Calls for calm as crowd stones Iraqi PM

Reuters ^

[Lunatic Fringe]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Angry fellow Shi'ites stoned Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's motorcade in a Shi'ite stronghold of Baghdad on Sunday in a display of fury over a devastating car bomb that tore through their area.

Maliki was visiting the Sadr City slum to pay respects to some of the 202 victims of last week's devastating bombing.

"It's all your fault!" one man shouted as, in unprecedented scenes, a hostile crowd began to surge around the premier and then jeered as his armored convoy edged through the throng away from a mourning ceremony.

The area is a base for the Mehdi Army militia led by Maliki's fellow Shi'ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

Though the violence was limited, it was a dramatic demonstration of the popular passions Maliki and his national unity government are trying to calm following Thursday's multiple car bombs in Sadr City -- the worst since the U.S. invasion -- and later revenge attacks.

On Sunday, a car bomb killed at least 6 people and wounded more than 20 in a market just south of Baghdad, police said.

On the third full day of a curfew on the capital, mortar bombs crashed down in various parts of Baghdad and residents reported isolated and mostly unexplained clashes.

The government has said traffic can circulate again from Monday morning but, after a series of high-level meetings, it again appealed for calm.

[vbmoneyspender]

So you are advocating genocide. Given that, who do you think we should commit genocide against? Should we kill all Sunni-Arab Iraqis, or all Shiite-Arab Iraqis, or all Kurdish Iraqis, or all of the Iraqis altogether?

[Terpfen]

Why is Sadr still alive?

Might have something to do with the fact that killing your political opponents is something the former Iraqi government engaged in daily.

[zarf]

Might have something to do with the fact that killing your political opponents is something the former Iraqi government engaged in daily.

Isn't that peachy. I'm sure Sadr will reciprocate when he takes power.

[sauropod]

Correct!

I am just amazed at the yellow-backed on this forum.

[M Kehoe]

In my mind it's simple, Mr. Baker. Arm the Sunnis to the hilt. Back them all the way. Let them kill the Shiites in mass. The Kurds are safe, the Persians are scared. Do it now.

If not, fine. Appeasement won't work, so going medieval on their collective a$$es is the only choice. And do it now, starting with that waste of lamb and O2, al-Sadr.

And if that doesn't work, "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

5.56mm

[Terpfen]

Sadr taking power? Now I KNOW you're delusional.

Good evening, sir.

[sauropod]

So, you armchair generals just go back to playing video games in the basement or whatever it is you do and we'll stay here and get this done.

God bless you! Keep your powder dry.

[Alia]

And the 'War' was won long ago. Saddam's army was crushed, his son's capped and soon he'll be hanged. A new democratic government was formed, a Constitution written and elections held.

These are true.

Have you ever studied, in micro, the patterns of battered and abused men and women? Without guidance, they tend to, once freed from their batterer, go out and find another one fitting the model.

The "libertarian" models suggests: "so what? Let them eat cake." That is fine and good until and or unless public monies are involved.

The people of Iraq have been badly battered. US went in and took out their (and our) "batterer". Now is the hardest part -- guiding the newly emerging Iraqi Constitution and its people -- so they will not revert to old patterns in the creation of a violent tyranny to rule them (aka: another batterer).

Some might call this "PC" that the US is still there overseeing this part of the process. But they are wrong, IMHO. The US is protecting its investment in the freedom and national security process.

If ya wanna call it crass "capitalism" -- go right ahead. Call it whatever, but in the long-run this US interest in the "after math" of WOT is the most important part, post-saddam, of the WOT.

Without this critical part of the WOT occurring, the benefits of removing a Saddam and his sons from power makes worthless the sacrifice of our soldiers, and our investment in placing them in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once we succeed, and we will, in this critical phase of the WOT, the fruits of the liberty tree, which take time to grow, will emerge and to the benefit of not just the US, but to all countries in the world.

[hinckley buzzard]

Our fellow FReepers say this is not like Vietnam, but it is.

When we have a hundred American deaths a week, a "good" week in VietNam, I'll consider it. Until then you have zero credibility in these matters.

[Alia]

Were the 56,000 deaths in Vietnam worth it. No.

It would have been if Americans and their politicians hadn't grown soft and fat and spoiled and demanded a complete "pull-out". The sacrifices of our soldiers would have reaped mega benefits had they been encouraged, supported and permitted to finish the mission.

So, yes, a redux is happening now; the same saggy pantywaists are sobbing croc tears for a pull-out: They meant to do it; but now they are having second thoughts about supporting the new baby of Iraq and are clamoring for an "abortion" of the current results of the "act". It's just more of the libertine: Let's "just do it", pull-out quick, and abort the mission if it begins to show promise.

The WOT in Iraq is succeeding. The country is going through a re-birth, and it is not painless. But it is important.

I am additionally amused reading articles by the pro-C-Section factions regarding the WOT. "Let's just nuke' it" and be done with it.

[hinckley buzzard]

But remember that there is a larger argument: If we cut and run and leave everyone who worked with us to be murdered, it will be the end of the US as a world power.

Point.

