I think the REAL deal is that Bush doesn't want to mess with anyone or anything until AFTER the elections... this ongoing "war" is hurting his chances of a re-election. And that's the bottom line.<br><br>I'm MacGizmo,[color:red] and I approved this message.</font color=red>
_________________________ The Graphic Mac- Tips, reviews & more on all things OSX & graphic design.
Well, if Bush could have blown him to smithereens but knows that he HAS to negotiate then why all the lies?<br>-Sadr "is among those [doing things], which is not the way democracy works."<br>-We will "capture and/or kill him"<br>-The United States "doesn't negotiate with terrorists".<br><br>Was that all supposed to be casual conversation? Since this guy is willing to blow up the Iraqi holy sites, take hostages, and kill Americans OR Iraqis, how is he an improvement over Saddam? <br><br>Over 800 Americans dead, uncounted thousands of Iraqi civilians, including woman and children and 118 Billion dollars spent to... negotiate and transfer power... to terrorists. Was this their plan? Surely they had a plan, right?<br><br>
Didn't read the article yet but I do believe that the US has not been negotiating with him, the Iraqis have. The local Iraqis have been acting as intermediaries. You know, it's what whole sovereignty thing and letting Iraq make their own decisions thing.<br><br>Dean Davis
Ok, I just did go read the article and it says EXACTLY what I said (before reading it). So, I don't get it. It sounds like some posters are mad that the US is acting in they way they said they would, i.e. letting Iraqis run their own affairs. And we seem to be doing this well before officially giving the provisional government sovereignty.<br>So much for that Iraqi puppet government we were putting in place. Another Bush failure that the puppet government is not doing what Bush must be secretly telling them to do. Or maybe that Moqtada al-Sadr is just sitting on a pile of oil that Bush needs so he can put it in his hidden underground storage facility in Crawford.<br><br>Dean Davis
Afterten, there are just people in this forum chomping at the bit waiting to blame Bush for ANYTHING. They will twist and turn any story they can to make him look bad. Kindof like Michael Moore<br><br>
So, if the sovereign government of Iraq wants to fill their parliament with terrorists then that's their prerogative right? Once they get Saddam back, maybe he'll serve a couple years, be rehabilitated, and take a small part in the government again? Why not, I mean, they are going to be sovereign, so they can allow elections of anybody they want under their own laws. Besides, Sadr may just turn out to be a new and improved Saddam Hussein.<br><br>From the article: "But Yawar said the young cleric was innocent until proven guilty and could enter Iraqi politics as soon as he disbands his militia, which is believed to number several thousand."<br><br>I wonder what country would allow even suspected terrorist leaders to still get the 'innocent until proven guilty' bit? Not this country.<br><br>I understand you support president bush, but do you see nothing wrong here?<br><br>
As I understand it, Sadr does't have a lot of support in his country. Most of his army is dead, and the everyday Iraqis are very tired of his violence. I doubt he would be elected to political office by the people.<br><br>
just to be clear, the US did *negotiate* a cease-fire with al-Sadr many weeks ago. that was negotiating with a terrorist at that point and now we are going to have troops remain in a country for many years. what happens if they have to serve for al-Sadr because that could be a possibility. what happens if iraq starts veering towards becoming another iran? are we still going to stay there with our troops and facilitate that process? are we going to intervene with a sovereign gov't? this really is some amazing stuff and i am quite intrigued that conservatives are okay with al-Sadr being given a second chance. i am intrigued that dubya could take such a hard line stance only to reverse direction completely (emphasis on completely).<br><br>just to recap...the interim government was indirectly appointed by the US, which makes it, in the eyes of the iraqi people, a continuation of the occupation. the US appoints some people to the interim council who then appoint the interim president and interim government. i just don't see how they become legitimate iraqi authorities. is that really any different than saddam hussein's so-called elections? and, to top it off, we keep more than 100,000 troops in iraq who will further undercut the legitimacy of the new iraqi leaders and perpetuate the notion that the struggle is between muslims and foreigners. at least colin powell was on the sunday morning talk shows trying to prepare americans for a lot more violence in the many, many months ahead. very sad stuff.<br><br>no plan going into iraq and the repercussions are felt daily. this was botched up quite badly.<br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Natíl Security Cncl staff specialist.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.