Posted on 04/02/2006 3:49:56 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Condoleezza Rice talks with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Sunday.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterpart, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, flew to Baghdad on Sunday for a visit aimed at jump-starting the process of forming a national unity government.
Rice and Straw -- who flew into the Iraqi capital Sunday from northwest England -- met with Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish politicians, who have been stalled in their efforts to form a government following the December 15 parliamentary elections.
"This is a really important time for the Iraqi leadership, for the Iraqi people, for Iraq itself," Rice told CNN after the meeting. "It's an opportunity to have a national unity government that can really take on and solve tremendous challenges." ()
"We thought it was important to come and deliver a message that the time has come to end these negotiations and deliver a government," she said.
Rice said a permanent government would have "a bigger impact" on Iraq than many predict as it tackles problems like militias and insurgent violence.
"It's true the country has been accustomed to dealing with problems through violence, through coercion and through oppression," she said. "Now they have to do it through politics."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Or in less diplomatic terms: Sh*t or get off the throne. 'bout time.
Okay, so the "time has come" for the Iraqi's to form a unity government. That is nice to hear, though I thought I'd heard that the "time has come" many times previously. And what if they don't? What if they simply can't put together anything which all the factions could agree on that can last more than a few weeks or months? What then? Impose a new coalition authority government?
I wonder if it occured to anyone who pushed this Iraqi Democracy notion that the Shia would go along with this entire charade only long enough to grow powerful enough to fully seize power and go on to oppress the Sunni minority? Where did this idea come from that a majority of Shia (or Sunni) really want any kind of democracy we could ever even remotely identify with? Wasn't that sortof a dangerous assumption? I mean, we are talking about a populations who's religion dictates that converting to any other religion (among countless other things) requires the death penalty be imposed. Is it really that hard to imagine that maybe, just maybe, everybody the world over does not infact want the same things we do?
it's taking so long to form a national unity Government because it needs 2/3rds support in a vote in the parliament.
Imagine trying to decide on a President who would get 2/3rds vote in Congress.
This is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing that it prevents a sectarian faction totally dominating. A curse in that there is no George Washington-like natural leader emerging from the crowd of politicians in Iraq to be the consensus leader. Thus, gridlock.
still, once Jafaari is officially out, the next one up, Adel Abdul Mahdi, would be frontrunner. This would be a good step for Iraq, and will make for a better overall Government.
Until Saddam leaves the planet there will continue to be loyalists and factions who cling to the hope of restoring the old regime as well as those who will have a hard time cooperating because of fear that it might actually happen. His ruthless sons are dead and I think things would improve quickly if they would finish the trial and rid their country of Saddam forever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.