I’d say the “possibility” that Sadr “disappeared over the border into Iran” is just about as UNlikely as anything can get.

His decision to stay out of the public eye was actually probably NOT out of fear for his own safety — but as a signal to the resistance to avoid reactionary confrontations with The Surge. Thus he said, “The occupiers have tried to provoke us, but I ordered unarmed resistance for the sake of the people”.

His “rise” didn’t coincide with the overthrow of Saddam. It coincided with the Violent Occupation of Iraq.

The author writes for The Independent? Oh. That explains it.

I’d say the “possibility” that Sadr “disappeared over the border into Iran” is just about as UNlikely as anything can get.

I can think of more unlikely scenarios…. but yeah, it’s not anything that I’ve been utterly convinced of.

His decision to stay out of the public eye was actually probably NOT for his own safety but as a signal to the resistance to avoid reactionary confrontations with The Surge.

He told his followers not to confront the Americans at a Friday sermon, if I recall correctly. I think it’s pretty obvious that he disappeared because he’s worried about his own safety. At the beginning of the ‘Surge,’ the Americans were talking pretty explicitly about ‘going after’ him.

His “rise” didn’t coincide with the overthrow of Saddam. It coincided with the Violent Occupation of Iraq.

Same thing. Chicken or the egg?

???

The Americans have tried to kill me in the past, but have failed… It is certain that the Americans still want me dead and are still trying to assassinate me

Like all things in Iraq, the Maliki government must take the lead in dealing with these people. He knows these people well and Maliki is supposedly on speaking terms with Sadr. And I assume that most of these new developments have likely been worked out with Maliki.

If Maliki were to give the word, the Coalition would be willing to “setup” the Iraqi forces to take him out.

But personally I can’t wait for the day when Maliki tells the United States, “we can take it from here”.

“At the beginning of the surge,’ the Americans were talking pretty explicitly about ‘going after’ him.”

They said that about Osama, too. I wouldn’t worry about it, too much.

“But personally I can’t wait for the day when Maliki tells the United States, “we can take it from here”.”

Are you referring to Mighty Maliki, the bowling god?

There’s no doubt in my mind but that The Empire was and is out to get Sadr. He has escaped their harvester. What I DO doubt is that Moqtada is capable of fear.

Hot Off The Press

Iraqi politicians have passed a resolution requiring the government to seek parliamentary permission before asking the UN to extend the mandate for US-led forces in Iraq.

The Sadrist-drafted resolution passed with a vote of 85 to 59.

131 PMs decided not to go on record and stayed home. — which left 85 PMs to tell the other 59 where to get off.

The 85 were Sadrists, other Shia AND the Sunni Accordance Front.

SCIRI voted with Maliki’s crowd against the resolution. But SCIRI is Shia like the Pope is Catholic.

POP QUIZ

Q. When GW says “Russia is not the enemy” what does he really mean?

A. That Europe is.

Quelle spaghetti.

From World Socialist OPEN QUOTE

After more than four years of fighting in Iraq and repeated declarations that victory was at hand, the Bush administration and the US military say they are prepared to grant an amnesty to anti-occupation guerilla fighters who agree to stop attacking American and Iraqi government forces.

US Lieutenant General Ray Odierno spoke about “reconciliation” at a press conference on May 31. “We believe a large majority of the groups within Iraq are reconcilable and are now interested in engaging with us, but more importantly, they want to engage and become a part of the government of Iraq,” he stated.

END OF QUOTE how very kind of you I’m sure.

OPEN QUOTE

Odierno even held out the prospect of a settlement with some Sunni Islamic extremists aligned to Al Qaeda.

END OF QUOTE omg pulleeeeeeease

Here’s the real scoop OPEN QUOTE

The Mahdi Army has officially observed a ceasefire with the US military since September 2004, when Sadr ended a short-lived armed uprising in exchange for an amnesty.

Since then, the Sadrist movement, while continuing to denounce the occupation, has participated in elections and holds seats in the Iraqi parliament. The Shiite fighters are under orders not to resist the current US operations and in most cases are obeying their leadership.

Despite the ceasefire, however, the US military is detaining or killing hundreds of Mahdi Army fighters and preparing for a major incursion into the militia’s stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad.

END OF QUOTE so there’s something else going on. Hmmmmmmmm . . .

There’s no doubt in my mind but that The Empire was and is out to get Sadr. He has escaped their harvester. What I DO doubt is that Moqtada is capable of fear.