No nation will align with us in the future because we run and leave our allies to die.

Set.

As this war against Islam's attempt to take over the world progresses, many nations and millions of people are going to be forced to choose up sides. Whether the greedy "girlie" French, the reluctant Germans or whomever, they will be forced to take sides. They are not going to side with a country that runs and leaves them to die.

Match.

[sauropod]

Have you ever studied, in micro, the patterns of battered and abused men and women? Without guidance, they tend to, once freed from their batterer, go out and find another one fitting the model.

The "libertarian" models suggests: "so what? Let them eat cake." That is fine and good until and or unless public monies are involved.

The people of Iraq have been badly battered. US went in and took out their (and our) "batterer". Now is the hardest part -- guiding the newly emerging Iraqi Constitution and its people -- so they will not revert to old patterns in the creation of a violent tyranny to rule them (aka: another batterer).

So what are you suggesting? The Iraqi people have an appointment with Dr. Phil??!!!

What unadulterated crap!

[Edit35]

They're blaming their self-selected government instead of the U.S. That could be a good sign.

The loyalties of these people blow with the wind.

I do not believe they are capable of discerning good from bad, right from wrong, or evil from righteousness.

Oh, maybe 10-percent of the population CAN be somewhat normal by western standards.

But that leaves 90-percent who are in effect, hopeless.

Like millions of others in the US, I began supporting this Iraq war with all my heart and soul.

But lately I fear they are so inbred with lunatic Muslim-ism, that they are nearly hopeless.

And it rankles me that by simply suggesting we change tactics, and PRONTO, there are people on FR ready to call me and others surrender monkeys, and the like.

[Tolsti]

We are at war with all of islam. Last I checked, Iraq is islamic. F em.

[George W. Bush]

Well, it has been in place for less than a year. Revolutions often don't work out well. France took eighty years to work out a democratic system; Mexico, more than 90, and we see how unstable that is. I think that what we really hoped for was something like what the British established in Iraq after the First World War.

Good points and accurate enough. But will the public give Bush and the Pentagon (or the Democrats) 30-40 years of occupation in Iraq to get the job done? Like Germany or Japan?

I think they just said no to that. It's no surprise. America is never happy to be an occupying power. Never has been, back to the Founders who warned against foreign adventure.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks for your opinion but go back to DU. FR is no place for defeatists.

[George W. Bush]

Take it up with the vast majority of the troops over there and with heroes like our Allegra. To them, and to me, you might just as well be John Kerry.

I'm sure that sounds wonderful. But let's return to the real world.

Our troops do not direct our foreign policy. This is not old Prussia. Had Bush lost in '04, those troops in Iraq would still be bound legally by their oath to obey the CinC and military chain of command, just as they do now. The oath is to defend the Constitution and the country, not an oath to pick and choose which political and military policies you support.

So whether it's Bush or Kerry or Hillary or Rudy or McStain or Romney or some other CinC, they'll obey him/her on military policy or they'll be courtmartialed. If they don't like that, they don't belong in the military.

One wonders what your position will be when Bush embraces the Baker Plan to withdraw, perhaps after one last large push against the insurgents. Will you all turn on him too?

I'd point out in passing that career military don't express political opinions publicly as a matter of professionalism.

[George W. Bush]

So? Deport all the journalists. Ban the ownership of anything that can be used to publish news. Outlaw private newspapers and other forms of media. Control the Internet a la China. Then you can do whatever is necessary in Iraq and not worry about the bad press, for you'd control all forms of information flow. Free press in the midst of warzone? Surest way to guarantee failure! (did we learn nothing from Vietnam?)

Did we learn nothing from Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China? Or our Founders who warned against such tyrannical government?

Imposing a police state won't work in a wired world anyway, not when your economy demands transparent borders and free flow of goods and information. Naturally, I oppose it because it is the destruction of American liberty on a scale not seen even during our own Civil War. The Land Of The Free does not resort to such means unless facing imminent attack.

There is nothing in Iraq that is worth doing that to ourselves. And it probably wouldn't work even if we did.

America is not and never was willing to embrace the means necessary to win in Iraq. A return of the draft, extensive rearmament, domestic sacrifice. We can swirl around here denying it but that's pretty accurate. Other than FR, I don't know people in real life that are actually passionate about Iraq. And I hardly know a Democrat. Maybe it's just my area but I don't think so, judging by the election returns.

[RobbyS]

Neither France nor Mexico was occupied. ( We did antervene in Mexico, twice, and with minimal success.). The point I am making is that we must not have unreasonable expectations. In promising democracy, the administration h helped raise those expectations much too high. They certainly understated the cost and the difficulty. It will be interesting to learn, years down the road, how the divisions in the administration contributed to the failure of the CPA.

[George W. Bush]

I really wish FR had an "ignore poster" feature.

It's been done. I can make any posts by any number of posters disappear completely. Or make FRiends' comments more prominent. Custom scripting and stylesheets using the Firefox web browser. You can see the work I've done at my FR scripting website. Not quite ready for a public release yet. Heh-heh, not sure if anyone is interested in a new look/feel/features for FR. I'm working on the full extension now.