T Nation

Iraqi Lawmakers and US Presence

You guys, this is a huge development:

In Baghdad, Iraqi lawmakers have passed a resolution that may force an end to the U.S. military occupation. By an 85 to 59 vote, the Iraqi parliament passed a binding resolution to require the al-Maliki government consult lawmakers before extending the U.S. military mandate in Iraq. The move was spearheaded by supporters of the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as well as several Sunni parties.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/06/1415221

In light of this, anyone familiar with the recurrent Sadrist withdrawals from parliament in protest to Al-Maliki’s ties with Bush could tell you not to expect a renewal of the mandate in 6 months.

But here’s what’s bugging me really. Some of you guys keep saying that “their government wants us there”, and it kinda clashes with the story line. So, please provide proper references to that claim so we can settle this once and for all. Was it the al-Maliki cabinet that asked you to stay or was it a democratic and popular decision?

[quote]lixy wrote:
You guys, this is a huge development:

In Baghdad, Iraqi lawmakers have passed a resolution that may force an end to the U.S. military occupation. By an 85 to 59 vote, the Iraqi parliament passed a binding resolution to require the al-Maliki government consult lawmakers before extending the U.S. military mandate in Iraq. The move was spearheaded by supporters of the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as well as several Sunni parties.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/06/1415221

In light of this, anyone familiar with the recurrent Sadrist withdrawals from parliament in protest to Al-Maliki’s ties with Bush could tell you not to expect a renewal of the mandate in 6 months.

But here’s what’s bugging me really. Some of you guys keep saying that “their government wants us there”, and it kinda clashes with the story line. So, please provide proper references to that claim so we can settle this once and for all. Was it the al-Maliki cabinet that asked you to stay or was it a democratic and popular decision?[/quote]

Lixy, do you realize what else you just proved right there? There democracy is growing. And whats wrong with them wanting to take it a step further this time in deciding if we should stay, If they think they are ready to take over they have every right to, This is what we have been training them to do.(sucks shooting yourself in the foot like that huh?)

[quote]John S. wrote:
Lixy, do you realize what else you just proved right there? There democracy is growing. And whats wrong with them wanting to take it a step further this time in deciding if we should stay, If they think they are ready to take over they have every right to, This is what we have been training them to do.(sucks shooting yourself in the foot like that huh?)[/quote]

And if we did pull out (which I doubt will happen) and the country falls into further chaos, how could they continue to blame us for this? If we were willing to stay until there was order and they voted to kick us out and we leave, then everything that happens after that is their fault.

Look at Lebanon. In the 80’s there was a terrible civil war, Israel invaded, then withdrew, peacekeepers were there, they were forced out, Syria went in, and finally they left.

Now you’ve got a pro-western moderate government in charge who are in the process of taking out Al-Qaeda insurgents. After 20 turbulent years, if that’s not progress, I don’t know what is.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
John S. wrote:
Lixy, do you realize what else you just proved right there? There democracy is growing. And whats wrong with them wanting to take it a step further this time in deciding if we should stay, If they think they are ready to take over they have every right to, This is what we have been training them to do.(sucks shooting yourself in the foot like that huh?)

And if we did pull out (which I doubt will happen) and the country falls into further chaos, how could they continue to blame us for this? If we were willing to stay until there was order and they voted to kick us out and we leave, then everything that happens after that is their fault.

Look at Lebanon. In the 80’s there was a terrible civil war, Israel invaded, then withdrew, peacekeepers were there, they were forced out, Syria went in, and finally they left.

Now you’ve got a pro-western moderate government in charge who are in the process of taking out Al-Qaeda insurgents. After 20 turbulent years, if that’s not progress, I don’t know what is.[/quote]

Exactly.

so doesn’t that mean that we completed our mission by setting up a democracy?

[quote]40yarddash wrote:
so doesn’t that mean that we completed our mission by setting up a democracy?[/quote]

Yes. Now we are there until they ask us to leave. Surely even the left wings must admit that it would be wrong for us not to help out a new democracy.

Wow, they used a democratic process. Oh, the horror!

Would free up our forces to hit Iran.

Hmm, all you cheerleaders realize that if the place goes to shit as the US leaves, then it will be the fault of the US for destabilizing the region right?

The danger is that some elements want the US out for their own devices… which may not be the same as what we want to have happen over there.

Seriously guys, instead of looking for things to crow about, see if you can at least analyze the situation somewhat and see what it could mean…

And I don’t mean your cheerleading fantasies but something with a bit more depth according to the situation over there.

