Comments on: Al Sadr's Fight Threatens Iraq Stability

Gen. Petraeus' Appearance In Washington Comes As Violence Surges In Iraq

[kansas1946]

Threatens stability?????
There hasn''t been any stability in Iraq for over five years, compliments of Mr. Bush.

[ranger1948]

What stability in Iraq ? They have been fighting forever and will continue well after we leave.

[clemenhagen1]

Half of Iraq IS Shiite - the war automatically tipped the scales to the Iranians, the only other country in the Middle East with a Shiite majority. Why do you think Saddam invaded Iran and triggered the Iran-Iraq War...to stop the spread of the Shiite Fundamentalist Revolution back in the days under the Ayatollah. Shiite fundamentalism had been isolated. This war was SUPPOSED to be against al Qaida, a Sunni terrorist organization that itself had been relatively isolated in Afghanistan. So what did Bush do? Take his eye off the ball when it comes to al Qaida...take down Saddam who was a SECULAR LEADER...play into the hands of BOTH Osama bin Laden and the radical elements in Iran. Brilliant play commander! Now you all want to elect yet another gung-ho commander guy who doesn''t understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. Bravo, brain-dead Republicans!

[feelfree1]

hungry1968,

Re: "No - Maliki launched the operation and at first the Bush cabal was PO''d since Maliki didn''t clear the assault with them."

I don''t believe that. Cheney was in Iraq meeting with his puppet Maliki, just days before the offensive, and I don''t think that he was there collecting flowers and candies.

Also, I think that the chances of the Iraqi stooge Army launching an offensive without coordinating and clearing the operation with U.S. forces, are about nil.

This was no surprise. That was just their hedge in case it failed, which it did.

Re: "Then al Sadr called his goons off ending the conflict outright leaving al Sadr as the one in charge, Maliki as an incompetent buffoon, and America on the outside looking in saying, "What the F*** is going on?!?!?!"

True, but al-Sadr apparently called off attacks as a result of Maliki underling''s requests for Iran to broker a deal.

If anyone is an Iranian stooge here, it is Maliki.

So he is a dual-stooge.

[ajmarine1]

Then al Sadr called his goons off ending the conflict outright leaving al Sadr as the one in charge, Maliki as an incompetent buffoon, and America on the outside looking in saying, "What the F*** is going on?!?!?!"

Posted by hungry1968 at 10:49 PM : Apr 07, 2008



That''s kinda the way I feel too.

They should have taken Al Sadr out in 2004, now he will be President someday and half of Iraq will become Iranian.

[clemenhagen1]

The General and his prime cheerleader, McCain, will boast of reduced violence as a sign of progess with eternal peace and stability just around the corner. The truth remains far removed from this delusional fiction: the country has been turned into an ethnically cleansed series of armed / walled fiefdoms. In the south the Basra fiasco illustrated to all the strength of two entities: the mullah led Shiites and their giddy sponsor - Iran. The U.S. turned to bribery in order to placate the Sunni sectors: please take our money and weapons (we have always turned a blind eye to Saudi, Kuwaiti, and UAE complicity in the arming of the Sunni factions) and all we ask in return is you turn out the foreign elements of al Qaida who crossed into Iraq for the golden opportunity to blast away at vulnerable U.S. troops and/or Shiite civilians. In the north, the Kurds continue to consolidate their power base much to the chagrin of our former loyal allies - the Turks. This is progress, my friends. This must constitute "freedom on the march" with the blessings of democracy and prosperity to follow. One-hundred years of presence, indeed. One-hundred more years of no-bid contracts for Halliburton and BlackWater anyone?

[hungry1968]

CBS Tries to rewrite history here, right out of the chute.

Posted by FeelFree1 at 10:39 PM : Apr 07, 2008



No - Maliki launched the operation and at first the Bush cabal was PO''d since Maliki didn''t clear the assault with them.

Then they quickly spun it into, "Maliki is showing tremendous leadership and confidence going after these insurgents by themselves."

Which quickly turned into, "American military called in to bail out flunky Iraqi military that was getting pounded by the rag tag insurgents."

Then al Sadr called his goons off ending the conflict outright leaving al Sadr as the one in charge, Maliki as an incompetent buffoon, and America on the outside looking in saying, "What the F*** is going on?!?!?!"

[jerr11]

The surge was a farce, a ripoff on the American people.

The only reason it worked for a while was because we PAID the warlords and islamist hoodlums with cash, American taxpayers cash!

Don''t believe a word Gen Betrayus say tomorrow!

His only strategy so far:

"If you can''t beat them, pay them."

And we''re the ones left holding the bag!

These neocon scumbags are bankrupting the country!

Impeach them!

[jerr11]

Bush''s greatest achievement as president.

Delivering Iraq to Iran!

And at what cost to us:

Over 4000 Dead Americans.

$3 trillion in debt.

Now Iranian puppet, al-Sadr''s King of Iraq, and there''s not a damned thing we can do about it!

Heckuva job, Bush!

[feelfree1]

Re: "Al Sadr''s Fight...(blah), (blah), (blah)..."

Those of us that can remember 1 week or so ago, realize full well that the current armed conflict with Sadr''s fighters was initially demanded by Cheney, rubber-stamped and implemented by the al-Maliki stooge, coordinated with U.S. military operations, and praised by the illegitimate Bush tyrant, as a "bold move" by his stooge.

CBS Tries to rewrite history here, right out of the chute.