Comments on: Carl Levin Recommends Throwing Out Iraqi Government http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/carl-levin/2007/08/31/ An independent perspective on the Australian and global investment markets Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:27:32 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: zog http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/carl-levin/2007/08/31/comment-page-1/#comment-3109 zog Sat, 01 Sep 2007 08:08:54 +0000 http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/carl-levin/2007/08/31/#comment-3109 I wonder if Maliki has read about the US treatment of the elected president of South Vietnam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem worthwhile reading for him about how he may be treated now that Bush has invoked the Vietnam comparison I wonder if Maliki has read about the US treatment of the elected president of South Vietnam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

worthwhile reading for him about how he may be treated now that Bush has invoked the Vietnam comparison

]]> By: Coffee Addict http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/carl-levin/2007/08/31/comment-page-1/#comment-3107 Coffee Addict Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:35:34 +0000 http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/carl-levin/2007/08/31/#comment-3107 Bill The only person who can hold Iraq together is Muqtada al-Sadr. This is because he has credibility in both Shi’a and Sunni camps. He is not a nice guy. He is aligned with Iran in many ways but is also a staunch nationalist is nobody's puppet. My guess is that if the US and its allies left Iraq, a power vaccuum would emerge allowing al-Sadr to fill the gap. Carl Levin is correct but he would be wrong to think that the US can simply appoint a successor to al-Maliki. Should Al-Sadr (hypothetically) take over at some stage, US and it allies will be spared the continued cost of an unwinnable conflict, war profiteers will lose their income, the killing will stop and al-Qaeda will be booted out along with other foreign combatants. The Bush camp know this and perhaps this is why CIA editors have allowed the Wiki entry on al-Sadr to remain reasonably balanced. What the neocons (including Bush) can’t tolerate is the mutuality between the al-Sadr camp and Iran. My thinking is that a Democrat Government will be more pragmatic in the way it would put national, economic and humanitarian interests before ideological dogma (or the theocracy of capitalism as it is sometimes referred to this site). The economic outome of such a political shift in Iraq would of course be mixed but with plug in cars and other hybrid vehicles on the drawing boards I am with the necons in hoping that reliance on Middle East oil can be significantly reduced. Bill

The only person who can hold Iraq together is Muqtada al-Sadr. This is because he has credibility in both Shi’a and Sunni camps. He is not a nice guy. He is aligned with Iran in many ways but is also a staunch nationalist is nobody's puppet.

My guess is that if the US and its allies left Iraq, a power vaccuum would emerge allowing al-Sadr to fill the gap.

Carl Levin is correct but he would be wrong to think that the US can simply appoint a successor to al-Maliki.

Should Al-Sadr (hypothetically) take over at some stage, US and it allies will be spared the continued cost of an unwinnable conflict, war profiteers will lose their income, the killing will stop and al-Qaeda will be booted out along with other foreign combatants. The Bush camp know this and perhaps this is why CIA editors have allowed the Wiki entry on al-Sadr to remain reasonably balanced.

What the neocons (including Bush) can’t tolerate is the mutuality between the al-Sadr camp and Iran.

My thinking is that a Democrat Government will be more pragmatic in the way it would put national, economic and humanitarian interests before ideological dogma (or the theocracy of capitalism as it is sometimes referred to this site).

The economic outome of such a political shift in Iraq would of course be mixed but with plug in cars and other hybrid vehicles on the drawing boards I am with the necons in hoping that reliance on Middle East oil can be significantly reduced.

]]>