Yes, I do realize that would be far too much to expect!

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, all you cheerleaders realize that if the place goes to shit as the US leaves, then it will be the fault of the US for destabilizing the region right?

The danger is that some elements want the US out for their own devices… which may not be the same as what we want to have happen over there.

Seriously guys, instead of looking for things to crow about, see if you can at least analyze the situation somewhat and see what it could mean…

And I don’t mean your cheerleading fantasies but something with a bit more depth according to the situation over there.

Yes, I do realize that would be far too much to expect![/quote]

Vroom, your a tool, If I was saying this is the end of Iraq America is loosing you would be like your right.

If they choose us to leave its there fault, Maybe you don’t understand. THERE A FUCKING DEMOCRACY THERE BIG ENOUGH TO MAKE THERE OWN DECISIONS.

[quote]John S. wrote:
If they choose us to leave its there fault, Maybe you don’t understand. THERE A FUCKING DEMOCRACY THERE BIG ENOUGH TO MAKE THERE OWN DECISIONS.[/quote]

How about you go and play in the sandbox and let the adults discuss world issue?

Your statements are incredibly naive with respect to the complexity of the situation.

Perhaps some group wants the US to leave so that they can get down to the business of civil war and secular genocide? Or, perhaps some group wants the US to leave so that place can turn into an absolute haven for terrorists?

Yep, both of those are okay as long as an apparently democratic government asked the US to leave!

Fuck man, there are a million snakes waiting to bite us. Or, in other words, the situation is complex, fluid and dangerous. We’ve seen what a clusterfuck results from walking in thinking things are going to be easy… let’s not repeat that.

EDIT: I’m not sure Muqtada al-Sadr is who I think he is, but if so, he’s no friend of the US. If he’s who I think he is, he’d like the US to be asked to leave and then not leave… which would have the potential to let him claim the US are occupiers and rally everyone to fight the invader.

[quote]vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
If they choose us to leave its there fault, Maybe you don’t understand. THERE A FUCKING DEMOCRACY THERE BIG ENOUGH TO MAKE THERE OWN DECISIONS.

How about you go and play in the sandbox and let the adults discuss world issue?

Your statements are incredibly naive with respect to the complexity of the situation.

Perhaps some group wants the US to leave so that they can get down to the business of civil war and secular genocide? Or, perhaps some group wants the US to leave so that place can turn into an absolute haven for terrorists?

Yep, both of those are okay as long as an apparently democratic government asked the US to leave!

Fuck man, there are a million snakes waiting to bite us. Or, in other words, the situation is complex, fluid and dangerous. We’ve seen what a clusterfuck results from walking in thinking things are going to be easy… let’s not repeat that.[/quote]

Dude your too much. Al quida is not welcome there anymore. The government there is smart enough not to ask the USA to leave before its safe for them to take care of the rest of the work. Again I know JeffR provided proof and since he did it does not count.

But since you rule out proof because someone you do not like provided it does not make it incorrect. So please don’t ask me to leave just because you have no reasonable argument.

God bless you man.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Dude your too much. Al quida is not welcome there anymore. The government there is smart enough not to ask the USA to leave before its safe for them to take care of the rest of the work. Again I know JeffR provided proof and since he did it does not count. [/quote]

It is far too early to use the word “proof”. What we have now is a evidence or a hopeful trend.

[quote]But since you rule out proof because someone you do not like provided it does not make it incorrect. So please don’t ask me to leave just because you have no reasonable argument.

God bless you man.[/quote]

Jerffy has a habit of finding very stretched items that leave out a lot of important facts… so they end up being half truths, but he believes them as complete truths, because they support his viewpoint.

Finding examples of things that reflect your wants or beliefs is not the same as proof.

The fact that Jerffy routinely makes a fool of himself in this regard is why I suggested that you worry if he is the only person that seems to be on your side. There are much more capable right wingers on the forums that have a lot more credibility - but usually they don’t have the same opinion as Jerffy.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Lixy, do you realize what else you just proved right there? There democracy is growing. And whats wrong with them wanting to take it a step further this time in deciding if we should stay, If they think they are ready to take over they have every right to, This is what we have been training them to do.(sucks shooting yourself in the foot like that huh?)[/quote]

Duh! Of course their democracy is growing. That’s the single thing you achieved: Remove the dictator.

You like to believe that it is the reason you’re there and I disagree with that. The US only cares about democracy when the winner is on their side. I can fill a page with examples…

Either way, I have to admit that some good came out of the invasion, and that is the removal of Saddam. A tad pricey for my taste, but still, I have to acknowledge that it was laudable, even if it wasn’t the real reason you invaded.

