Oh, dear, not again.

Can't we buy him?

The beginning of the end of al-SADr and company.

"The beginning of the end of al-SADr and company."

Wrong, You Mean The "Rise" He Is 10 Times More Popular Than Maliki. He Has Been Marked For Death 5 Times In The Last 4 Years, He Goes back And Forth To Iran Freely. Sorry He Has The Power Not Maliki, How Many Militias Have Been Disbanded Of His ?

-Sarge

Hey righties ... whose fault will it be (Bill Clinton's?) if al Sadr becomes one of - if not THE- ruler of Iraq?

We have been remiss in not destroying al-Sadr's enclave thus depriving him of the population which provides his political support. When his militiamen engaged us in combat, we should have dropped thermobaric or other highly destructive ordnance on that area of Baghdad and obliterated it and its inhabitants. Then we could have proceeded to pacify the Sunni Triangle, beginning with according those worthies who had strung up our contractors on the bridge, the same treatment.

After this initial pacification, it might have dawned on the Iraqis that we could be quite as ruthless as Mr. Hussein, and they had best comply with our requirements if they valued survival.

We then could have issued identity cards, limited people to certain areas, controlled food distribution, and made it a capital offense for any foreigner to be in Iraq without our permission, or for anyone to aid such a foreigner.

After the initial adjustment, the pacification would have been well underway rather than bogged down as it is now.

Since the Sunni have adjusted their attitudes, we can now proceed to destroy al-Sadr's section of Baghdad with high powered weaponry such as "the Mamma bomb," or thermobaric devices. We will greatly reduce our casualties by taking strong action now. We could have avoided most of our casualties if we had not been averse to utilizing our technological superiority to coerce the Iraqis of all stripes. But, better late than never.

We actually have an opportunity to create a situation where cooperation can be elicited and the Maliki government, or one we substitute, can reach accords between and among the parties, as preferable by them to annihilation.

We can have control of and priority access to the oil, and can establish large long-term bases in Iraq, providing us with a geopolitical platform from which to operate in the Middle East from a position of strength.

This seeming "breakdown" is an opportunity that operates to our benefit if we act to take advantage of the situation with timely and forceful action.

Our appropriate action will also convey a message to Iran and China, other Islamic countries, and other peoples with whom we have "lost face" because of our inhibitions and reluctance to act in our own interests. Pax Americana.

The beginning of the end of al-SADr and company.

You have any idea what year the US frist proclaimed that it was gong to kick this guy's ass?

No, of course not.

Continue...

We have been remiss in not destroying al-Sadr's enclave thus depriving him of the population which provides his political support.


his enclave being the millions in sadr city, good policy,

yet another act of desperation by Sadr.

Good news for the coalition.

"yet another act of desperation by Sadr.

Good news for the coalition."

Posted by Bowa, wannabe stand-up comedian

"It's gold Jerry! Gold!"

Posted by Kenny Bania, wannabe stand-up comedian

Hans

Good news for the coalition. -Bowa

What is "the coalition" Bowa?

You sound more like W every post.

Since the Sunni have adjusted their attitudes, we can now proceed to destroy al-Sadr's section of Baghdad with high powered weaponry such as "the Mamma bomb," or thermobaric devices.
Posted by Johnson

Yo Johnson... kill everything that doesn't agree with us...

(and what percentage of ME inhabitants don't like us ?)

We actually have an opportunity to create a situation where cooperation can be elicited and the Maliki government, or one we substitute, can reach accords between and among the parties, as preferable by them to annihilation.

What are you, some sort of PNAC-bot?

First the Sadrists boycott the Iraqi parliment, then the Sadrists return to parliment, then the sadrists pull out of the cabinet, then Sadr cowardly runs off to Iran when things don't go his way, Then Sadr returns to Iraq, then Sadr issues a moratorium on all violence for 6 months, and now the sadrists are pulling out of the parliment... all because the Iranian backed terrorist - "Sadr" is not getting his way from Maliki.

Sure seems desperate to me.

LOL

It is amazing how the development of "federalism" in Iraq corresponds with America's own development after the Revolutionary War.

The early history of our nation is marked by a weak central government, with most of the governmental power resting in the states. It literally took decades for the strong central government we have now to develop.

