 |
Anti-US cleric al-Sadr threatens new uprising in Iraq
Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr gave a “final warning” to the government Saturday to halt a U.S.-Iraqi crackdown against his followers or he would declare “open war until liberation.”
A full-blown uprising by al-Sadr, who led two rebellions against U.S.-led forces in 2004, could lead to a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq at a time when the Sunni extremist group al-Qaida in Iraq appears poised for new attacks after suffering severe blows last year.
Al-Sadr’s warning appeared on his Web site as Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government claimed success in a new push against Shiite militants in the southern city of Basra. Fighting claimed 14 more lives in Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
I agree 100%
al-Sadr is to Bush as bin-Laden is to Clinton.
If this moron had any sense, he would wait for us to leave and then start up his campaign. Why doesn’t the idiot just run for President of Iraq when (if) they have another election. He’s the one that is no better than Hussein and just as big a coward. When the going gets tough he’ll just run to Iran AGAIN.
Agreed, Uncle Dave.
I love your delicate irony, Dave. “Rousing success of the surge”. Har!
We pay $10 a day to insurgents – who are former members of the army we “defeated” – who otherwise spend their down time shooting the crap out of our colonial army.
The “surge” works whenever and while the paymasters don’t skim too much off the top and continue the dole.
The idiots in Washington aren’t even up to 19th Century British Imperialism.
Society and Culture. What do those words “mean?” Its more than rolling easter eggs at Easter or decorting trees at Christmas.
It is also being polygamous and isolating people from the outside world.
It is also killing anyone with a different religion.
So, no peace in Iraq with these willing to kill the other factions without a developed secret police and a roving death squad to enforce order. That’s THEIR culture, and our culture can only throw money at it.
I think in history, that is called a mismatch.
Why would al-Sadr want to be president of Iraq when he could be the Ayatollah of Iraq? If al-Sadr plays his cards right, he could be the cleric that forces the US from Iraq by uniting the people of Iraq against the US.
Why settle for a little power when yo can have a lot of power.
So we destroyed Germany because of one guy, can we now destroy Iraq/Iran?
There will always be ‘another’.
We should get out of there to clear out ground ‘0’.
Don’t you think?
#4 Moss, you’ll never get a date with Jenna with talk like that!!
Most of the Iraqis shooting at US troops in Iraq were being paid to do so. It was the only work they could get. Paying them $10 a day to pick up garbage is cheaper than fighting them.
Mucky Sadder? He hid while the Iranians pretended to be members of his army, last month. Yeah, he is a coward, always telling dumb kids they should go out and get killed while he hides out.
Hey John C, sorry but be ready to turn on the beep machine…
If the US allows this scum to unsettle the situation there then the US might as well get the fuck out already. This whole pussy-footing around allowing rebellious armies to run amok is what gave the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan, isn’t it?
How can that country ever consider itself safe and secure when you have people like Ma-S doing what he pleases and making threats like that? If only the corrupt fuckers in Washington had any balls to just put two in the turban of this disgusting fuck head! God what a waste of money this whole operation has been. Besides, didn’t we go in there to liberate the Shiia and the Kurds from the Sunis? Am I right when I say that the Shiias are the worst enemy of the US in Iraq?
Whats really ironic, is that it is Sadr who is in favor of keeping all of Iraq as one country, and wants Iran to stay out of Iraqi affairs.
Maliqi, who we take sides and support, is a pro Iran Shia, who wants to divide Iran in at least four semi autonomous states.
On these two issues Sadr is right, Maliqi is wrong. So why do we support Maliqi? Because he is willing to let the Americans stay, and he is supportive of foreign companies drilling for oil in his country. Sadr wants all foreigners out (including us) and wants all oil revenues to stay in Iraq.
Its all about corporate greed, as usual!
#11–ArianeB==what specifically would be wrong with dividing Iraq up? always pro’s and con’s to any issue so a judgment on the issue only identifies your interest in the outcome?
