Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki meets with Ahmadenijad in Baghdad, offers him assurances of Iraq's friendly intentions.
« Bad Questions | Main | Except for Disagreements, They Agree »
Appeasement
08 Jun 2008 07:43 pm
Comments (21)
Who knew we had to worry about the new, freely elected Iraqi government appeasing regional power-grabbers. I thought since we set them up with a nice, pro-American democracy we'd locked isht down nice and tight.
I'd always figured black liberals were the real potential appeasers. Color me gob-smacked.
So true. And do you remember when Ahmadenijad visited Iraq some months ago and was greeted on a red carpet? Out in the open air. Why do US officials have to sneak in to Iraq under cover of fighter jets an armed convoy? Iran's Shia and Iraq's Shia whom the US put in power have excellent relations. So what in heaven are we talkng about?
One more bit of evidence that McCain is an absolute fool these days. Whereas before I might have just thought McCain's policies were wrong, now I realize they and the man would be a total disaster for the country.
We cannot allow Obama to lose or for McCain to become president. There is way too much at stake.
Clearly this merits a speech to the Knesset.
As a correspondent of mine pointed out, just how exactly is Maliki going to prevent the US from attacking Iran from Iraqi territory with FIFTY AIR BASES located in Iraq under the deal the US is pushing him to sign off on?
This guy is truly between a rock and a hard place. If he upsets the Iranians, he's a goner. If he upsets the US, he's a goner. If he doesn't crush Sadr by the provincial elections this fall, and the parliamentary elections next year, he's a goner. If he doesn't appease Sistani, he's a goner.
Dude has absolutely no future except as an exile in London - something I'm sure he's familiar with.
Ah, what a shock. Further developments: it turns out that Maliki belongs to a party that doesn't just appease terrorist groups like Dawa, but actually, from the beginning, was allied with them and planned, with them, attacks on American embassies, as well as the kidnapping of various American and western personages in Beirut in the eighties to trade for the Dawa 19, who were captured, in Kuwait, plotting an attack on the American embassy.
It is important to emphasize, over and over, that American foreign policy does not have clear lines dividing us from them, but is more a matter of pick up sticks, with the U.S. being "captured" by Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan - in the way that regulatory agencies can be captured. Shifts in their interests become, seamlessly, shifts in ours.
Of course, not a paper in America will ever tell its readers that, incidentally, you remember those Hezbollah guys? The ones that blew up the embassy and the marine barracks in Beirut in the 80s? We are fighting for them in Iraq? Is that beautiful or what?
As long as we can pretend this isn't so, we can pretend that there is some deep, moral interest that guides American policy. Which is why it is important to dissolve that moral mirage. The D.C. establishment has no concern with allying itself with its "enemies" if it is convenient. That in itself is to be expected - states have state interest. Our interest is to make peace with the oil producers in the Middle East, including Iran, and de-emphasize, as much as we can, our failing policy of militarizing the area.
I have it on good authority that "Nouri" is Arabic for "Neville."
Well, then, I am sure Iran agreed to never, ever, seek nuclear weapons in advance of that meeting.
Further evidence to support the contention that even "victory" in Iraq on Bush and McSame's terms is tantamount to defeat.
Don't cry for old Nouri al-Maliki. Like most 3rd world leaders, his Swiss bank account is fat and I'm sure he has an expansive London flat.
If he can slip out of the country at the right time, he'll be living large on alot of stolen American money.
Nouri al-Maliki, like the Israelis, has apparently forgotten that the "false comfort of appeasement has been repeatedly discredited by history."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=92786
It is of course ridiculous to apply "appeasement" to this kind of contact between neighbors with a lot of legitimate issues to discuss--obviously, Matt was tongue in cheek.
Maliki, who as far as I know has never even been to Britain, and whose personal finances are surely a total mystery to those pretending otherwise here, took refuge from Saddam's persecution in...Iran. He still doesn't speak the language (note the translator in the video of the meeting), but has reasonably good relations with the Iranian leadership. This, in my view, is an unqualified Good Thing.