Similary, in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam the Iraqis created a Constitution and central governemnt that has proved to weak to control the various regions which have instead begun to create regional (state) governemnts -- until the success of the surge -- the fear was that these regional state governemnts would never be loyal to a central governemnt, and instead be more loyal to Iran, or al-quada/Taliban. But now, there is a realistic hope that these regional governments will decide that it is in their best interest as a unified Iraq to be loyal to the central governemnt and not allow the interests of Iran, al-quada, or even the US to dominate

bwhahahahahaahaha The delusions keep on slipping slipping slipping into the Future.

Larry

"The beginning of the end of al-SADr and company."

Wrong, You Mean The "Rise" He Is 10 Times More Popular Than Maliki. He Has Been Marked For Death 5 Times In The Last 4 Years, He Goes back And Forth To Iran Freely. Sorry He Has The Power Not Maliki, How Many Militias Have Been Disbanded Of His ?

That a boy ... you keep cheering the other side... ya pos. What a parody of patriotism you are.

They love ya here on the drudge, you're an inspiration to them and that's all that's important, right? You feel loved, like a true leader, right?...

Scum

Saw this interesting quote today from one of the deputies of the recently slain Suni sheik in Anbar

"In the name of God I will kill anyone who has the name al Quaida even if he be in his mother's womb I will kill him"

sounds to me like some folks should be getting awful nervous right about now.

Also there is this interesting tidbit:

American commanders in southern Iraq say Shiite sheiks are showing interest in joining forces with the U.S. military against extremists, in much the same way that Sunni clansmen in the western part of the country have worked with American forces against al-Qaida.

Sheik Majid Tahir al-Magsousi, the leader of the Migasees tribe here in Wasit province, acknowledged tribal leaders have discussed creating a brigade of young men trained by the Americans to bolster local security as well as help patrol the border with Iran.

He also said last week's assassination of Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, who spearheaded the Sunni uprising against al-Qaida in Anbar province, only made the Shiite tribal leaders more resolute.

"The death of Sheik Abu Risha will not thwart us," he said. "What matters to us is Iraq and its safety."

Can anyone on the "we have already lost" side say

"ru ro"

"That a boy ... you keep cheering the other side... ya pos. What a parody of patriotism you are.


They love ya here on the drudge, you're an inspiration to them and that's all that's important, right? You feel loved, like a true leader, right?..."


Scum

Posted by Incubus_Con at 2007-09-15 09:22 PM

Oh The Chicken Hawk Speaks !!!

Balk.. Balk... Balk... Balk I A Yellow Ass Coward Pussy Balk....Balk....Balk

1st Ass Clown Sadr Should Have Been Killed 4 Years Ago But You Idiot Idol Bush Did Not !!! I'm Not Cheering I'm Stating Facts And Pissed About What Is Wrong In Iraq Because Incompetent Ass clowns That You Support !!

Sadr Has American Blood On His Hands You Fuck !!! When I Think About It So Do You Coward !!! You Have Others Fight Your War While You "Balk" Silly Shit Beeeeeitch !!

Oh And By The Way I Was Sure You Stated You Would "NEVER" Address Me Again So You Are A Yellow Ass Coward "Lying" Chicken Hawk Beeeitch !!

-Sarge

You know I got to thinking. Dubya could salvage His Tattered torn Nonexistant Reputation/Credibility on Iraq this way. While it is true that the Iraq war was lost the very second it began and that by the War not going His way is a huge loss. He COULD declare it a partial "Win" when the Iraqis push the United States out of the Country. He could claim that by them evicting the United States they are determining their own future and that future is sans America and Americans.


Larry

PUSCUBUS,

Sorry I Forgot To Add "Punk" !!

Now Go Lay Down In Your Safe Warm Bed While Others Protect Your Yellow Coward Ass !!!

Well If You Are A Good Little Yellow Ass Chicken Hawk, Maybe Your Father's, Brother's, Uncle's Cousin Who Served In The Military Can Tell You a Nice Little War Story For You To Fall Asleep To....

Night-Night Coward Beeeitch !!

-Sarge

OTTOMAN EMPIRE
Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535. The Ottomans lost Baghdad to the Iranian Safavids in 1609, and took it back in 1632. Ottoman rule lasted until World War I, during which the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers.

During World War I the Ottomans were driven from much of the area by the United Kingdom during the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The British lost 92,000 soldiers in the Mesopotamian campaign. Ottoman losses are unknown but the British captured a total of 45,000 prisoners of war. By the end of 1918 the British had deployed 410,000 men in the area, though only 112,000 were combat troops.