Just because you’re not afraid for your life, doesn’t mean that you can’t still recognize its value in the grand scheme of things.

Iraqi politicians have passed a resolution requiring the government to seek parliamentary permission before asking the UN to extend the mandate for US-led forces in Iraq.

Please end the mandate, oh please end the mandate. What can we do to convince the Iraqi parliement to end the mandate?

Heatscore, agreed.

When GW says ©Russia is not the enemy© what it totally reminds me of is when someone said (Rummy? Cheney?) ‘Iraq was not involved in 9-11’ and ‘We are not going to war with Iraq’ way back in 2001/early 2002.

I’m mean if you’re out to whack someone better not to advertise it too soon before you got all your propaganda-pieces in place.

For the same reason I don’t think they are serious about a hit on Iran. Too much bluster spread out for too long. But I may be waaaayyyy of the mark on that one. They can save the hit on Iran for 8/10 yrs later

Syria, on the other hand…..

The 85 were Sadrists, other Shia AND the Sunni Accordance Front.

sunni and Shia working together?

surely some mistake – our wonderful leaders and our honest, truthful and hard-working media have been telling us that the chaos is because both of those hate each.

Do you mean to imply that our leaders and our honest, truthful and hard-working media have been lying to us? how utterly shocking!

Certainly Maliki needs to be able to say, “It’s out of my hands”.

Certainly Maliki needs to be able to say, “It’s out of my hands”.

It does not matter what he “needs” to say. He is the one and only leader of the Iraq, and the one and only elected representative of the Iraqi people since he holds the mandate of parliament which holds the mandate of the people. He is the one person who sets Iraqi policy. So he had better do his job or resign and let parliament chose another person for the job.

He is the one and only leader of the Iraq, and the one and only elected representative of the Iraqi people since he holds the mandate of parliament which holds the mandate of the people

First of all… he wasn’t elected. Talabani was elected. Maliki was appointed after Talabani was deemed to be too “unhelpful” by the Americans. Secondly, even that vote was rigged. Thirdly, he is not the “only leader of Iraq.” You don’t see the Kurds paying him much homage, do you? Or the Sunnis in Al Anbar? He’s the Prime Minister in a shaky coalition, with no real power. He would immediately be killed if he ever left the Green Zone without an American military escort.

He is the one person who sets Iraqi policy.

Really? That’s news to me.

Headscore, if you want prove your anti-war rhetoric, you obviously need Maliki to be a puppet in an undemocratic system that cannot work. However, in the real world, Iraq is trying to be a democracy and democracies have one government and one head of government and Maliki is it.

And don’t give us this malarkey about Talibani was elected. The Dec 2005 vote allocated seats to parties and the parties negotiated for the various posts. It is a legitiate form of represented government that goes on in half of the world’s democracies. Saying that the US chose the Maliki is cute and helps your arguments, but is factually incorrect.

You cannot have a democratically elected government under an occupation that an overwhelming majority of the citizens reject. Under those conditions it is a puppet government, and that is what the Maliki government is.

I made a gaffe in my first post. The first PM was named al-Jaafari… Talabani is the Kurdish President. But regardless, I think my point stands. You’re right that it’s a parliamentarian system, and so people voted for political parties (although they were pretty much just voting for which sect they belonged to) instead of a federal system. But still… if the MPs are the chosen elected representatives of the people, and al-Jaafari was the chosen elected representative of those representatives, and he was removed from office by the U.S… then Nouri al-Maliki was not the Iraqis’ first choice for PM.

I never said that the U.S. chose Maliki. They just didn’t use their veto.

Thanks for clearing up those things. On the question of “occupation”. You said:

You cannot have a democratically elected government under an occupation that an overwhelming majority of the citizens reject. Under those conditions it is a puppet government, and that is what the Maliki government is.

If the public rejects the occupation as you put it, and there was no referendum that has asked a specific question and therefore whose answer is not in play, yet you have an elected government, that wants the “occupation” to continue, then under those circumstances, what formula should be used to govern the question as to what should the policy be with regard to the occupation?

In other words three facts are in play;
-The public never voted in a referendum asking about the occupation.
-The public did vote for a Constitution under difficult circumstances and that government chosen by that flawed process has chosen a government that wants the occupation.
-You know it to be fact that the public rejects the “occupation” from your heuristic reasoning.

What do you do? It is your move.

