to the benefit of parties who are even worse.
 


Of the three options...no engagement, direct engagement with boots on the ground, or partial engagement, the worse of all is the sub option of the latter:  to dither and fritter around the edges purely to do political damage control for domestic consumption which is exactly what Obama will do.    This country has no stomach for war, and Obama has no stomach for real leadership. 

I guess I'm kind of wondering what that would really change at this moment if they removed him… Because it doesn't look like this started in Iraq, it started in Syria… But then again removing him would clear the way to create an terrorist state in Iraq.
Maybe that's the ultimate goal of the liberals .
love how these terrorist treat their women don't you .
maybe the men in this country should take their example.
Seriously think about it.

Obama wants Maliki to bring the two factions together, so they can work out a solution through compromise. Come together and work out a solution that will work for everyone. Make nicey-nice!

You know, like Obama and the Democrats did when they shoved socialized medicine down our unwilling throats and told Republicans to go fuck themselves. Most Americans still hate and oppose it, but Obama and the Democrats don't give a rat's ass what We, the People want.

But they think Iraqis should 'compromise'.

hey.. al-malaki has to go... and lets sit back and watch how the terrorists... terrorists that were captured and jailed and let go... take over chemical weapons.... (hey, are they considered weapons of mass destruction?)
nah, nothing bad is going ot come of this....





Washington — Sunni extremists in Iraq have occupied what was once Saddam Hussein’s premier chemical-weapons production facility, a complex that still contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department and other U.S. government officials said.

U.S. officials don’t believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material.  (they didn't know that terrorists were taking over iraq, so one should not have a lot of faith in what this administration knows or doesnt' know, cause Obama keeps telling the american people that he didn't know about fast and furious, benghazi attacks, syria, irs..... )  The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.

Nonetheless, the capture of the chemical-weapon stockpile by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS or ISIL, the militant group that is seizing territory in the country, has grabbed the attention of the U.S.

“We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in a written statement. “We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials.”

The takeover underscores the chaos gripping Iraq and the possibility that the growing Sunni rebellion could further destabilize the Middle East. Not lost on U.S. government and military officials is the irony that the latest chapter in a war designed to strip Iraq of chemical weapons could see radical Sunni extremists take control of that same stockpile.

The rise of ISIS has reignited the debate about the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration and the 2011 decision by the Obama administration to withdraw remaining military forces from the country. The takeover of a chemical weapons stockpile—even if the weapons are useless—seems likely to further intensify those debates

Read more at http://patdollard.com/2014/06/al-qaeda-isis-seizes-control-of-saddam-husseins-chemical-weapons-facility/#9XlLcV2Ubp9H3ceW.99

This is not terrorism.  It is a civil war between Sunnis and Shias.  They also are al Qeada and Iranians.  Pick who you want or let them kill each other.

I have a question.... why doesn't obama say that the terrorists have to go??  they are the ones murdering the citizens..... ??

Dear god!!!  the iraqi people better find shelter... you saw what happened when Obama ad Hillary said bashir had to go, that country is now in a bloody murderous civil war... the terrorists are taking over and slaughtering people in the streets..... and now Obama and kerry say the same think about al-maliki??  obama didnt' follow up with bashir... what the hell is he going to do when al-maliki doesnt' leave his office either?   when choosing the worst possible option, obama digs down and just gets an even worse option.  the middle east is positively exploding... and obama having done nothing to try to stop the implosion, NOW thinks it a good time to get involved??  
well, I am sure al-malaki is not too worried, he saw what obama did to bashir.... so he knows he is pretty safe..... 

Well... if it is not possible to unite the country, then split the country in to three parts. One each for the Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds and the Shia Arabs. I see no point in these sectarian conflicts, which are killing thousands of people every month.

That is not as easy as it looks. This is not a small sectarian war between Iraqis alone. This is a big regional proxy war. This is fueled by outside countries like Saudi Arabia, UEA, Qatar and Iran. If this countries know that the new Prime Minister is not following to them. They will replace or kill the new Prime Minister or create another sectarian war. The current Prime Minister is a puppet the next will also be a puppet.

There are a lot of Iraqi politicians who are unbiased towards the other ethnic groups, unlike al Maliki. And the major conflict is occurring between the Shia Arabs and the Sunni Arabs. Why can't a compromise candidate be found from the ethnic Kurds, or from the other ethnic minorities such as Yazidis, Assyrians or Turkmens.

Who gonna replace Maliki? Which sects he came from that he cannot be biased to any sects? If you replaced Maliki the next Prime Minister will either came from one of this 3 groups. He could be shia, sunni or kurds. If he is Sunni I'm sure he is also biased and would mostly favor the Sunnis.

If they will elect again I'm sure the winner will come from Shia because they are the majority and the Kurds is now in ally with the Shia. And also the Sunni will always not accept the winner if they are not totally defeated. I'm mean totally defeated is kill or jail any Sunni that rise and impose sanctions on any countries that support the terrorist.

I think the only solution is to give Sunnis autonomy to govern their areas and Iraq start using federal form government.

Al Maliki was democratically elected, no doubt in that. But he was extremely biased towards the Shia Arab population, thereby alienating the other groups such as Kurds and Sunni Arabs. He failed to unite the country. Therefore he has to go.

 I don't get it? Wasn't al-Maliki democratically elected Prime Minister in Iraq? Wasn't it to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq that the damn invasion was supposed to be all about? Remember all those purple fingers being held up to show democracy in action in "liberated" Iraq? Now American politicians want al-Maliki to get out of town? They want Iraq`s democratically elected leader to leave?

If the Muslim ISIS fighters are true to form al-Maliki will be leaving office as soon as they arrive in Baghdad. Just look for him hanging from a lamp post somewhere in the city. What a mess!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/politics/iraq-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1