THE BRITISH
During World War I the British and French divided the Middle East in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The Treaty of Svres, which was ratified in the Treaty of Lausanne, led to the advent of the modern Middle East and Republic of Turkey. The League of Nations granted France mandates over Syria and Lebanon and granted the United Kingdom mandates over Iraq and Palestine (which then consisted of two autonomous regions: Palestine and Transjordan). Parts of the Ottoman Empire on the Arabian Peninsula became parts of what are today Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

At the end of World War I, the League of Nations granted the area to the United Kingdom as a mandate. It initially formed two former Ottoman vilayets (regions): Baghdad, and Basra into a single country in August 1921. Five years later, in 1926, the northern vilayet of Mosul was added, forming the territorial boundaries of the modern Iraqi state.

For three out of four centuries of Ottoman rule, Baghdad was the seat of administration for the vilayets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra. During the mandate, British colonial administrators ruled the country, and through the use of British armed forces, suppressed Arab and Kurdish rebellions against the occupation. They established the Hashemite king, Faisal, who had been forced out of Syria by the French, as their client ruler. Likewise, British authorities selected Sunni Arab elites from the region for appointments to government and ministry offices.

(next)

As you can see America is only the last in a line of foreign powers to invade Iraq and impose an idea of a government on them. Stepping back might be the best answer if the tribal and religious leaders can come together to quell the violence and render radicals like Sadr (who has a small number of followers relative to population, yet an artificially large contingent in the Iraqi parliament) unimportant in the big picture. Tribal and community representation might work better. The last election held is viewed so far by Iraqis as yet another foreign imposed government. Regroup and try again with America's military falling into a smaller 'friendly' supportive and training role engaging in humanitarian aid and combat only when requested to do so by them?

After this initial pacification, it might have dawned on the Iraqis that we could be quite as ruthless as Mr. Hussein, and they had best comply with our requirements if they valued survival.

We then could have issued identity cards, limited people to certain areas, controlled food distribution, and made it a capital offense for any foreigner to be in Iraq without our permission, or for anyone to aid such a foreigner.

After the initial adjustment, the pacification would have been well underway rather than bogged down as it is now.

Johnson


In other words, we could have beome Nazi Germany. What a creepy mentality on the loose in the US these days.

The beginning of the end of al-SADr and company."

Wrong, You Mean The "Rise" He Is 10 Times More Popular Than Maliki. He Has Been Marked For Death 5 Times In The Last 4 Years, He Goes back And Forth To Iran Freely. Sorry He Has The Power Not Maliki, How Many Militias Have Been Disbanded Of His ?






That a boy ... you keep cheering the other side... ya pos. What a parody of patriotism you are.


They love ya here on the drudge, you're an inspiration to them and that's all that's important, right? You feel loved, like a true leader, right?...


Scum

Posted by Incubus_Con


Reporting the truth is not the same as supporting the other side, inky. Don't you realize that you guys are just like those govts who accuse their critics of lack of patriotism and try to shut them down? Unwrap the flag from around yourself and try to view objective reality, for a change.

You guys are getting laughably ridiculous, and you don't even see it.

Midman,

Thank, I don't understand how any Thinking or Rational person can Hate,Deny and Spin Facts into supporting the Enemy and being Un-Patriotic. I honestly believe these Ideologues have the mentality of 11 year olds playing Army. Nothing in my statement supported Sadr clearly the Opposite and how it has been a Failure he is Free to Roam and Reign in Iraq. This man Clearly is an Enemy of America, has American Blood on his Hands and Still has not Complied with the Maliki.

-Sarge

Still has not Complied with the Maliki.

Maliki standing up to Sadr is one of the most powerful things he can do to make the other factions inthe governemnt trust him enough to begin reconciliation.

malike has got to prove that he is autonomoius and not controlled by Iran or the S as he moves forward from this point on.

And his sharp comments against the US Congress, as well as his refusal to kow-tow to Sadr's demands are certainly sending out the right signals that he is willing to put sectarian loyalties aside int he interest of Iraqi unity.

"malike has got to prove that he is autonomoius and not controlled by Iran or the S as he moves forward from this point on."


"We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere,"
- Al-Maliki

With Statements like that, Right !

-Sarge

Midman,

Thank, I don't understand how any Thinking or Rational person can Hate,Deny and Spin Facts into supporting the Enemy and being Un-Patriotic. I honestly believe these Ideologues have the mentality of 11 year olds playing Army. Nothing in my statement supported Sadr clearly the Opposite and how it has been a Failure he is Free to Roam and Reign in Iraq. This man Clearly is an Enemy of America, has American Blood on his Hands and Still has not Complied with the Maliki.

