babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » New Iraqi Cabinet Approved

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: New Iraqi Cabinet Approved
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 28 April 2005 07:23 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hah! Behold! Democracy is on the march. Yessiree, this should silence all those nattering negative leftists and their rubbish about the liberation of Iraq being about the oil...

quote:
Acting oil minister: Chalabi (expected to go to a Shiite)

Yes. The Ahmad Chalabi.

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: The Dude ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 29 April 2005 09:24 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha!

Or at least, Ha!, if this wasn't so sadly predictable.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 29 April 2005 09:37 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Dude:

Yes. The Ahmad Chalabi.

You forgot to mention that his nephew is the finance minister. Ha, indeed.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
One
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9052

posted 29 April 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for One     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Remember that the pretext for war was first WMD, then al Qaeda links and finally "freedom". Bush never said democracy. in fact the debate in the Pentagon was around how long they should rule Iraq militarily. demand for elections was first and foremost posed by al Sistani. only after the failure of the US to find WMD and the 9/11 Commission's report clearing Iraq of al Qaeda links that Bush jumped on the democracy bandwagon.

And yes oil is part of the game. though not the only part.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 April 2005 09:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A Slow Day in Iraq

quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Insurgents set off at least 17 bombs in Iraq on Friday, killing at least 50 people, including three U.S. soldiers, in a series of attacks aimed at shaking Iraq's newly formed government. An audio tape by one of America's most-wanted insurgents, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, warned President Bush there was more bloodshed to come.

From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
One
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9052

posted 29 April 2005 10:16 PM      Profile for One     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
since the death of the prophet of Islam 1400 years ago, the Sunni Muslims have been ruling Iraq. add this to 35 years of Ba'ath rule, and you get a highly trained and armed resentful minority. to think a change in dynamics would lead to peace within three years is quite naive.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 April 2005 10:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Baghdad certainly.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 30 April 2005 04:46 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
this should silence all those nattering negative leftists and their rubbish about the liberation of Iraq being about the oil...

Nothing has changed in Iraq as a result of this announcement.

The US is still occupying the country, the infrastructre is still destroyed, and the Iraqis are still as mad as ever.

The US cannot stabilize the situation in Iraq. The Iraqi people know that the recent elections were a sham, and this announcement doesn't convince them otherwise.

The US cannot stabilize Iraq without another quarter of a million troops. This cannot be done without a draft, and any president who dares introduce a draft will be signing the death warrant of his political party for the next generation. This is the legacy of the Vietnam War. Thus the US cannot stabilize Iraq so long as it occupies it.

The US should get out of Iraq now. The Iraqis are a highly educated people, this was one of the few positive things that Sadam Hussein did when he ruled the country. The Iraqis should be allowed to reconstruct their country by themselves.


This cabinet is filled with US lackeys, as no politicians who publicly denounced the US occupation were allowed on the ballot in the January elections.

[ 30 April 2005: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 April 2005 09:26 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 30 April 2005 11:14 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I tried to watch F9/11 last night on TMN.ca, but watching that turd Bush and his gang of hencemen pissed me off too much. How did that bastard get elected, anyway?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 April 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:

Nothing has changed in Iraq as a result of this announcement.



I think the Dude has tongue stuck fimrly in his cheek. There. He must have, given what is obviously true, as you have outlined.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 30 April 2005 10:14 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:
This cabinet is filled with US lackeys, as no politicians who publicly denounced the US occupation were allowed on the ballot in the January elections.

Not quite true. The People's Union slate, mainly the Iraqi Communist Party, was on the ballot, and had denounced the occupation. They got two seats.

quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:
Nothing has changed in Iraq as a result of this announcement.

Actually things are worse. Several parties were excluded, or excluded themselves, who had been in the interim cabinet.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
One
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9052

posted 01 May 2005 12:21 PM      Profile for One     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
to call the Iraqi election a "sham" is to say that 8 million Iraqis are a "sham" and to call the blood of 36 dead and 70 injured a "sham". i ask you this: are you willing to go to the polls knowing there is a possibility that you may die?

if your answer is no, i shall call you a sham!


