WoT More on the Maliki/Obama thing.

Troke

Deceased
http://corner.nationalreview.com/

If the New York Times account is to be credited, McCain should stick with the "Maliki was 'inartful'" explanation. "Mistranslated and taken out of context" is not gonna fly.

The Times indicates that, after Maliki's interview comments in Der Spiegel became known, U.S. diplomats complained. Only then did an Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issue a statement claiming Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated.” But not only did Dabbagh fail to explain specifically what Spiegel had supposedly gotten wrong in its rendering of the interview, which is on tape. The Times further reports:

[T]he interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Mr. Maliki’s interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Mr. Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Mr. Obama’s position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.

As I've mentioned before, Maliki, of the Shiite Dawa Party which opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place, has long-standing ties to Iran and Syria — and has expressed support for Hezbollah. The only thing that surprises me about this story is that anyone is surprised.

Another telling aspect of the Spiegel interview has gotten no attention. Maliki was asked what has calmed the violence in Iraq and responded as follows:

There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.


Notice: No credit to or thanks for the efforts and sacrifices of the United States and our armed forces, much less the surge. In fact, Maliki's major observation about American troops, other than that he wants them out of Iraq "as soon as possible," is that he wants the power to prosecute them for "offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population" — a major sticking point in negotiations over a status of forces agreement.


"...As I've mentioned before, Maliki, of the Shiite Dawa Party which opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place, has long-standing ties to Iran and Syria — and has expressed support for Hezbollah. The only thing that surprises me about this story is that anyone is surprised. ...Notice: No credit to or thanks for the efforts and sacrifices of the United States and our armed forces, much less the surge. .."

I have been a supporter of the war effort. However, we start getting this sort of static from the likes of Maliki, it should be make clear to him in a diplomatic manner, of course, that if he badgers us into leaving and then everything turns to sh*t so he has to run for the borders, we will track him down, there will be no hiding place for him.

Our dead require that. I have no idea how the ME mind works but I think he might get the drift.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
First: We ILLEGALLY invaded a sovereign nation

Second: We deposed its leader

Third: We had NO PLAN for rebuilding

Fourth: We took SO LONG to do anything even approaching reconstruction that the Iraqi people got really tired of the "occupiers."

Fifth: We are now engaged in "nation building," something that monkey-boy assured us we would NEVER get involved in.

Sixth: Unless one installs a puppet government (like the Shah of Iran for example), one cannot be guaranteed that the installed government will be friendly toward the US or our plans/desires.

Whether or not Maliki expressed "gratitude" for the troops or surge is immaterial; he is under no obligation to fawn all over us. And WE started the entire mess. Bear that in mind....
 

BigBadBossyDog

Inactive
First: We ILLEGALLY invaded a sovereign nation

Second: We deposed its leader

Third: We had NO PLAN for rebuilding

Fourth: We took SO LONG to do anything even approaching reconstruction that the Iraqi people got really tired of the "occupiers."

Fifth: We are now engaged in "nation building," something that monkey-boy assured us we would NEVER get involved in.

Sixth: Unless one installs a puppet government (like the Shah of Iran for example), one cannot be guaranteed that the installed government will be friendly toward the US or our plans/desires.

Whether or not Maliki expressed "gratitude" for the troops or surge is immaterial; he is under no obligation to fawn all over us. And WE started the entire mess. Bear that in mind....

100% wrong, but it's clear your mind is made up and there will be no changing it.

Your hatred for America is astonishing.
 

Straycat

Veteran Member
100% wrong, but it's clear your mind is made up and there will be no changing it.

Your hatred for America is astonishing.

Hatred for Bush does NOT equal hatred for America. Quite the contrary, for a lot of people.

Policitians are NOT the backbone of our great nation. They're just our employees, to be fired when enough people agree they're doing a piss-poor job.

His points #1 through 6 are technically correct. That people continue to insist otherwise just astonishes me with its level of denial. Iraq was a f**k-up, plain and simple. The place is never going to be "fixed" to our satisfaction. Secure the oil, if necessary, and otherwise get our people the hell out of there. We need to focus on the places that can actively do us harm, not to mention protecting our own borders. Both of which, I notice, the administration seems determined to avoid.

I got too many friends in that hellhole putting their lives in harm's way for an empty cause.
 