-Sarge



It's because they are arrested at the adolescent level of logical thought, at which stage everything needs to be black or white, "you're for us or you're against us", etc. Unfortunately, being stuck at that stage of intellectual development precludes the possibilty that they will come to realize that THEIR attitude towared legitimate criticism is the same as the totalitarians they claim to hate. They talk the talk about freedom of speech, but label as "unpatriotic" any speech that they don't like.

That's the approach taken by dictators.

OK, I'm ready to be attacked now.

Sadr Bloc Pulls Out of Iraq Alliance

yet another act of desperation by Sadr.
Good news for the coalition.
Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-15 08:07 PM


OK, Bowa. You've definitely earned yourself place in the clip-and-paste-for-later-use competition. Wear the badge with pride, son! You're in good company. To wit:

You just hate the fact that the insurgency is in its death throes, the civil war is yesterday's news already, the new iraq governemnt should be up-n-running in 6-8 weeks and our soldiers are on the brink of coming home.
Posted by lokisfur at 2006-04-27 04:03 PM

Also there is this interesting tidbit:
American commanders in southern Iraq say Shiite sheiks are showing interest in joining forces with the U.S. military against extremists, in much the same way that Sunni clansmen in the western part of the country have worked with American forces against al-Qaida.
Posted by Litlebritdifrnt

OK, let's try it one time.

Al Qaeda in Iraq (the name of an organization)is a minor presence in the ongoing conflagration that is the fiasco Bush created.

When local Sunni tribal leaders (read: gang leaders, militiamen, American-killing insurgents) felt themselves challenged, their power threatened, by Al Qaeda in Anbar they (probably temporarily) put aside their differences, took all the moolah the US offered them, accepted all the firepower the US was willing to hand over, and went out to hunt down some foreigners.

In the south, there is some "interest" on the part of Shiia gang leaders, militiamen, American-and-Brit-killing insurgents to avail themselves of an opportunity to acquire some hard currency and more firepower.

This is a good development?

Really?

What happens when the US pulls back to its versiom of Fort Apache?

You think the Sunnis and Shiias we've financed and armed are going to march on Baghdad in a massive show of support for the government?

Think in terms of the Long Game. Strategy, not tactics.

Interesting, isn't it, that the first group that would be run out of Iraq by all the other factions involved if we left would be..... al-Quada.

OK, Bowa. You've definitely earned yourself place in the clip-and-paste-for-later-use competition.

Doc, I don't see what one quote has to do with the other. Do you disagree with my position on Sadr? if you have a point then make it.

Here's I'll recap again:

My reasons for saying that Sadr is acting out of desperation is because it follows a whole slew of "desperate acts extending back over a year:

First the Sadrists boycott the Iraqi parliment, then the Sadrists return to parliment, then the sadrists pull out of the cabinet, then Sadr cowardly runs off to Iran when things don't go his way, Then Sadr returns to Iraq, then Sadr issues a moratorium on all violence for 6 months, and now the sadrists are pulling out of the parliment... all because the Iranian backed terrorist - "Sadr" is not getting his way from Maliki.

Given that many people have argued that prime minister Maliki owes his position to Sadr, maliki's ability to stand up to Sadr has been impressive.

And Maliki standing up to Sadr is one of the most powerful things he can do to make the other factions in the governemnt trust him enough to begin reconciliation.

maliki has got to prove that he is autonomous and not controlled by Iran or the US as he moves forward from this point on.

And his sharp comments against the US Congress, as well as his refusal to kow-tow to Sadr's demands are certainly sending out the right signals that he is willing to put sectarian loyalties aside int he interest of Iraqi unity.

frankly, I don't think my position is unique or in any way outrageous on this but for some reason, once again, my viewpoint inspires a large amount of deflection and hostility that is out of synch with the tenor of my argument.

Al Qaeda in Iraq (the name of an organization)is a minor presence in the ongoing conflagration that is the fiasco Bush created

It may be a minor presence in numbers, but it is a major presence because of its brutality violence and willingness to got to any lengths to sow discontent and chaos in Iraq.

Remember, al-quada is responsible for bombing the "golden Mosque" which many experts point to as the major event which caused sectarian violence to spread and increase throughout Iraq.

As for the fiasco Bush created -- well it is true that al-quada would not have had a reason to make Iraq their front line in their Jihad against the United States if Bush had never removed Saddam. That they have. Proves, far better then any speech by Bush, how important Iraq is in the global war on terror -- and that defeating al-quada in Iraq will go a long way in helping us defeat al-quada worldwide.