My question couldn’t be clearer: If lawmakers weren’t involved in the current mandate, which body passed the current mandate? If it was just al-Maliki and his cabinet, I don’t think that it’s something JeffR should be throwing as proof of the will of the people being properly represented. It’s arguable, but that’s the whole point of the thread.

[quote]vroom wrote:
EDIT: I’m not sure Muqtada al-Sadr is who I think he is, but if so, he’s no friend of the US. [/quote]

He’s the son of the late Grand Ayatollah Sadeq Al-Sadr, who from the title, you’d expect to be a buddy of the Iranians.

The US made numerous attempts on his life, shut down his newspapers, and issued warrants against him. The charges are conveniently kept under seal.

So if anything, he’s openly an enemy of the US.

I don’t think he wants the US not to leave. I mean, he’s not one of those kooks who fight for fighting. Far from that. He’s got concrete goals he’d like to achieve for Iraq, and turning it into a battleground is not one of them.

The only ones profiting from a long-term US presence in Iraq are Al-Qaeda.

[quote]lixy wrote:
John S. wrote:
Lixy, do you realize what else you just proved right there? There democracy is growing. And whats wrong with them wanting to take it a step further this time in deciding if we should stay, If they think they are ready to take over they have every right to, This is what we have been training them to do.(sucks shooting yourself in the foot like that huh?)

Duh! Of course their democracy is growing. That’s the single thing you achieved: Remove the dictator.

You like to believe that it is the reason you’re there and I disagree with that. The US only cares about democracy when the winner is on their side. I can fill a page with examples…

Either way, I have to admit that some good came out of the invasion, and that is the removal of Saddam. A tad pricey for my taste, but still, I have to acknowledge that it was laudable, even if it wasn’t the real reason you invaded.

My question couldn’t be clearer: If lawmakers weren’t involved in the current mandate, which body passed the current mandate? If it was just al-Maliki and his cabinet, I don’t think that it’s something JeffR should be throwing as proof of the will of the people being properly represented. It’s arguable, but that’s the whole point of the thread.[/quote]

Friends and lixy,

I wanted to applaud this thread. It is incredibly illustrative of it’s author.

As I’ve mentioned many times, if lixy was more clever, he could be truly dangerous.

Let’s begin.

Point one: lixy chooses to anoint the Parliament with powers and influence. He chooses to question the legitimacy of the elected cabinet.

Same election. However, in lixy’s mind, because the cabinet is Pro-American and this article suggests a faction that is more Anti-American, lixy chooses to laud the latter.

Point two: lixy has often said that Americans are in Iraq for nefarious reasons. The usual taglines of imperialism and oil barons. He chooses to ignore the blood and treasure spent creating the Democracy.

I want everyone to watch very carefully. If the Iraqi Government asks us to leave and we comply, lixy will NOT correct his earlier accusations.

If we leave that is another nail in lixy’s false argument.

Point three: lixy will blame the U.S. for anything that goes wrong in Iraq.

In lixy-land, Iraq was a peaceful, pleasant place where everyone got along and there were no trips to the wood chipper.

Then the bullying, money grubbing Americans decided to break the tranquility.

Therefore, anything that happens from here until the end of time, is the Americans fault.

However, any successes or improvements will be downplayed or flatly ignored.

Oh, I blame the 1990’s LA riots on England. It’s their fault.

Point four: lixy will never support any military action against any predominately Muslim nation no matter what the provocation.

Watch this going forward. He’ll say things like, “It has to be the absolute last resort.” Translation: No matter what, I’ll always pull out SOMETHING that COULD have been done. “Did you ask the dictator pretty, pretty please. Pretty please isn’t good enough.”

In summary, I view lawful deliberations of a legitimate government to be a validation of the effort in Iraq.

Further, lixy’s response to this is illustrative of his agenda.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Point one: lixy chooses to anoint the Parliament with powers and influence. He chooses to question the legitimacy of the elected cabinet.

Same election. However, in lixy’s mind, because the cabinet is Pro-American and this article suggests a faction that is more Anti-American, lixy chooses to laud the latter. [/quote]

I have some crows eating up my crops. Can I use that giant strawman of yours?

A parliament will always be more legitimate than a cabinet. It’s got more people in it. Mere common sense.

[quote]Point two: lixy has often said that Americans are in Iraq for nefarious reasons. The usual taglines of imperialism and oil barons. He chooses to ignore the blood and treasure spent creating the Democracy.