Troke

Deceased
About the Shah.

IIRC, the Shah took power, maybe just before WWII, most certainly after as a constitutional monarch. Then Mossedegh came along and in some sort of coup, threw the Shah out. At the same time, a strong Commie party appeared and Mossy seemed to be very good friends. Rssian troops had occupied a chunk of Iran during WWII and only left when Harry Truman told them to git or else. And there was the recent example of Czech that had gone Commie because the Russians had left Commie seed behind and it had taken root.

Well, that would not do, so the CIA in some feat of ledgerdemain, threw out Mossy and brought the Shah back.

Unfortunately, the Shah came back paranoid and things went downhill from there.

And as usual, the CIA didn't have a clue that the Shah was a dying man when the Ayatollah made his appearance, courtesy of our French friends.
 

Kalliope

Inactive
About the Shah.

IIRC, the Shah took power, maybe just before WWII, most certainly after as a constitutional monarch. Then Mossedegh came along and in some sort of coup, threw the Shah out. At the same time, a strong Commie party appeared and Mossy seemed to be very good friends. Rssian troops had occupied a chunk of Iran during WWII and only left when Harry Truman told them to git or else. And there was the recent example of Czech that had gone Commie because the Russians had left Commie seed behind and it had taken root.

Well, that would not do, so the CIA in some feat of ledgerdemain, threw out Mossy and brought the Shah back.

Unfortunately, the Shah came back paranoid and things went downhill from there.

And as usual, the CIA didn't have a clue that the Shah was a dying man when the Ayatollah made his appearance, courtesy of our French friends.

Almost but not quite,

For most of its existence, Iran has been ruled by absolute monarchy. During the Persian Constitutional Revolution in 1905-11, Iran became a constitutional monarchy, which it remained until 1925. Reza Shah overthrew Ahmad Shah Qajar, the last Shah of the Qajar dynasty, and founded the Pahlavi Dynasty.

Soviet troops did not withdraw from Iran proper until May 1946 after receiving a promise of oil concessions. The Soviet republics in the north were soon overthrown and the oil concessions were revoked.

Initially there were hopes that post-occupation Iran could become a constitutional monarchy. The new, young Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi initially took a very hands-off role in government, and allowed parliament to hold a lot of power. Some elections were held in the first shaky years, although they remained mired in corruption. Parliament became chronically unstable, and from the 1947 to 1951 period Iran saw the rise and fall of six different prime ministers.

In 1951 Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq received the vote required from the parliament to nationalize the British-owned oil industry, in a situation known as the Abadan Crisis. Despite British pressure, including an economic blockade, the nationalization continued. Mossadegh was briefly removed from power in 1952 but was quickly re-appointed by the shah, due to an overwhelming majority in parliament supporting him, and he, in turn, forced the Shah into a brief exile in August 1953. A military coup headed by his former minister of the Interior and retired army general Fazlollah Zahedi, with the active support of the intelligence services of the British (MI6) and US (CIA) governments - including mass propaganda leaflet dropping (slogans such as; "Up with Communism, Down with Ala" and "Down with Islam, up with Communism" – designed specifically to turn the population against Mossadegh, as well as the agents of CIA and MI6 (dressed as Mossadegh supporters) spurting machine guns into crowds[citation needed] (known as Operation Ajax), forced Mossadegh from office on August 19. Mossadegh was arrested and tried for treason by an un-official military tribunal, (Mossadegh was imprisoned and his foreign minister, Hossein Fatemi, executed) while Zahedi succeeded him as prime minister, and suppressed opposition to the Shah, specifically the National Front and Communist Tudeh Party.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran#Pahlavi_dynasty_.281925-1979.29
 

someone

Inactive
IIRC, the Shah took power, maybe just before WWII, most certainly after as a constitutional monarch. Then Mossedegh came along and in some sort of coup, threw the Shah out. At the same time, a strong Commie party appeared and Mossy seemed to be very good friends. Rssian troops had occupied a chunk of Iran during WWII and only left when Harry Truman told them to git or else. And there was the recent example of Czech that had gone Commie because the Russians had left Commie seed behind and it had taken root.

try reading something other then the WSJ

http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179


it didn't happen the way CBS/NBC said it did.

out of the loop as usual
 
Top