Arab Leaders "Panic" Over Next US Steps In Iraq

I think the Maliki memo that was leaked was done for a reason, and that most of the leaders in the middle east saw through that. However, the memo I feel is an attempt to set up Maliki as the scape goat. However, Almost no one will accept that at this juncture. The reason is clear. Bush started this war in Iraq thinking the Neo-cons were correct and that there was a need to change Iraq into a nation that the US would find as a stable country in the Mideast. However, even tho there was a perceived need, the reality is that it ain't a gonna happen.

Almost everyone knows that Saddam held the Shi'a at bay in Iran and in Iraq also. Now that Saddam is gone the linchpin in the Mideast is also gone in keeping the Shi'a at bay.

The retribution by the Shi'a for past crimes and atrocities don to them in Iraq will continue until they feel no need to continue. The Shi'a also know that they can have the power to rule Iraq and intend to do so.

The future in the Mideast, I am not prepared to discuss yet, but I see bleak future is all.

It says much when we read that they are "afraid" of what we will do next. Like we are a bunch of violent unpredictable loonies. What else are they supposed to think? They see us as a force to hurt their lives, not help them. What I can see is that al-Sadr will but an end to this nonsense once and for all, and throw us out of there. That ought to help settle things for awhile, or at least.

Of course they're afraid of what we will do next. We HAVE behaved like a bunch of loonies with no concept of the effect what we did might have. Remember that strange statement about us being "reality based" and that being, well, obsolete? Seems that this administration wasn't kidding about that. Well, they've created the current reality in the middle east; and they're no more likely to be "realistic" about it now than they ever were. Keep your fingers crossed!

Ah yes blame the Jews.

Good idea.

It worked very well with Hitler.

Iran and Iraq have been in conflict for decades.

Richard you said:

Almost everyone knows that Saddam held the Shi'a at bay in Iran and in Iraq also.

Actually everyone doesn't know that because it is not true. In 1980 Saddam invaded Iran--it was not provoked by Iran. The only reason it did so is that the revolution in Iran was in full-swing and he thought annexing Khuzestan would be a 'cakewalk' if I may be so bold as to use an anachronism. He wasn't holding the Shi'a back. He invaded them and then we encouraged him by selling him chemical weapons precursors.

As to the Shi'a in Iraq: well, the Sunnis have been lording it over the Shi'a for almost a century now and well, it looks like the worm is turning.

DMP: are you just posting the same inane comment in every thread that has anything to do with the Middle East?

Perhaps the Mideast leadership is waiting, like the rest of us, to see what happens when the Dems take Congress and hearings begin. It is possible all Bush plans are moot. They probably view America as leaderless. Certainly Bush support among Repubs in Congress will erode. He either locks down the government by executive impasse or cooperates with new plans. As it stands his ideas are rehashing of old ones for the same objective: making Iraq friendly for oil companies.

Yes Sean-Paul 1980 in the Iraq/Iran war Saddam went after the oil in the southwest of Iran in the Khuzestan area. It was 1980 just a few years after the US lost the Shaw of Iran in the Ayatollah Khomeini revolution. However, did the CIA encourage him in that effort? The US, France and Russia sold Saddam the chemical weapons for that war which he used.

But did the CIA also push him?

Iran tho was not about to lose that area as it is thought of in Iran as the area first colonized by the Persians and is refereed to as the 'birth place of the nation.'

And I would assume that Saddam thought it would be no problem and he could pick up more oil, however, it was a problem as Iran fought back to save their birthplace.

Where did the US and the CIA fit in that picture?

Did the US use Saddam in that effort?

Anyway, I certainly don't know the answers, and I also understand your point above also.

Years later Saddam went after the oil in Kuwait, and that didn't work out very well for him either.

However, I still think that Saddam was the CIA's man in the Mideast and was used by them as the linchpin to hold the Persians (Iranians) and the Arab Shiites at bay, because the US certainly didn't like losing the Shaw of Iran in the Ayatollah Khomeini revolution..

Just nuke 'em, right DMP? Reinstate the draft. Declare martial law. Suspend the Constitution. (Oops, already did that.) Lets send another 16 million Americans back to war like the good old days. We can get the Brits to cough up and few million soldiers, and hey the Ruskies will easily chip in another 20 million just for old times sake. Nothing like the glory days of World War. And listen, if the raghead endured some chem weapons before, why should we worry about cooking some more Iranians? Then when all of the evil dooers are toast, the rest will line the streets, throwing flowers and buxom girls, lonely for REAL AMERICAN men will be plentyful as stars. Ah Paris, 1944. If we carpet bomb their cities maybe when "they" surrender all their troops will line the road with backs toward our next McArthur in sign of submission.

If you want to spout off nonsense, you might as well follow your philosophy to its logical conclusions.

About the situation changing when the current generation of Arab radicals start "dying off"? Since we killed quite a few of them, I doubt that their kids are going to look real favorable on the good old the US of A.

No, DMP I'm not going anywhere. Somebody has to keep ignorant and dangerous morons like you in check. Your type of 6 gun logic got us into this disaster. Too bad most of what you spout is not worth debate. I'd like to hear one coherant agrument that's worth comment. You think our nation is spotless? You think citizens don't have the duty and right to challenge our governments actions? You pass high school civics??

Chew on this one: American gunboats assisted the Brits in shelling China during the 19th century to force the Chinese ports open. Why? To allow British sponsered opium trade. See the Chinese were trying to save their people from the curse but that wasn't making us money. Look it up.

America is the finest nation in the world. Some times we make mistakes, like all nations. On rare occasions we elect despotic rulers who flout the law and subvert the Constitiuion. They have their deluded supporters in the populace, like you; people who have no clue what it is to be an American. It is up to the rest of us to keep the poison in check. I can play all the hardball you want but your not much of a match.

DMP you are a riot. I'm glad to know you have a smattering of history. That's a start. No, I did not claim every problem in the world is "America's Fault." If I were ashamed of America I would not be mad as hell at the morons who are in power. It is the honor and promise of our great nation soiled and disgraced by these bastards that enrages me. Yet unless we admit our mistakes and DEAL with them on those who sinned in OUR name we are not worthy of our citizenship.

Bush would have to be 160 years old to participate in the opium wars. I don't know how we would have reacted to a Brit request for gunboats but given the wisdom shown so far one would wonder.