| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S. Envoy Warns Iraq Over Sectarian Govt |
| 2006-02-20 |
| The U.S. ambassador to Iraq warned Iraqi politicians Monday they risk a loss of American support if they do not establish a genuine national unity government, saying the United States will not invest its resources in institutions run by sectarians. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad spoke at a rare press conference after Iraqi politicians said talks on a new government following the December elections were not going well because of sharp differences among the country's Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political parties. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #13 He's on timeout right now. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-20 17:57 |
| #12 A troll!? I thought he was joking. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-02-20 16:47 |
| #11 Lol - isn't there a severe penalty available for trolls who drone total BS on multiple threads - each indistinguishable from the other? The verbiage varies, but the substance, none, doesn't, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-20 16:38 |
| #10 "State" is our troll from British Columbia. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-20 16:33 |
| #9 Lameness continues to hobble State. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-20 16:24 |
| #8 Islam is inherently peaceful and nothing beligerent can come out of that noble faith. The American people support the uniting of the Iraqi people under an Islamic Constitution, which will ensure that Iraq is governed according to the principles of the noble faith. If a tiny minority of extremists choses to attempt to hijack the noble faith, then the people of the United States will support the government of Iraq, as long as they don't adopt the Taliban policies that forced Americans to shell out some $400 billion in support of the noble faith. |
| Posted by: State Department 2006-02-20 16:22 |
| #7 If Iran is decapped and defanged, besides the obvious benefit of pulling the plug on Muzzy Viagara in the hands of people even more insane than the PakiWakis... 1) the much-dreaded Iranian 2) who would the Saudis contend with, beyond the usual ancient antipathy between Sunnis & Shi'a? The Sauds are laying a gigantic egg - probably an explosive shitstorm. Many ways for it to play out. Only one has the element of economic stability sans terror - taking it away and managing the output in some manner - JFM suggested a "trust". I dunno. It will affect so many different things that it's bigger than my brain, lol. I did some speculation way back - the fallout will be all over the map. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-20 16:19 |
| #6 Oh. |
| Posted by: Hank 2006-02-20 15:41 |
| #5 Not predicting it, quite, but it's a possibility IMO. And yes, it might well be done via proxies and sabotage rather than "force on force" conflict. Suppose Iran owns southern Iraq, openly or de facto. The next thing that happens is pressure on the smaller Arab oil states around the Gulf. The House of Saud is corrupt and lazy, but they are also venal and yes - they have massive demographic problems looming. A good way to bleed some of that off is to turn a blind eye to large numbers of jihadis leaving the Kingdom to sabotage the MM control of oil resources and of shipping in the Gulf. Just some speculation on my part. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-20 15:10 |
| #4 You forsee a war, or something similar, between SA and Iran down the road? Hmmm. That must presume the Iranian Govt isn't decapitated? Or? I'm not sure I can see it. I cannot picture the Saudis doing anything outside their borders. Anything beyond shopping and getting drunk, anyway. They may have their PakiWaki proxies do it for them, of course, but the entire GCC would be equally likely to farm out any actual conflict, IMHO. I see Iran as a non-player by the end of 2007 or sooner. Possibly dismembered / partitioned once the Govt control is stripped away by MM suicide. I expect the House of Saud to implode, more or less, by the end of the decade or sooner. The demographics are incredibly bad. And maybe, just maybe, sooner than that the smoke of PCism will clear enough for people to realize that with a single stroke we could remove the funding of a very large number of the components of Islamic terror. PakiWakiLand would implode rather quickly, I believe. The Republic of Eastern Arabia... You've boggled me, lol. If you have a moment to sketch it out a bit, I'd appreciate it. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-20 14:40 |
| #3 Agreed, .com. I'd hate to lose those airbases in the northwest Iraqi desert, tho. And it would be ... annoying ... to lose the oil production not only in the non-Kurdistan parts of Iraq but also in Iran and SA when they take each other on directly in a few years. That said, it may not be something we can or are willing to prevent. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-20 13:11 |
| #2 farcical. PIMF. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-20 12:54 |
| #1 YES!!!! Time for some clarification... Same rules as with the Paleos -- if you vote for chaos and division and the insanity of the past, then that's what you get - we have zero obligation to continue support from that moment on. It is not a failure of US policy that democracy in either place has yet to yield a liberal democracy. This is their chance to choose. That's the essence of freedom - not some rubber stamp. We had to try - and we did - and they are on the verge of failing, not us. If they chuck it, as the Paleos did, then they have chosen the past, not the future. If the Shi'a don't figure it out... then they can duke it out with the Sunnis - it is not something we can prevent - nor should we be involved, so we'll step out of the lower 2/3 thirds of the farcial confabulated entity called Iraq. Iran, very shortly, will cease to be the Big Worry that made this a concensus bad move up until recently - at their insistence. Kurdistan takes one more step toward reality. My take. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-20 12:53 |