Pages: 1 2

 

2007-01-11 10:55:17
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6253285.stm

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki is living "on borrowed time".

Nice to know Condi and USA stand so fervently behind the democratically elected (lol) leader of Iraq! What do they suggest: if the 'democratically elected' (lol) leader doesn't fulfill some US task are they gonna revert to a dictatorship or something?

I think Maliki is a soft cunt myself but that doesn't deter from the fact that the US are subtly casting aspersions on what they hailed as the 'first democratically elected' (lol) leader of the new, free Iraq!! Now it's "Democracy FTL!".

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-11 10:58:27)

2007-01-11 10:57:44
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7074

Maybe they'll hang him too...
2007-01-11 10:58:09
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|7055|Washington, DC

"Living on borrowed time" sounds like an assassination threat. Just what we need: first we send more guys to get killed, then we kill the democratically elected leader!
2007-01-11 11:00:05
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio
Nice (lol) post (lol).  Condi is a tool anyway.  She should not be allowed to speak.(lol)
2007-01-11 11:03:13
EVieira
Member
+105|6903|Lutenblaag, Molvania
Jeez Iraq is a mess. When I think of the money and resources spent on this adventure,  I wonder how long the US can hold out. Hopefully long enough.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-01-11 11:04:30
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7006|SE London

He is living on borrowed time. He is a weak president who cannot control his nation in any way shape or form. He is a failure, much like the occupation of Iraq. As Ming Campbell put it "you don't reinforce failure", a saying that I believe is particularly appropriate to Bush's Iraq strategy.

Pouring more troops into Iraq and getting more of them into urban areas rather than fortified bases will dramatically increase casualties. This will decrease already diminished public support. With 70% of the American public (BBC R4) against sending the 20'000 extra troops in, I expect we will see a drastic drop in support for Bush.
2007-01-11 11:05:54
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|7077

ghettoperson wrote:

Maybe they'll hang him too...
dumbass...the Iraquis hung Sadaam, not he US
2007-01-11 11:16:52
EVieira
Member
+105|6903|Lutenblaag, Molvania

sgt_mango333 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Maybe they'll hang him too...
dumbass...the Iraquis hung Sadaam, not he US
Thats right, the US just toppled his government, captured Saddam and handed him over to a really fair trial. There was nothing the US could do to keep him from being hanged or sent to an international court...

/sarcasm
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-01-11 11:18:51
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

EVieira wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Maybe they'll hang him too...
dumbass...the Iraquis hung Sadaam, not he US
Thats right, the US just toppled his government, captured Saddam and handed him over to a really fair trial. There was nothing the US could do to keep him from being hanged or sent to an international court...

/sarcasm
What would you people rather have?  Put him in prison so a group of people can hijack a 747 and demand his release then blow it up over Scotland?  Amazing how all of you have everything figured out.
2007-01-11 11:21:56
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7074

sgt_mango333 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Maybe they'll hang him too...
dumbass...the Iraquis hung Sadaam, not he US
IRONYYYYYY!

Oh, and that wasn't any kind of 'anti-US' comment about them hanging Saddam. Just that hanging leaders seems to be popular around there.
2007-01-11 11:24:29
sgt_mango333
Member
+31|7077
Actually, you are right.  The US should have ignored all the reports coming in from all over the world and left Sadaam in power with God knows what.

/back at ya

Maliki's borrowed time is in reference to his inability to unite the country he is supposed to be leading.  The "new" plan calls for a withdrawl date 1.5 years from now.  That's how much time he has and it's not much; borrowed time.  The US is trying to set the country free and the Iraqui people aren't stepping up, which is why the whole thing has turned sour.  No one is threatening assasination or casting aspersions.  Maliki has been warned to make the best use of the presence of US forces before they are no longer available.
2007-01-11 11:57:47
EVieira
Member
+105|6903|Lutenblaag, Molvania

usmarine2007 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:


dumbass...the Iraquis hung Sadaam, not he US
Thats right, the US just toppled his government, captured Saddam and handed him over to a really fair trial. There was nothing the US could do to keep him from being hanged or sent to an international court...

/sarcasm
What would you people rather have?  Put him in prison so a group of people can hijack a 747 and demand his release then blow it up over Scotland?  Amazing how all of you have everything figured out.
I don't care, I'm glad he's gone. But to say the US had nothing to do with what happened to him... please...
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-01-11 12:14:59
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7072|Peoria
Can anyone say, "Mohammed Mossadegh"?
2007-01-11 12:17:45
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio
Mohammed Mossadegh
2007-01-11 12:50:34
Jepeto87
Member
+38|7110|Dublin

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Actually, you are right.  The US should have ignored all the reports coming in from all over the world and left Sadaam in power with God knows what.

