1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Who is the next alternative for Baghdad?

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by shiekhsalam, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. shiekhsalam

    shiekhsalam New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who is the next alternative for Baghdad?

    There is no doubt today that al-Maliki's time in office is getting over. During last year, he proved very skillfully that the only thing he is not concerned about is the security and tranquility in Iraq. During this period, the violence and slaughter of innocent citizens climbed to its maximum. The militias found enough latitude to infiltrate into all governmental organizations, and in fact, rule the country. If not all, most of these militias are one way or the other associated with Iran, and have paved the path for Iran's hidden occupation of Iraq.
    Maliki's background shows that he has had close ties with Iran's Quds force, and commanded terrorist battalions when he was in Iran before Saddam's fall.
    Today, even Bush is not willing to back him, and yet, what still delays his dismissal is that Bush refrains to acknowledge that investing on him was a grave mistake from the outset. In fact it has been betting on a dead horse.

    The question today, however, is what are the alternatives for the future of Iraq?
    Before thinking of individuals, the current political situation in Iraq suggest two main alternatives for post-Maliki's era. Each of these alternatives illustrates a totally different future for Iraq and the Middle East region:

    One alternative is the continuation of the policy that started with Ibrahim Ja'fari, and was 'promoted' to al-Maliki. Due to its affiliation to Tehran, it has been basically in the service of Iran's government and to pursue its policies in Iraq. This alternative was born with the foundation of Islamic republic, and its ultimate goal has been to establish an Islamic fundamentalist empire in the region. To this end, Iraq has been the first and vital target. Because of its nature, this alternative can advance only via terrorism, turmoil and violence. Therefore, peace, calm and democracy are dreadful threats for that.

    The other alternative, which has been created vis-à-vis the first alternative, is a young alternative with completely different characteristics. Contrary to the first one, it believes in democracy and participation of all sectors of the society in governing the country. Its deeply against sectarianism and religionism. The period of Ayad Allawi as prime minister was a sample of this alternative in power when the situation in Iraq was more peaceful than any other time.

    The first alternative has the support of Iran. If the second one lacks support, it cannot resist before the Iran-backed conspiracies.

    The gravest mistake of Bush's administration was to invest on al-Maliki, an anti-democratic alternative, to establish stability in Iraq.

    These days, the political circles usually offer two figures as alternatives for the future of Iraq: Ayad Allawi and Adel Abdul Mehdi.

    Because of his close relations with Iran, Abdul Mehdi undoubtedly belongs to the anti-democratic alternative. He is the second figure in Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq(SCIRI) that was formed in Iran in is in very close interrelations with the Quds force that is going to be inserted in the terror list.
    On the other side, Ayad Allawi is the most suitable representative of the democratic alternative. Despite being a Shiite, he has never been a puppet of Iran. During his time in office, Iraq lived its most democratic era.

    Today, deciding about the future of Iraq and the region goes through selecting one of these alternatives: Adel Abdul Mehdi or Ayad Allawi
     
  2. jb_1430

    jb_1430 New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    ?????? The Bush administration "invest"ed in Allawi. We selected him as one of the members of the governing council. We pressured some of the governing council to elect him as Prime Minister before we would hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis. And then in the elections we supported Allawi and his party, but the Iraqi people chose Maliki instead. Once he was chosen, what possible purpose would be served by rejecting Maliki?
    And do you honestly think the Iraqi Parliament hasnt replaced Maliki because "Bush refrains to acknowledge that investing on him was a grave mistake"? Thats silly.
     
Loading...

Share This Page