Interesting, isn't it, that the first group that would be run out of Iraq by all the other factions involved if we left would be..... al-Qaeda.


Posted by Corky

No comment, Bowow?

You think the Sunnis and Shiias we've financed and armed are going to march on Baghdad in a massive show of support for the government?

maybe not is such an overt display of unity but yes, I think that once the regions are stabilized and have established their own local governemnts which they seem to be doing -- then there will be much more trust in and support for the central government.

But nothing could even start to happen until the US was able to provide the securtity necessary to allow local governemnts to begin to take root.

As I said before, It is amazing how the development of "federalism" in Iraq corresponds with America's own development after the Revolutionary War.

The early history of our nation is marked by a weak central government, with most of the governmental power resting in the states. It literally took decades for the strong central government we have now to develop.

Similary, in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam the Iraqis created a Constitution and central governemnt that has proved to weak to control the various regions which have instead begun to create regional (state) governemnts -- until the success of the surge -- the fear was that these regional state governemnts would never be loyal to a central governemnt, and instead be more loyal to Iran, or al-quada/Taliban. But now, there is a realistic hope that these regional governments will decide that it is in their best interest as a unified Iraq to be loyal to the central governemnt and not allow the interests of Iran, al-quada, or even the US to dominate

maliki has got to prove that he is autonomous and not controlled by Iran or the US as he moves forward from this point on.

He's still 'our' guy Bowa. The head of government the American NeoCon imperialists wanted. It's ALL perception.

The past 500 years of Iraqi history I posted is where Iraqi animosity towards us has it's roots.

Facts are that in the initial weeks after our invasion, Iraqis with clout from all regions and sectors - military and civilian - wanted to form a 'national council' Iread democracy) as their own fledging government representing varying sects and factions within Iraq - people they'd respect.

W and Cheney shot down that prudent idea (among so many others) when they sent Bremmer in as a 2003 version of a colonial governer and took Iraqi self determination of the table. We missed the moment and disrespected them by doing so. Again, if you read Iraqi history you'll see why they'll never accept Maliki. He's 'our' guy not theirs.

OK, Bowa. You've definitely earned yourself place in the clip-and-paste-for-later-use competition.

"Doc, I don't see what one quote has to do with the other. Do you disagree with my position on Sadr? if you have a point then make it."

OK, I'll try and explain it: Both quotes are, frankly, ridiculous. Admittedly, that's a personal opinion. I'm entitled to hold it, just as you are entitled to hold yours. The idea that this is "good news for the coalition" strikes me as arrant nonsense.

And that's why you've earned a place in the file.

Congratulations, we have a winnah!

As I said before, It is amazing how the development of "federalism" in Iraq corresponds with America's own development after the Revolutionary War. BOWA

I respectfully disagree. We had no third party telling us when, what, where, and from which candidates we could choose in our first election. We decided all on our own. No 'governor' from a thrid country lorded over us and patrolled our streets with checkpoints, or busted down our doors.

That would have been as if France had helped us kick the British out then took control over our every move.

After 500 years Iraq was a little sick of that shit.

The idea that this is "good news for the coalition" strikes me as arrant nonsense.

I think any action taken by Sadr which shows Maliki's autonomy from Iran is inherently good for the coalition. But like you said You are entitled to your opinion and I mine.

I don't know what you are reading Bowa. Maliki considers Iran an ally. A couple times Iranian ambassadors were arrested by US troops were there at the invitation of the Iraq government.

The past 500 years of Iraqi history I posted is where Iraqi animosity towards us has it's roots.

I think any Iraqi animosity towards the US is less important then it's more recent hisory with democracy:

In point of fact, before the 1958 pro-Soviet military coup detat that established a leftist dictatorship, Iraq did have its modest but nevertheless significant share of democratic history, culture, and tradition. The country came into being through a popular referendum held in 1921. A constitutional monarchy modeled on the United Kingdom, it had a bicameral parliament, several political parties (including the Baath and the Communists), and periodic elections that led to changes of policy and government. At the time, Iraq also enjoyed the freest press in the Arab world, plus the widest space for debate and dissent in
the Muslim Middle East."

To be sure, Baghdad in those days was no
Westminster, and, as the 1958 coup proved, Iraqi
democracy was fragile. But every serious student of
contemporary Iraq knows that substantial segments of
the population, from all ethnic and religious
communities, had more than a taste of the modern
worlds democratic aspirations. As evidence, one
need only consult the immense literary and artistic
production of Iraqis both before and after the 1958
coup.

Maliki considers Iran an ally.

There is a difference between an "ally" and a "puppet".

And Sadr is a "terrorist" puppet of Iran.

The arrests came after protesters lay down on the Capitol lawn in what they called a "die in" -- with signs on top of their bodies to represent soldiers killed in Iraq. When police took no action, some of the protesters started climbing over a barricade at the foot of the Capitol steps.,

In other words, when their peaceful demonstration didn't make enough of an impact the demonstrators decided to break the law.

Is that the latest Republican talking point?

Shia against Shia. I don't think so. When the US arrested Iranian ambassadors, the Iraqi government protested. Maliki's problem is that he's seen as a US puppet. It's the US, he's trying to distance himself from. You harbor the delusion that the US is the white knight in Iraq.

It's the US, he's trying to distance himself from. You harbor the delusion that the US is the white knight in Iraq.

maliki is trying to distance himself from both the US and Iran. Allied with both, puppet of none.

The US has been the "white knight" in Iraq and has given it the opportunity for self-determination.

But self-determination means that Iraq will not be a puppet of the US but an ally.

Is that the latest Republican talking point?

You would know better then me what the "talking points" ,

I read the news, opeds, watch the shows, etc and come to my own perspectives and conclusions. Sometimes they are in agreement with policy makers and sometimes they are not. But in either case I don't just embrace a position without careful evaluation.

You haven't learned the art of objectively reading between the lines. That Iranian ambassadors were in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government. And that their arrest and detention by the US met with protests by the Iraqi government tells me who is on whose side. What Muslim sect do Americans belong to? Who invited them? Who gave them an invitation to leave? US presence in Iraq is nothing but a cancerous tumor that needs to be removed.

BOWA

I've studied up on Iraq. Thanks for all the info. I'll read through it when the football game's over.....

My point is, they've been under the grip of an imperial (Turks) or colonial (British) power for 500 years followed by hand picked autocratic kings and military dictators. Self determination is a completely new concept and they'll never view Maliki as more than America's very own hand picked guy. When we didn't allow them to form a national council as they offered after the invasion we blew a golden opportunity to be viewed as liberators rather than just another colonial power there to exert our will on them. Perception is everything.

We had no third party telling us when, what, where, and from which candidates we could choose in our first election. We decided all on our own. No 'governor' from a thrid country lorded over us and patrolled our streets with checkpoints, or busted down our doors.

I wasn't making a comparison between the difference between how America and Iraq got to the point of self-determination, I was making a comparison between the way each country has evolved once it had a Constitution and central governemnt in place.

And they are similar. Both the early United States and Iraq were and are plagued with a weak economy, a weak central government, attacks on their sovereignty by foreigners, and regional governemnts that in many ways were and are autonomous from the nation (for example, in America states issued their own currency until 1861)

The point I am making is that given how weak the central government in the US was for decades after the creation of the nation, and the adoption of our Constitution, the idea that because regional governemnts are stronger now in Iraq there is no hope whatsoever for a unified Iraq is just ridiculous and flies in the face of our own history.

-the demonstrators decided to break the law.

Oh mah Gawd!

What would Gandhi or Martin Luther King think?

BOWA

We became a 'United' States out of choice. Iraq was pieced together within borders of someone elses choosing, throwing groups who had little in common with each other, and even at that there are big divisions i.e Sunni vs Shia - a religious sectarian difference. Ethnically, Kurds are Persain not Arab. We were not invaded and forced to create a republic. Iraq was.

We fought for our independence from Britain. The Iraqis did not fight for independence from Saddam - they fought us and each other after we invaded. We did not have a third country drawing up our constitution. Iraq did. We did not have foreign overseers as we created our republic. Iraq does. We had hegemony in religion. Iraq doesn't - Sunni vs Shia.

Having a constitution is the only thing our two country's histories share in common if you really think about it.

watching football....typos up the wazoo LOL

What is Sandra Bullock doing in Iraq anyway...

It is amazing how the development of "federalism" in Iraq corresponds with America's own development after the Revolutionary War. -- Bowa

The bases for social organization are completely different. In the Middle East, most states compete with (or strike deals with) religious authorities that have long-standing, deep ties to local communities. The U.S. didn't have to contend with that.

The Sadr movement are a bunch of quitters and spoiled as they have more passion and patience with violence than the political system.