I want everyone to watch very carefully. If the Iraqi Government asks us to leave and we comply, lixy will NOT correct his earlier accusations.

If we leave that is another nail in lixy’s false argument. [/quote]

Except, you’ll never leave Iraq. Not in our lifetimes anyway…

Why the fuck else would you be building giant embassies and bases?

Given that there were no terrorists blowing up people in markets before the invasion, who do you want me to blame it on? The terrorists? Sure I do.

When I was shouting in the streets with millions of other people to warn of the calamity to come, you chose not to listen, and went ahead with the invasion. I feel that it is my prerogative to blame the current mess on you.

Not till the end of time, but at least for a couple of decades.

And I blame it all on Adam biting the apple.

Get a clue!

I supported the violent overthrow of the Talibans, and I would have certainly supported an attack on the Saudis or the Pakis. Why? Because they have no respect for their women, their youth, or the freedom of others to subscribe to another faith. Also, because the Saudis were directly involved in 9/11.

So, quit making false accusations. I am idealastic alright, but it has nothing to do with religion. I’d put the same effort to protect the Iraqi kids from bomb shells, than I’d put protecting Venezuelans.

Can you say that you went to war on anything more than suspicions? The war was FAR from the last resort and you know it.

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Point one: lixy chooses to anoint the Parliament with powers and influence. He chooses to question the legitimacy of the elected cabinet.

Same election. However, in lixy’s mind, because the cabinet is Pro-American and this article suggests a faction that is more Anti-American, lixy chooses to laud the latter.

I have some crows eating up my crops. Can I use that giant strawman of yours?[/quote]

Hey, lixy. I don’t think you know what strawman means.

Further, I’m pointing out exactly the paradox you’ve placed yourself in.

You are saying that one aspect of an election is more legitimate based solely on whether you agree with their stance.

Now you are being silly. The people vote for various levels of government with the full understanding that some positions carry more weight and say than others.

[quote]Point two: lixy has often said that Americans are in Iraq for nefarious reasons. The usual taglines of imperialism and oil barons. He chooses to ignore the blood and treasure spent creating the Democracy.

I want everyone to watch very carefully. If the Iraqi Government asks us to leave and we comply, lixy will NOT correct his earlier accusations.

If we leave that is another nail in lixy’s false argument.

Except, you’ll never leave Iraq. Not in our lifetimes anyway…[/quote]

I need to pin you down on this. I sense that any single American advisor would be used by you to justify not apologizing for your imperialist comments.

Give me a number and a sense of what you consider leaving Iraq.

Then I can ask you directly at a future date to rescind your earlier crap.

Again, flesh out what leaving Iraq means to you.

[quote]Point three: lixy will blame the U.S. for anything that goes wrong in Iraq.

Given that there were no terrorists blowing up people in markets before the invasion, who do you want me to blame it on? The terrorists? Sure I do.[/quote]

Yes, blame it on the terrorists. Second, plenty of people were dying in Iraq in shredders, being raped, and dying of hunger. Iraq was CERTAINLY not peaceful nor benign prior to the invasion.

What would you say is a better cause to die for: uday’s lust or for a Democratic Iraq?

You and your sweaty little pals should shout in the streets against the next guy who is beheaded. Then we can talk.

Otherwise, we know the slogans. It had little to nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with penis envy.

[quote]Therefore, anything that happens from here until the end of time, is the Americans fault.

Not till the end of time, but at least for a couple of decades.[/quote]

Will you pledge to give equal air time to positive actions in Iraq?

If not, save your bilious invective.

[quote]Oh, I blame the 1990’s LA riots on England. It’s their fault.

And I blame it all on Adam biting the apple.

Get a clue![/quote]

You obviously cannot fathom my analogy. I’ll flesh it out: Adults must leave the nest. At some point their mistakes become their own.

[quote]Point four: lixy will never support any military action against any predominately Muslim nation no matter what the provocation.

I supported the violent overthrow of the Talibans, and I would have certainly supported an attack on the Saudis or the Pakis. Why? Because they have no respect for their women, their youth, or the freedom of others to subscribe to another faith. Also, because the Saudis were directly involved in 9/11.[/quote]

The iranian government is directly involved in killing American troops.

Where is your condemnation?

Further, we’ll have to take your word for your Anti-taliban stance. Since you weren’t here, we’ll never know.

Patently false. Again, if it’s Muslim, you are conveniently blind to it’s faults.

[quote]Watch this going forward. He’ll say things like, “It has to be the absolute last resort.” Translation: No matter what, I’ll always pull out SOMETHING that COULD have been done. “Did you ask the dictator pretty, pretty please. Pretty please isn’t good enough.”

