Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"I blame Bushes for destabilizing Iraq, but I blame Nouri al-Maliki for current crisis"
Bullseye Tonto...Iraq for centuries has been a rock of stability in the troubled waters of the Middle East. Then MacDonalds showed up and it all went to hell.
"I blame Bushes for destabilizing Iraq, but I blame Nouri al-Maliki for current crisis"
Bullseye Tonto...Iraq for centuries has been a rock of stability in the troubled waters of the Middle East. Then MacDonalds showed up and it all went to hell.
In other words, it's all Obama's fault. Thanks for sharing your retarded context.
Bush policies culminated in a stable, sovereign Iraq.
Don't believe it? Ask President Obama...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKSb2ukQxvY
Obama's policies culminated in the mess you see today.
I agree with you."I blame Bushes for destabilizing Iraq, but I blame Nouri al-Maliki for current crisis..."
That's not the half of it. A poster in another thread tried to tell me that al Maliki didn't have the right to tell the US to withdraw our troops.
The crackpot right is manufacturing one of its classic myths. Normal America won't believe them, so don't get overly upset over the propaganda.
Amen! The NaziCon base eats it up.
And the racist far left propaganda will always trump reality as they support Obama in his illegal actions in Iraq.
Interesting how Obama takes credit for Maliki kicking the US out of Iraq. Maybe he should look for a different legacy ?
Aren't you clowns about running out of ways to spin that?
Interesting how Obama takes credit for Maliki kicking the US out of Iraq. Maybe he should look for a different legacy ?
Aren't you clowns about running out of ways to spin that?
What spin ? Obama claims that he couldn't have kept troops in Iraq if he wanted too.
Since the end of 2012, many peaceful protests have been organized throughout Iraq against the sectarian policy and continuing human rights violations committed by Malikis forces, whose crackdowns against protests became increasingly draconian over the time. Mass campaigns of arbitrary arrests became the rule rather than the exception, execution rates rose to record levels, next to an alarmingly increasing number of target killings of opposition leaders. The official justification by the government for its excessive use of force was always national security, however very soon it became clear, that the governments proclaimed fight against terrorism was mainly aimed against al Malikis opponents.
The opposition to the human rights violations committed by the al-Maliki Regimes was especially strong in the Anbar province. In order to have an official justification to act against the uprisings al-Maliki thus declared protest camps as infiltrated by terrorists even if such claims never proved to be true. Despite the obvious groundlessness of the allegations the government continued to accuse those who criticise the regime of being terrorists. In December 2013, apparently as a show-off of power in view of his decreasing popularity ahead of the upcoming elections in April, Prime Minister Maliki then increased the already high level of pressure on the protestors.
During all the Iraqi PM al-Maliki publicly vowed to eliminate "all terrorist groups" and called to fight with all means. Several times he came out on TV inciting his followers with sectarian language to support him at all means in his fight against the inhabitants of the al-Anbar province. In view of the in discriminatory attacks by the al-Maliki forces and their well known brutality the residents of the city then founded a Council and decided that the city would defend itself against a possible attack. It is therefore important to understand that those residents who are presented as terrorists are defending themselves out of fear against Malikis forces and that they are ordinary citizens, in no way affiliated to any terrorist group.
Al Malikis official portrayal of terrorists brought him the immediate support from the USA as well as from Iran and Russia. Other voices however, such as a the senior EU lawmaker Struan Stevenson, a member of the European parliament who chairs the European Parliaments Delegation for Relations with Iraq warned that Iraq is plummeting rapidly towards civil war and genocide. According to his estimation an onslaught against supposed Al Qaeda terrorists in 6 Iraqi Provinces is no more than a cover for the annihilation of those parties opposed to the increasingly sectarian policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Stevensons further warned that claims by al-Maliki were "utter nonsense". Still, he had convinced his allies that he is fighting a war on terror and they are pouring in rockets, drones and other military hardware which Maliki is using to bomb and kill civilian targets".
More: Stop al-Maliki brutality against civilians
While the worlds attention has been fixated on the rapid advance and conquering of territory by ISIS/ISIL in Iraq, a clear shift has taken place in the rhetoric against, and analysis of, Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki and his government. Though he was praised up and down by Washington while US troops remained on Iraqi soil, in the nearly three years since their exit he has transmogrified into a brutal sectarian autocrat evoking the worst aspects of both Saddams regime and that of his Shia neighbors and allies in Iran. What could possibly account for such a dramatic about-face?
Today Iraq is at war, and in danger of breaking apart. With Islamist militants and Sunni insurgents fighting a war against the government in Baghdad, the country is headed for total collapse and partition. But this war did not start with ISIS conquering Mosul. It did not start with Maliki consolidating power. It began before the last US troops ever left Iraq. It began when Maliki decided that he would not be cowed by US threats and diktats. It began the second Iraq tried to assert itself independently. And for this, Iraq is paying the ultimate price.
More: The Strange Case of Nouri al-Maliki | New Eastern Outlook
This was easily foreseeable as Maliki (Shiite) and his cronies continued to brutally consolidate their sectarian power in government and military to the exclusion of other sects.
Since the end of 2012, many peaceful protests have been organized throughout Iraq against the sectarian policy and continuing human rights violations committed by Malikis forces, whose crackdowns against protests became increasingly draconian over the time. Mass campaigns of arbitrary arrests became the rule rather than the exception, execution rates rose to record levels, next to an alarmingly increasing number of target killings of opposition leaders. The official justification by the government for its excessive use of force was always national security, however very soon it became clear, that the governments proclaimed fight against terrorism was mainly aimed against al Malikis opponents.
The opposition to the human rights violations committed by the al-Maliki Regimes was especially strong in the Anbar province. In order to have an official justification to act against the uprisings al-Maliki thus declared protest camps as infiltrated by terrorists even if such claims never proved to be true. Despite the obvious groundlessness of the allegations the government continued to accuse those who criticise the regime of being terrorists. In December 2013, apparently as a show-off of power in view of his decreasing popularity ahead of the upcoming elections in April, Prime Minister Maliki then increased the already high level of pressure on the protestors.
During all the Iraqi PM al-Maliki publicly vowed to eliminate "all terrorist groups" and called to fight with all means. Several times he came out on TV inciting his followers with sectarian language to support him at all means in his fight against the inhabitants of the al-Anbar province. In view of the in discriminatory attacks by the al-Maliki forces and their well known brutality the residents of the city then founded a Council and decided that the city would defend itself against a possible attack. It is therefore important to understand that those residents who are presented as terrorists are defending themselves out of fear against Malikis forces and that they are ordinary citizens, in no way affiliated to any terrorist group.
Al Malikis official portrayal of terrorists brought him the immediate support from the USA as well as from Iran and Russia. Other voices however, such as a the senior EU lawmaker Struan Stevenson, a member of the European parliament who chairs the European Parliaments Delegation for Relations with Iraq warned that Iraq is plummeting rapidly towards civil war and genocide. According to his estimation an onslaught against supposed Al Qaeda terrorists in 6 Iraqi Provinces is no more than a cover for the annihilation of those parties opposed to the increasingly sectarian policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Stevensons further warned that claims by al-Maliki were "utter nonsense". Still, he had convinced his allies that he is fighting a war on terror and they are pouring in rockets, drones and other military hardware which Maliki is using to bomb and kill civilian targets".
More: Stop al-Maliki brutality against civilians
While the worlds attention has been fixated on the rapid advance and conquering of territory by ISIS/ISIL in Iraq, a clear shift has taken place in the rhetoric against, and analysis of, Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki and his government. Though he was praised up and down by Washington while US troops remained on Iraqi soil, in the nearly three years since their exit he has transmogrified into a brutal sectarian autocrat evoking the worst aspects of both Saddams regime and that of his Shia neighbors and allies in Iran. What could possibly account for such a dramatic about-face?
Today Iraq is at war, and in danger of breaking apart. With Islamist militants and Sunni insurgents fighting a war against the government in Baghdad, the country is headed for total collapse and partition. But this war did not start with ISIS conquering Mosul. It did not start with Maliki consolidating power. It began before the last US troops ever left Iraq. It began when Maliki decided that he would not be cowed by US threats and diktats. It began the second Iraq tried to assert itself independently. And for this, Iraq is paying the ultimate price.
More: The Strange Case of Nouri al-Maliki | New Eastern Outlook
This was easily foreseeable as Maliki (Shiite) and his cronies continued to brutally consolidate their sectarian power in government and military to the exclusion of other sects.
You blame everyone but Obama, interesting.
An honest person would point out that, even though Bush negotiated the withdrawal of troops that, suddenly, Obama is saying he had nothing to do with, Obama did have the opportunity to actually keep troops in Iraq. In fact,the government really wanted us to keep some troops there to provide extra training and support to their men.
Said honest person would also point out that, even though Maliki was killing people left and right, Obama never actually made an issue of it.
That person would then point out that the Iraqi government has been asking for help from the US for a year in regards to dealing with ISIL and other groups, and that Obama conditioned that support on the government of Iraq doing the impossible, reaching a diplomatic solution that had no winners, and no losers, with groups whose only aim was to wipe out that government.
That honest person would point all this out, and leave me wondering if Obama spent to much time playing games where everybody gets a trophy.
I suspect most of my friends on the right can only think to blame Obama - without ever giving Nouri al-Maliki a second thought.
Since the end of 2012, many peaceful protests have been organized throughout Iraq against the sectarian policy and continuing human rights violations committed by Malikis forces, whose crackdowns against protests became increasingly draconian over the time. Mass campaigns of arbitrary arrests became the rule rather than the exception, execution rates rose to record levels, next to an alarmingly increasing number of target killings of opposition leaders. The official justification by the government for its excessive use of force was always national security, however very soon it became clear, that the governments proclaimed fight against terrorism was mainly aimed against al Malikis opponents.