I believe a divided Iraq will likely cause more problems. Battles for territory for example. Turkey and Iran do not want a Kurdistan on their border is another. A “Sunni” state will likely become a safe haven for Al-Qaida, an Iran friendly Shia state on Saudi’s border is just asking for trouble, etc.
In no way am I a fan of Sadr, especially since he is no doubt responsible for many American deaths, but our one sided support into Iraqi politics is just going to get us mired in there more. Which is exactly what Bush wants.
#9, Philleep,
… he is a coward, always telling dumb kids they should go out and get killed while he hides out.
Don’t forget that when these “dumb kids” return home, they will be further abused by the Defense Department and once released, fucked around by the VA. Believe it or not, there are really some people glad they voted for Bush.
This guy is on CIA payroll, right? How else can you explain his ceasefire?
Don’t call me crazy. The media has ignored this story, but it’s no secret, either, that Bush and Co. have given this guy MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of your tax dollars. It’s called “reconstruction funds” but you can be sure that al-Sadr is pocketing large amounts of it.
No chance of blow-back on that one, is there? 😉
#13–ArianeB==yep, problems every way you look at it. I was actually thinking of dividing the land mass up between the parties==Iran, Turkey, etc. The kurds and Turkey will be a problem no matter what happens. Seems to me, ethnics should be joined up in larger geographical units. That’s my bias.
Remember how ginned-up everybody was for this damn war back in 2003?
Not me, boy. I warned off everybody who would listen that this was going to turn our sad and ugly.
The main thing that amazes me is that guys like Christopher Hitchens, Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol still have media platforms, instead of having their heads paraded around on pikes.
One definition of a solid government is that it has the “exclusive right to use violence”.
The Iraq government does not satisfy that requirement.
The US should have killed that guy back in 2004.
That being said, some of the above posts are poetic in their irony that Muqtada al-Sadr will probably end up running Iraq once we are gone.
Maybe some sort of terrorist religious state, like Iran.
Work with Saddam in the 1980s to fight religious fanatics in Iran, kill Saddam in the 2000s and pave way for religious fanatic Muqtada al-Sadr in 2010 who will probably be as brutal and suppressive as Hussein.
Priceless!
He would look better with a bullet in his head.
Condi says “make my day”
This guy is losing badly, so he issues a ceasefire to keep his forces from being decimated. Now he issues a final warning to get what traction he can. Meantime the Iraqi troops are handling his forces pretty well.
as to wondering who he was before the war:
“…you were called Muqtada Play Station before the war because you loved it so much and had a Play Station shop in Najaf and now you tell your followers that it’s a sin to play with Play Station.”
see update Day 6 here:
http://last-of-iraqis.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-was-under-table-has-been.html
Never ceases to amaze how badly people want Bush to lose in Iraq.
24,
And it never ceases to amaze me that some are ignorant enought to equate criticism of incompetence, malfeasance, and just plain stupid action in this unneeded warwith a lack of patriotism.
The High Muckety Muck should have been taken care of already. It’s not like we didn’t have the chance to, we did. Unfortunately, after Bush appointees figured it would be harder to take care of him than not, they gave up then came upon the idea of paying people fighting against us NOT to fight us. Brilliant. So, not only do we have mercenaries fighting for us, we also higher people not to fight against us. Truly screwed up.
And of course, when people finally come to their senses over hear and remove us from Iraq or at least stop the money bleeding out from us to them, the fighting will resume and the mess we’ve made of the country will become even messier. We haven’t solved anything, we’ve caused more problems. The High Muckety Muck must just be sitting still having a rousing good time dictating to his lackies on this one. He benefits and hardly has to do a thing.
>>> 25 Smartalix said, on April 21st, 2008 at 4,
>>> And it never ceases to amaze me that some are ignorant enought to equate criticism of incompetence, malfeasance, and just plain stupid action in this unneeded war with a lack of patriotism.
America’s failed experiment with conservatism revealed the bogus “patriotism” of the Republicans.
They confused party loyalty with love for country.
Get a real beard jackass. I know teenagers with better looking beards.
Commenting on the man’s hygiene isn’t going to solve anything.