Can you say that you went to war on anything more than suspicions? The war was FAR from the last resort and you know it.[/quote]

Yes, the war was more than suspicions. We’ve been down this road before. The only thing that hasn’t panned out has been the actual amount of WMD found. That’s it. The dictator harbored, supported, and coddled terrorism. He was a terror to his people and his allies. He shot at our planes. Tried to assassinate our President. Broke the cease fire nearly daily. On and on and on.

There really were no good alternatives. The oil for food was a joke. The inspections were only going to be semi-effective as long as the threat of force was credible. Our support for uprisings against saddam were a miserable failure. The u.n. was a bribed joke. Many of our “allies” were in bed with saddam. He was pouring money into reconstituting his weaponry.

JeffR

Considering the source this whole story is not worth wiping ones ass with. Has anybody looked into Democracy Now!? They make Lennin look like a capitalist. Yet, lixy will criticize CNN or Fox news as an invalid source. Sheesh, democracy now is garbage at best, a bunch of America haters/ conspiracy theorists.

[quote]lixy wrote:
John S. wrote:
Lixy, do you realize what else you just proved right there? There democracy is growing. And whats wrong with them wanting to take it a step further this time in deciding if we should stay, If they think they are ready to take over they have every right to, This is what we have been training them to do.(sucks shooting yourself in the foot like that huh?)

Duh! Of course their democracy is growing. That’s the single thing you achieved: Remove the dictator.

You like to believe that it is the reason you’re there and I disagree with that. The US only cares about democracy when the winner is on their side. I can fill a page with examples…

Either way, I have to admit that some good came out of the invasion, and that is the removal of Saddam. A tad pricey for my taste, but still, I have to acknowledge that it was laudable, even if it wasn’t the real reason you invaded.

My question couldn’t be clearer: If lawmakers weren’t involved in the current mandate, which body passed the current mandate? If it was just al-Maliki and his cabinet, I don’t think that it’s something JeffR should be throwing as proof of the will of the people being properly represented. It’s arguable, but that’s the whole point of the thread.[/quote]

Actually Lixy, this is a very easy question to answer, Before this was passed he had the power to ask. Since he is part of the government of the people we can say he speaks for them.(Thats what they get elected to do).

Now this furthers the process making the Democracy that much stronger. This is a great thing and now they have the ability to decide if there strong enough to deal with the terrorists.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Now you are being silly. The people vote for various levels of government with the full understanding that some positions carry more weight and say than others. [/quote]

Sorry, lad. A referendum will always be most legitimate. Unilateral decisions by heads of states will always be the least legitimate in my book.

[quote]I need to pin you down on this. I sense that any single American advisor would be used by you to justify not apologizing for your imperialist comments.

Give me a number and a sense of what you consider leaving Iraq. [/quote]

I’d consider you left Iraq when there’s no military personnel on their soil. Up to a hundred to ensure the protection of diplomats is OK.

What do you consider “leaving Iraq”?

I’ll be happy to. But if I were you, I wouldn’t hold my breath. You’re obviously not leaving anytime soon.

Relatively, it certainly was peaceful prior to the invasion.

There are really no words to describe the current mess.

Uday? Sorry, not familiar with that. Please explain.

But something tells me that you’re trying to compare the US military to Al-Qaeda, and say “look, they’re a lot worse!”. If you don’t see what is wrong with that, I’m certainly not gonna point it out for you.

Again, if the best you can do is compare yourselves to Al-Qaeda or some whackee group of criminals, don’t expect me to point out the ridicule of that. I should bite you in the face…eventually.

Oh! So, the whole world is jealous?

Gotta wonder why Americans joined the protests…

Air time of what? I don’t run any station.

Oh, I do. It’s just a matter of how far back you’re willing to go. Comparing Iraq four years after the invasion to the US a couple of centuries after the independence is ludicrous. I just pointed that out.

Point four: lixy will never support any military action against any predominately Muslim nation no matter what the provocation.

And that’s happening on US soil?

No.

That is nothing but blatant slander. How can you throw such accusation without proof?

You can accuse me of being anti-capitalist, anti-empirialist, anti-interventionist, and I’ll be Ok with it, because it’ll be true. But to say that I am somehow biased towards Muslims is nothing but a lie.

The only Muslim I’m biased towards is the prophet Muhammed.

How can you expect me to still grant you good faith, when you insist on pissing me off with such baseless accusations?

I’ll be expecting apologies.