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 01 May 2005 12:50 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One, election queues in Iraq are arguably safer than anywhere else in Iraq. GI's weren't shooting up those lawful assemblies. I wonder if they would endanger themselves protecting Iraqis who had purple fingers, and had served their purpose.

Let's turn your challenge around: would you wait 8 or 10 hours to cast your vote, as many in poor districts of the US did?


From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 May 2005 04:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by One:
to call the Iraqi election a "sham" is to say that 8 million Iraqis are a "sham" and to call the blood of 36 dead and 70 injured a "sham". i ask you this: are you willing to go to the polls knowing there is a possibility that you may die?

if your answer is no, i shall call you a sham!


None of this is true. Obviously the person is talking about the coerced nature of the election, the invasion, etc., and question the validity of the results given the ongoing civil strife. It is not even clear the war is over, nor is there any real way of judging how comprehensive the polling was.

But it is clear that one signifcant group in Iraq (sunni Arabs) did not vote, for specific and arguably valid reasons. Why should anyone vote in an election supervised by an army of occupation?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 May 2005 12:18 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Iraqi election results

quote:
A group dominated by Shia Muslim candidates and sponsored by religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has won the Iraqi national elections.

Months later; is there a Shia Muslim government in Iraq? No? It looks like a sham, then.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 02 May 2005 03:00 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by One:
to call the Iraqi election a "sham" is to say that 8 million Iraqis are a "sham"

Don't be a dip. Lots of elections are shams, none of those are because of the people voting. Elections are shams because either the votes cast are not reflected in the results, or the results are in effect set aside when it comes to who's actually running the country. Which brings us to--

What part of Ahmad Chalabi, oil minister and his nephew, finance minister didn't you understand?

Or were you under the impression that Chalabi, the expat financier, corrupt profiteer, US lapdog, and wanted embezzler, was a darling of the Iraqi people, who they voted for in droves?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 02 May 2005 07:22 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 02 May 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
One
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9052

posted 02 May 2005 10:45 PM      Profile for One     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
18 out of 32 ministries are occupied by shia candidates from the Sistani backed slate. there are over 150 shia sitting on the national assembly. sounds pretty representative to me.

look if this election was produced by the US, then why didn't Allawi's slate win more than 40 seats? he received millions in campaign funds, ran three commercials/break on Al Arabiya news network, and had a program dedicated to discussing his political history and days in exile running three times a day. and yet he couldn't even beat the Kurds.

Iraq's biggest problem today is internal security which is largely a result of occupation. but you can not ignore other Baathist elements that have infiltrated into the security forces, and open borders that are free for all. Ahmed Chalabi may be a scum bag. but he's got one good quality that we need right now and that quality is: he dreams day and night of the moment when he gets the chance to uproot every single Baathist and Wahhabi-Muslims and send them where they need to go. Chalabi has no political future in Iraq. but for now, we need politicians that have the quality i mentioned above.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 May 2005 05:14 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by One:

look if this election was produced by the US, then why didn't Allawi's slate win more than 40 seats? he received millions in campaign funds, ran three commercials/break on Al Arabiya news network, and had a program dedicated to discussing his political history and days in exile running three times a day. and yet he couldn't even beat the Kurds.

The point is that you don't have to rig voting to in order to rig the process. This "parliment" really has no constituent authority that is not provided by the US, in terms of its military backing, finances and its diplomatic approval. Governments and parliments are pressured all the time. Once like this which owes its very existence to a an foreign power, are even more suseptible to these preassures.

Ahmed Chalabi, oft disgraced, and little know in Iraq until the invasion seems to have oddly found his way into some pretty significant posts. He is a well know CIA operative, and has been on the US payroll for years. So, you don't find it odd that these corrupted unknown, and his nephew with all of these heavy heavy ties to US government businesses should appear in what are arguable the two most important positions after President?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca