US Doesn't Like Outcome of Iraq Election So Tries to block the New Government

I do that sometimes.

The problem is that my conditional statement starts with the assumption that Bush has the means and the motivation to do so. That avoids your 'will be induced to change his minds' point. I'll point out that this obviously is not MY assumption, but that on which the argument that he is reducing Iraqi independence depends. You don't seem to come to grips with the conditionality of the statement. IF (meaning we assume he IS trying to subvert Iraqi independence). In conditional statements you ASSUME the variables are true. Your external argument simply doesn't fit here, which is why your charge that its a false dilemma is also out of place.

Subjective, lol? Why yes, it is! So is everything you have to say. This point does not prove my argument, it is a reason to give less weight to Jaafari's statement.

Damn, man. And you accuse ME of splitting hairs, lol.

Your inability to compromise on the most remedial of arguments (In this case, that Bush has blocked or is trying to block Jaafari) is indicative of bias.

 

That's the point Hayes - you can't assume that. We are both too ignorant of the situation to come to so concise a conclusion. Thus the logical issues.

Well - ****.

I'm obviously not nit-picky enough when proofreading my own posts!

 

Most likely our objectives in Iraq are more clear to those who tell Bush what to do than they are to us. (Did you by Halliburton stock or KBR stock in edit-2002?)

If you vote either Republican or Democrat here in the U.S. I wouldn't worry too much over politics in Iraq.

There's far more political power in the board of directors of the NY Federal Reserve Bank than the oval office- no matter which party is flying its colors.

(I don't believe politicians anymore- I look at who's making the big money, who has the best army in strategic positions, and who can control the oil and natural gas.)

 

I understand and agree. That's why its not MY assumption. Rather it the assumption necessary for anyone saying he IS hurting Iraqi independence. IF you believe x (that bush IS actively undermining Iraqi independence by removing jaafari from the picture with our influence/coercive capability) then explain why y (jaafari stepping down) hasn't happened . If you assume x to be true (necessarily precluding your external argument - and subsequently avoiding the false dilemma) then where is y? Using the conditional statement we skip over having to prove x. We can argue that, and have. But those determined to believe x are unshakable in their belief. So with the conditional statement we can try and approach that belief from another angle. If you (not you rhad but someone believing x) believe x then why hasn't y occured? I think we are like two ships passing in the night, I don't think there is friction between what we're saying.

 

According to the NY Times article which itself is entitled Shiites Say U.S. is Pressuring Iraqi Leader to Step Aside, it says that:

According to the Shiite block, President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister. Haider al-Ubady, a spokesman for Mr. Jaafari, said the prime minister had heard of the ambassador's verbal message through officials in his party, and accused the Americans of trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty and weaken the Shiite ranks. "How can they do this?" Mr. Ubady said. "An ambassador telling a sovereign country what to do is unacceptable." "The perception is very strong among certain Shia parties that the U.S., led by Khalilzad, is trying to unseat Jaafari," he added.

Now I look up the word "coerce", it is defined as: 1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure

Several Shiites are saying that Jaafari is being pressured to step down. NY Times titles the article as such. The quotes above suggest so. Therefore by the definition of "coerce" and the information I have, it is correct to say that the US is excercising coersion, not all out step down or die, coercion but nevertheless applying pressure to the situation. This is of course according to several Shiites. You can claim these Shiites exaggerate or are lying but this is what several Shiites are saying.

Saying that Iraq vis-a-vis the US is like an underling of the boss sure makes a lot more sense than saying conquered and occupied Iraq and China, one of the world's strongest powers apart from the US, are in a similar situation and therefore statements made to China have the same effect as statements made to Iraq.

The point you are missing is that since Iraq is right now much more under the thumb of the US than China. Comparing China to Iraq is like comparing the boss asking another boss of another company out vs asking his own underling out yet according to you the situations would be comparable and since one wouldn't qualify as harrassment neither would the other.