/back at ya
He had nothing!
2007-01-11 12:51:51
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

Jepeto87 wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Actually, you are right.  The US should have ignored all the reports coming in from all over the world and left Sadaam in power with God knows what.

/back at ya
He had nothing!
Hey...hind site 20/20 working good for ya?
2007-01-11 12:56:23
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7254

Jepeto87 wrote:

sgt_mango333 wrote:

Actually, you are right.  The US should have ignored all the reports coming in from all over the world and left Sadaam in power with God knows what.

/back at ya
He had nothing!
Actually he did. Just not the amounts we wanted.
2007-01-11 13:15:54
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7074

Elamdri wrote:

Can anyone say, "Mohammed Mossadegh"?
I'm having some trouble saying his last name...
2007-01-11 13:16:57
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

ghettoperson wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Can anyone say, "Mohammed Mossadegh"?
I'm having some trouble saying his last name...
dirka dirka
2007-01-11 13:17:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7006|SE London

usmarine2007 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Can anyone say, "Mohammed Mossadegh"?
I'm having some trouble saying his last name...
dirka dirka
Mohammed Jihad
2007-01-11 13:18:57
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980

Elamdri wrote:

Can anyone say, "Mohammed Mossadegh"?
What has the Iranian architect of a failed state got to do with this? And it's 'Mossadeq' btw.

The state failed because he tried to nationalise oil and the CIA, and British secret service ousted him in a coup btw. I'm reading a book on the modern history of Iran atm.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-11 13:21:40)

2007-01-11 13:24:45
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

CameronPoe wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Can anyone say, "Mohammed Mossadegh"?
What has the Iranian architect of a failed state got to do with this? And it's 'Mossadeq' btw.

The state failed because he tried to nationalise oil and the CIA, and British secret service ousted him in a coup btw. I'm reading a book on the modern history of Iran atm.
Maybe Sinn Fein could intervene and help produce peace.
2007-01-11 13:45:07
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

usmarine2007 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Can anyone say, "Mohammed Mossadegh"?
What has the Iranian architect of a failed state got to do with this? And it's 'Mossadeq' btw.

The state failed because he tried to nationalise oil and the CIA, and British secret service ousted him in a coup btw. I'm reading a book on the modern history of Iran atm.
Maybe Sinn Fein could intervene and help produce peace.
Lovely comment.
2007-01-11 13:55:58
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|7072|Peoria

CameronPoe wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Can anyone say, "Mohammed Mossadegh"?
What has the Iranian architect of a failed state got to do with this? And it's 'Mossadeq' btw.

The state failed because he tried to nationalise oil and the CIA, and British secret service ousted him in a coup btw. I'm reading a book on the modern history of Iran atm.
The Mossadeq spelling is up in the air, Arabic translations differ, I believe the Mossadeq is a new way to translate the name, but its not standard yet. When I took a course on international study last semester, my book spelled it Mossadegh.

I cited him because it shows the American tendency to take issues with the democratically elected in nations where they have interests. Mossadegh was overthrown by the CIA and British intelligence, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was democratically elected.

I just think when the US trys to spead democracy, we should say what we mean.

"We want to spead democracy in the third world but you can only elect people who will bend over backwards for our interests."

Now, I'm not sayings the the new PM is exactly the best guy, but we've had the election and yet now the state decides that it wants to bitch about the choices that they made, despite the fact that all this time we've been told this is all about give the people a choice.
2007-01-11 14:20:04
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6746|South Carolina, US

Elamdri wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Can anyone say, "Mohammed Mossadegh"?
What has the Iranian architect of a failed state got to do with this? And it's 'Mossadeq' btw.

The state failed because he tried to nationalise oil and the CIA, and British secret service ousted him in a coup btw. I'm reading a book on the modern history of Iran atm.
The Mossadeq spelling is up in the air, Arabic translations differ, I believe the Mossadeq is a new way to translate the name, but its not standard yet. When I took a course on international study last semester, my book spelled it Mossadegh.

I cited him because it shows the American tendency to take issues with the democratically elected in nations where they have interests. Mossadegh was overthrown by the CIA and British intelligence, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was democratically elected.

I just think when the US trys to spead democracy, we should say what we mean.

"We want to spead democracy in the third world but you can only elect people who will bend over backwards for our interests."

Now, I'm not sayings the the new PM is exactly the best guy, but we've had the election and yet now the state decides that it wants to bitch about the choices that they made, despite the fact that all this time we've been told this is all about give the people a choice.
I think it's fairly obvious that we don't want just plain old democracy. After all, Hamas was an elected government. Ideally, the elected government would be a constitutional republic with civil rights and limits on the government, but as we all know the US usually settles for pro-US people of any type.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard