The nerve of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki

[Socrtease]

To meet with the Iranians when they are our puppet.

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- The biggest hurdle standing in the way of peace in Iraq is the presence of American troops there, Iran's Supreme Leader told Iraq's visiting prime minister on Monday, according to Iranian media reports.

Iran's semi-official FARS news agency reported that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki during their meeting on Monday that the U.S. role in Iraq is the same as that of Iraq's former British rulers -- to create divisions after Iraq's independence.

"We are certain that the Iraqi people, through their will and unity, will cross the current difficult conditions and will reach the place that they deserve, and the Americans' dream about Iraq will not come true, " said Khamenei, according to FARS.

"The occupiers who, without having any rights, interfere in Iraqi affairs through their military and security powers, imagine that the Iraqi people and government are indebted to them," he said. "These are the greatest threat."

Get the rest of the story here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/09/iraq.iran/index.html

 

[Socrtease]

From deeper in the story. The most interesting aspect in my opinion.

The proposed U.S.-Iraqi pact has triggered street protests in Iraq, where many suspect the deal could lead to the establishment of American bases, a long-term presence of U.S. troops and a weakening of Iraqi government control over those troops.

 

[blackascoal]

From deeper in the story. The most interesting aspect in my opinion.

Here's a good question/proposal ...

Let's ask the Iraqis if we should stay or go

excerpt --

"In light of the improvement in security over the last year, you would expect most Iraqis to have a new appreciation for our efforts. Before the surge, Iraqi civilians were dying at the rate of more than 3,000 a month. This year, it's been fewer than 1,000 a month. So it might make sense to keep the Americans around for a while.

But that was not the prevailing sentiment last week among Mr. al-Sadr's followers. The proposed deal has also been denounced by the head of a Shiite party that is part of the ruling government, as well as the country's premier Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

It's not the prevailing sentiment among the Shiites' main rivals, either. A February poll found that 73 percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of foreign troops in Iraq - including 77 percent of Shiites and 95 percent of Sunnis.

Americans spend a lot of time debating the question of whether we should remain in Iraq. What never seems to occur to us is to ask the Iraqis the same question. Mr. al-Sadr is demanding that any agreement be put to a national referendum. We ought to endorse that approach, asking the government to let Iraqis vote on whether we should stay or go.

The U.S. went into Iraq five years ago to liberate the country from a tyrant. We have made war on al-Qaida in Iraq, whose tactics managed to alienate even their Sunni allies. Lately, we've also established comparative tranquillity. If there was ever a time when Iraqis could calmly and peacefully weigh in on our presence, it's now.

Every major group has obvious grounds to want us around. We facilitated elections that let the Shiites gain dominance, allowed the Kurds to maintain their autonomy in northern Iraq and brought Sunni militias over to our side. In short, we've done something for everyone.

Yet all indications are that Iraqis can unite behind only one proposition: Yankee, go home! If that's the case - or even if it's not - how can we justify not letting them express their preference? How can we say that the people we have tried to bless with democracy should be denied a democratic means of resolving the issue?

And why on Earth should we mind? If the issue were put to a vote, one of two things could happen. The first is that Iraqis would make it clear they don't want us around anymore and are ready to take over full responsibility for their affairs. In that case, we can hit the exits with a clear conscience. The second is that they would have a sudden change of heart, realize they can't manage without us and ask us to stay. That would not convince many Americans who think the potential gains to our security are not worth the cost, but it would surely strengthen the argument for staying.

In November, Americans will get to vote in what amounts to a referendum on the U.S. role in Iraq. Why should we be the only ones?"

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chapman09jun09,0,7443800.story?track=rss

It would be the democratic thing to do, would it not?

 

[Socrtease]

We don't care if the majority of AMERICANS want us out of Iraq what could possibly make you think we would two shits what a majority of Iraqi's want for their country. All that matters is that we are fighting the war on Terra. And that my good sir takes place in Iraq where the terrorists that crashed those planes came from.

 

[blackascoal]

We don't care if the majority of AMERICANS want us out of Iraq what could possibly make you think we would two shits what a majority of Iraqi's want for their country. All that matters is that we are fighting the war on Terra. And that my good sir takes place in Iraq where the terrorists that crashed those planes came from.

If only those said terrorists did come from Iraq that might be a point.

My point is the only people who want us there are a very small percentage of Americans.

Why can't we end this .. easily?