Here is a piece on a poll of Iraqi opinion, taken in September of last year. It indicates that 83% of Sunnis and 69% of Shia advocate an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from their country.

There has been no referendum on the subject, because Iraq’s puppet government realize that if they even talked about submitting a referendum on the subject, they would be liquidated by the Americans. The polls have been very consistent in this regard… and in lieu of a referendum, these must be taken to be the general opinion of the Iraqi populace.

With regards to the elections in Iraq, the reason that a majority of Iraqis picked this government (a grand coalition of Shiite parties) is because the majority of Iraqis are Shia. If you were to poll the entirety of Iraq on whether or not Ali Hussein was the true heir to the Islamic Caliphate, you would get a majority who agreed… and then, under your logic, Iraq would have “democratically” chosen to be recognized as a Shia nation.

But more realistically, what happened is this. Iraq is composed primarily of poor Shia, who have historically been oppressed by their country’s Sunni minority. The reason that they went along with the American-led occupation of their country (at first) is because they were told to do so by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who believed it was time for the Shia to become the prominent political force in the country. He told them to vote in Shia politicians, and they did. He told them to vote for the constitution, and they did. American negotiations forced a change to the final composition of the government/constitution, in order to try and minimize political strife and try and get Iraq’s disaffected Sunni population involved in the political process. So that is why the government is the way it is… not because they have a mandate that has been granted to them by all Iraqis. The Kurds have pretty much nothing to do with the rest of the country at all – they were more than happy to trade their role in ruling the rest of the country for personal autonomy. They are just waiting for the U.S. to leave so that they can claim independence.

Whether or not the Iraqi people want the U.S. to stay or not, they are going to stay. The Afghan parliament recently passed a resolution calling for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal and the start of government negotiations with the Taliban. This call was completely ignored by the U.S. If Maliki were to start rumbling about the Americans needing to leave, he would be ignored, killed or replaced… simple as that. There’s always some other self-deprecating Iraqi who would fill the void.

Here is a piece on a poll of Iraqi opinion, taken in September of last year. It indicates that 83% of Sunnis and 69% of Shia advocate an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from their country.

I don’t doubt it. Tell me in which democracy do they govern by polls.

There has been no referendum on the subject, because Iraq’s puppet government realize that if they even talked about submitting a referendum on the subject, they would be liquidated by the Americans.

Therefore you have just ruled out such a referendum, so we still have the problem of what to do.

If you were to poll the entirety of Iraq on whether or not Ali Hussein was the true heir to the Caliphate, you would get a majority who agreed… then Iraq could have “democratically” chosen to be recognized as a Shia nation.

They can do this, as long as they express their views through a political party. When 80% of Iraqis voted in Dec 2005, they didn’t refuse to vote just because their favorite Caliphate was not on the ballot.

But more realistically, what happened is this. Iraq is composed primarily of poor Shia, who have historically been oppressed by their country’s Sunni majority. The reason that they went along with the American-led occupation of their country (at first) is because they were told to do so by the Grand Ayatollah, Ali Sistani, who believed it was time for the Shia to become the prominent political force in the country. He told them to vote in Shia politicians, and they did. He told them to vote for the constitution, and they did. American negotiations forced a change to the final composition of the government/constitution, in order to try and minimize political strife and try and get Iraq’s disaffected Sunni population involved in the political process. So that is why the government is the way it is… not because they are mandated by all Iraqis. The Kurds have pretty much nothing to do with the rest of the country at all. They are just waiting for the U.S. to leave so that they can claim independence.

Sounds like a reasonable analysis to me. Does this not reflect the kind of pragmatism you would expect in a chaotic situation that was Iraq?

Whether or not the Iraqi people want the U.S. to stay or not, they are going to stay. The Afghan parliament recently passed a resolution calling for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, and government negotiations with the Taliban. This call was completely ignored by the U.S.

You make it sound like this resolution was an act of defiance against the US. Who do you think wants the US forces to get out of Afghanistan the most. It is the US?

If Maliki were to start rumbling about the Americans needing to leave, he would be killed or replaced… simple as that. There’s always some other self-deprecating Iraqi who would fill the void.

I think that you were on the right track before this paragraph, then to square your argument with your anti-US beliefs you dropped this bomb. Whether the US would kill Maliki or not, I think that it is absurd, you think it is plausible, the problem is, it is speculation with no facts behind it and no way to test it.

Heh…. Izzy?

Same MO. Must have finally mastered spell-check though.

Sometimes no Peace