The opposition to the human rights violations committed by the al-Maliki Regimes was especially strong in the Anbar province. In order to have an official justification to act against the uprisings al-Maliki thus declared protest camps as infiltrated by terrorists even if such claims never proved to be true. Despite the obvious groundlessness of the allegations the government continued to accuse those who criticise the regime of being terrorists. In December 2013, apparently as a show-off of power in view of his decreasing popularity ahead of the upcoming elections in April, Prime Minister Maliki then increased the already high level of pressure on the protestors.
During all the Iraqi PM al-Maliki publicly vowed to eliminate "all terrorist groups" and called to fight with all means. Several times he came out on TV inciting his followers with sectarian language to support him at all means in his fight against the inhabitants of the al-Anbar province. In view of the in discriminatory attacks by the al-Maliki forces and their well known brutality the residents of the city then founded a Council and decided that the city would defend itself against a possible attack. It is therefore important to understand that those residents who are presented as terrorists are defending themselves out of fear against Malikis forces and that they are ordinary citizens, in no way affiliated to any terrorist group.
Al Malikis official portrayal of terrorists brought him the immediate support from the USA as well as from Iran and Russia. Other voices however, such as a the senior EU lawmaker Struan Stevenson, a member of the European parliament who chairs the European Parliaments Delegation for Relations with Iraq warned that Iraq is plummeting rapidly towards civil war and genocide. According to his estimation an onslaught against supposed Al Qaeda terrorists in 6 Iraqi Provinces is no more than a cover for the annihilation of those parties opposed to the increasingly sectarian policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Stevensons further warned that claims by al-Maliki were "utter nonsense". Still, he had convinced his allies that he is fighting a war on terror and they are pouring in rockets, drones and other military hardware which Maliki is using to bomb and kill civilian targets".
More: Stop al-Maliki brutality against civilians
While the worlds attention has been fixated on the rapid advance and conquering of territory by ISIS/ISIL in Iraq, a clear shift has taken place in the rhetoric against, and analysis of, Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki and his government. Though he was praised up and down by Washington while US troops remained on Iraqi soil, in the nearly three years since their exit he has transmogrified into a brutal sectarian autocrat evoking the worst aspects of both Saddams regime and that of his Shia neighbors and allies in Iran. What could possibly account for such a dramatic about-face?
Today Iraq is at war, and in danger of breaking apart. With Islamist militants and Sunni insurgents fighting a war against the government in Baghdad, the country is headed for total collapse and partition. But this war did not start with ISIS conquering Mosul. It did not start with Maliki consolidating power. It began before the last US troops ever left Iraq. It began when Maliki decided that he would not be cowed by US threats and diktats. It began the second Iraq tried to assert itself independently. And for this, Iraq is paying the ultimate price.
More: The Strange Case of Nouri al-Maliki | New Eastern Outlook
This was easily foreseeable as Maliki (Shiite) and his cronies continued to brutally consolidate their sectarian power in government and military to the exclusion of other sects.
You blame everyone but Obama, interesting.
An honest person would point out that, even though Bush negotiated the withdrawal of troops that, suddenly, Obama is saying he had nothing to do with, Obama did have the opportunity to actually keep troops in Iraq. In fact,the government really wanted us to keep some troops there to provide extra training and support to their men.
Said honest person would also point out that, even though Maliki was killing people left and right, Obama never actually made an issue of it.
That person would then point out that the Iraqi government has been asking for help from the US for a year in regards to dealing with ISIL and other groups, and that Obama conditioned that support on the government of Iraq doing the impossible, reaching a diplomatic solution that had no winners, and no losers, with groups whose only aim was to wipe out that government.
That honest person would point all this out, and leave me wondering if Obama spent to much time playing games where everybody gets a trophy.
Aren't you clowns about running out of ways to spin that?
What spin ? Obama claims that he couldn't have kept troops in Iraq if he wanted too.
Please explain to us, in credible terms, how Obama could have kept troops in Iraq after being told by a sovereign democracy to get the fuck out. There was only ONE way Obama could have kept troops there - subject them to Iraqi law. Obama wouldn't allow that, and no sane American should have wanted that. Why do you hate the troops?
What spin ? Obama claims that he couldn't have kept troops in Iraq if he wanted too.
Please explain to us, in credible terms, how Obama could have kept troops in Iraq after being told by a sovereign democracy to get the fuck out. There was only ONE way Obama could have kept troops there - subject them to Iraqi law. Obama wouldn't allow that, and no sane American should have wanted that. Why do you hate the troops?
So Maliki laid out the terms that made it impossible for Obama to keep the troops there even if he wanted to. He sure went out on a limb and made the tough decision there didn't he ?
What spin ? Obama claims that he couldn't have kept troops in Iraq if he wanted too.
Please explain to us, in credible terms, how Obama could have kept troops in Iraq after being told by a sovereign democracy to get the fuck out. There was only ONE way Obama could have kept troops there - subject them to Iraqi law. Obama wouldn't allow that, and no sane American should have wanted that. Why do you hate the troops?
So Maliki laid out the terms that made it impossible for Obama to keep the troops there even if he wanted to. He sure went out on a limb and made the tough decision there didn't he ?