Iran is a big, important country that's been a regional power for thousands of years. Sooner or later we're going to have to work out some sort of detente based on our several areas of mutual interest. It's hard to imagine a better go-between in this process than our allies in the freely-elected government of Iraq. Maliki can reassure the Iranians that only a handful of lunatics on the margins of our society consider an American strike on Teheran plausible, and can act much more effectively to explain our actual intentions than some greenhorns from Washington parachuted in without appropriate preparation. In the other direction, Maliki will most likely convey to us a much more realistic picture of Iranian positions than mis-translated blather in the press from and about the increasingly irrelevant Achmadinejad.
Reading down though the comment thread is heartening. With the defense secretary's recent comments one begins to feel that there is a chance that we may reach a rational accommodation before starting another pointless and futile war. I hope the VP and the Israelis don't cook something up first.
For a second there I was sure this appeasement post was about the Lakers defense...
The paint must be the Sudatenland...
From an Iranian perspective: The people running the governments of both Iraq and Iran are neither Iraqi nor Iranian. Look at any of their bios: Maliki grew up in Iran, Chalabi worked for Iran, lots of the Iranian leaders grew up in and have family in Iraq... Probably all of them are dual citizens.
Makes screwing the populace of both countries that much easier.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki meets with Ahmadenijad in Baghdad
Can't hardly blame Maliki, as the news reports that Iran is going to base their oil on the Euro standard now and not the US dollar anymore. I guess big oil has had it's glory days with Bush in office but it's looks more and more like Western oil contractors are going to be largely shut-out of Iraq's best deals.
And Bush can't very well talk about WMD anymore, not without sounding like a bomb happy lunatic.
"And Bush can't very well talk about WMD anymore, not without sounding like a bomb happy lunatic."
The Perle cabal doesn't care what they or their stooges (G.W. Bush) sound like. They know the media is already in the bag for Iran and that feckless Jewish "liberals" like Keith Olbermann wouldn't dare make the claim that Jewish neocons are behind all the talk of "obliterating Iran." They don't care that there's no appetite in America for another War., whether it be against Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. As far as they're concerned - Bush-Cheney's already on board, Admiral Fallon is gone, and the Democratic Leadership won't do a thing. Obama's still in his AIPAC groveling position and if Chuck Hagel or Dick Lugar raise a peep - they can easily be branded "anti-Semites" by a compliant media. Who's gonna stop the bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bombing of Iran? Ron Paul? Pete Seeger? Jon Stewart?
"Maliki can reassure the Iranians that only a handful of lunatics on the margins of our society consider an American strike on Teheran plausible"
The lunatic H Clinton, and the lunatic J McClain included..
Stop clowning around, dave. There is no possible way outside of space-alien, Zionazi world conspiracy-theory hallucination that a vote for Kyle-Lieberman has anything at all to do with authorizing a war with Iran. Take a breath.
Powell, take your propaganda bullshit down the road.
Daniel Pipes just said that if Obama wins in November, Bush will attack Iran in November. If McCain wins, he'll let McCain do it. Personally I think that's incorrect, but it's possible. I think Bush will attack Iran regardless of who wins, and in fact will do so before November in order to give McCain a "war bounce". Plenty of people, like Scott Ritter, Ray McGovern, Philip Giraldi and others agree with me.
Your constant bullshit about how war with Iran is
"impossible" is going to make you look even more stupid than you already do over Iraq when Bush starts it. However, I know the real reason you engage in this bullshit.
Your propaganda is just intended to lull people to sleep over it so there won't be any outcry in advance. Unfortunately, you don't have any influence over the numerous experts who DO know the threat is real and who have the ear of more Web sites than you do.
You're truly scum, Powell.
Comments closed June 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Gee, I wonder which talking head will be the first to quiz McCain whether this meeting should have happened without any preconditions and with the outcome assured before occurring (as we're told is required for U.S. presidents to meet foreign heads of state)? And if not does McCain approve of the meeting? And then query him further as to whether his answer to that question is either "yes" or "no" and why?
Posted by steve duncan | June 8, 2008 8:40 PM