Maliki went to IRAN to meet with al-Sadr

[Wetzelbill]

And while he was there, he was the one who asked for the cease fire. Nevermind that McCain, the great foreign policy and national security expert, said that it was al-Sadr who asked for the cease fire and forget that al-Sadr granted it and essentially has the power to turn high levels of violence on and off at will.

What I want to point out is, that after billions - projected trillions- of U.S. dollars spent on this war, and all the blood spilled by our soldiers and the Iraqi people, that IRAN is the preferred mediator in this situation.

So just what exactly has this war been worth anyway? And what does it continue to be fought for?

To make Iran the preeminent power in the region? Because that doesn't sound much like the supposedly worthy cause our administration sold the American people on. Sounds altogether FUBAR to me.

[Bozita]

1. Bullseye! Recommended.

[madokie]

2. a fucked up situation is what bushco has us in

war criminals all of them

[TwilightGardener]

3. Iran will always have far more influence in the region than we ever will--

we have to accept that. We can't fight it. And the whole Sadr thing was just a show of power--he just demonstrated that he can bring Baghdad, and the south of Iraq, to its knees whenever he gives the word. Our control over Iraq and its people is a total illusion.

[Wetzelbill]

5. You honestly have to wonder how this administration

could have thought that we could go into Iraq, a predominantly Shia country, and somehow pull off a cataclysmic revamping of the whole country's political system and overall societal structure and it would still not end up being an Iranian ally. It perplexes me. If you go all the way back to the Sykes-Picot agreement after WW1 when Britain and France basically divvied up the Middle East creating borders without cultural, ethnic or religious consideration, anybody can look at that map and realize that the Iraq-Iran border is simply a manmade one. It makes sense that a repressed Shia population will immediately ally itself with their Iranian cousins, it's not even a question. So what makes the U.S. think we can go in and somehow supercede that special relationship? We can't. We couldn't. I think they just figured we could install Chalabi with no problem and he'd lay the hammer down enough to keep everybody in line the way Saddam did. It's the only thing that makes sense. They just convinced themselves it would be easy to do. Effing ideologues. They blind themselves to the most obvious things.

[Bozita]

7. I've read that GWB first learned of the Sunni/Shi'ia thing in late January of 2003.

It might have been in one of Woodward's books.

[Wetzelbill]

10. Yeah it was at his Super Bowl party

The dissident Iraqi professor who told us we would be given "sweets" by Iraqi's when we went in told was at the WH and had to explain it to Bush. I want to say Al Franken wrote about it in one of his books, I think he talked to the professor, who has since redacted that story, but like anybody is ever going to believe that.

[acmavm]

4. Well then, we certainly have to nuke Iran now, don't we?

dripping :sarcasm:

[Wetzelbill]

6. oh you know it

And you can bet McCain will be conflating Iran with Sunni terror over and over and over. And he was caught doing it, so he might switch up the tact a little, but don't expect him to stop. Bush too. I'd almost be surprised if Bush didn't bomb Iran before he leaves office.

[AzDar]

8. K & R...

:kick:

[JDPriestly]

9. My conspiracy theory re: Iran.

OK, I like to spin wild theories. I don't exactly believe this. I just think it is a possible explanation for what is really doing on. Here goes.

The real conflict is between Saudi Arabia and Iran. They lead opposing sects. Both claim leadership of the Muslim world. Saudia Arabia is in some ways wealthier, but Iran has more land, more people, etc. and is more democratic, like it or not. Therefore, Saudi Arabia is frightened for its life of Iran. Saudi Arabia does not have the population or desire to dirty its hands with raising an army and fighting a war. So it has to hire surrogates, perhaps more honestly called mercenaries.

That is where we (and the British) come into the picture. Saudi Arabia needs soldiers. We need oil. Saudi Arabia sells its oil for our dollars and then loans money to us and buys our failing businesses. We sell the use of our army to Saudi Arabia. Reciprocity is the meat and potatoes of politics.

As a result, over the years, the English and American elites have become closely linked to Saudi Arabia. Bush is but one example of an Anglo-Saxon politician who owes his fame and fortune to the Saudis. As we saw with the British BAE scandal, Britain is also virtually a vassal of Saudi Arabia.

My theory: We are fighting in Iraq because Saudi Arabia wants us to have a military fortress somewhere in the Middle East -- outside Saudi Arabia and as close as possible to Iran.

How long do you think we could survive if Saudi Arabia sold off its interests in the U.S. and stopped loaning us money? Think about that one. We are rapidly becoming quite simply the military tool of Saudi Arabia.

This is a theory. It is not a doctrine. It is not a fact. And what's more, I hope it isn't true. I'm just throwing it out there to see what you think of it. I'd like someone to disprove it if they can. Thanks.

[Wetzelbill]

11. that's relatively accurate, I'm afraid to say

We aren't an absolute tool of the Saudis, because we have interests with Israel too, but yeah, one big reason we are still in Iraq is because the Saudis want us there. If we leave, they are left as the lone apostate regime in the area with two Shia powers and then Israel. Syria is led by an anti-cleric socialist, so yeah they are dictatorial, but the Saudis have big problems with everybody in the region including large parts of their population. They the Royal Family needs us to babysit them all the time and they'll start hurting us financially if we don't. That's why last year after Cheney came back from Saudi Arabia and the administration was getting hammered and pressured into adopting the Baker-Hamilton approach that they went to the well and pulled out the surge instead. The Saudis wanted more boots on the ground, so Cheney called for it as soon as he got back. They went with Fred Kagan's report that he came up with, which was the ideological genesis of the surge. But yeah, when the Saudi's come calling we do their bidding. It's why we booted Saddam out of Kuwait the first time we warred with Iraq too.

[JDPriestly]

12. Wish it weren't so. But I think this theory may be right.

[Adsos Letter]

13. Would this help explain King Abdullah's moves towards a form

of concilliation/dialogue with the Vatican? An attempt to cement cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the West through tacit religious alliance?

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/135648.html

[Wetzelbill]

14. That's interesting

I'll have to look into that more.