I also have never said that I disagree with the thread title. The US is putting pressuring Jaafari to step aside and not try to form the new govt. This qualifies as "trying to block" where according to the dictionary, block is defined as:

1. To stop or impede something

Well if the US is putting pressure on Jaafari to step down and not try to form the new govt, well that seems to qualify as trying to impede or "trying to block". The fact that others are also trying to block Jaafari is irrelevant. Just because others are trying to block Jaafari doesn't somehow bizarrely preclude the US itself from doing so. I see nothing wrong with glynch's title.

 

It would be correct to say that several Shia's are saying Bush is trying to exercise coercion. That's about the extend of what you've got. If you claim any more than that you don't really have a basis for it.

I already explained that the China example merely proves that external criticism does not necessarily impede independence. I've also already addressed why your boss/underling analogy doesn't work.

I already explained that the China example merely proves that external criticism does not necessarily impede independence. I've also already addressed why your boss/underling analogy doesn't work.

Others are blocking Jaafari. He is already blocked. So no, it doesn't make any sense to then say 'Bush is trying to block Jaafari.' Why would the administration even get involved if that is their goal, lol? That's just silly. They could say nothing and Jaafari is still blocked. That is why it is more credible to believe that the administration is trying to mediate the gridlock. Functionally Jaafari is already blocked, so why would they redundantly attempt to block what is already blocked. That just makes no sense. Further, if you look at your definition, you cannot stop or impede something that is already stopped.

 

do you want audio tapes of the conversations? if there are multitude of sources claiming this and hints from the administration that they dont like this fellow...shouldn't that amount to being credible enough.

 

if anybody thinks the us is interested in democracy then they're mistaken....they've deterred more democracy in this world and throughout history than anybody can ever dream of...just look at all the dictatorships they support in the same region like jordan, saudi arabia, and egypt while claiming to be illegaly invading and occupying iraq to establish a "democracy"....it is a monument to hypocrisy

 

The through the looking glass foreign policy continues. Looks like Condi and co got to someone. --

Shiite Asks Iraqi Prime Minister Not to Seek Another Term

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 1 — A senior member of the dominant Shiite bloc called on Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari on Saturday to drop his campaign to keep his post, becoming the first Shiite political leader to publicly break ranks in the debate over Iraq's top executive.

Mr. Jaafari won the nomination last month by one vote, and has since struggled to find enough support to overcome widespread, multipartisan opposition.

Meanwhile, American pressure on Iraqi political leaders to end the bitter stalemate and forge a new government has been intensifying. Earlier this week, President Bush tacitly encouraged members of Congress to deliver strong warnings to deadlocked leaders, including the message that if they fail, the schedule for withdrawing American troops could be sped up.

American and Iraqi officials say that delays in the process of creating a government have created a fertile environment for lawlessness, and the dissenting Shiite leader, Kassim Daoud, said a sense of responsibility to end the gridlock had compelled him to speak out.

"We all hope that he will respond because we know that he is a statesman and he will take the country's best interest into consideration," Mr. Daoud, who would be a possible candidate for the post, said Saturday in a brief telephone interview.

Neither Mr. Jaafari nor his aides could be reached Saturday for comment. Jawad al-Maliki, a senior official in Mr. Jaafari's Islamic Dawa Party, told Reuters that the prime minister would not relinquish the nomination.

The indication of President Bush's stance came Tuesday as he met with members of Congress who had just returned from Iraq. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said he had told Iraqi politicians that the continued presence of American troops should be directly linked to the formation of a government.

"That is a useful message for the Iraqis to hear," Mr. Levin said the president told him. "He looked me square in the eye and said, 'That is a helpful message.' "

Mr. Bush did not go so far as to endorse this approach, which would be a reversal of his policy, according to several officials. In public, the administration continues to say that American forces will stay as long as they are needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/world/middleeast/02baghdad.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

no he want to see a video of bush in iraq and manning a road block which prevents government officials from passing thru..

 

No. I'm afraid its not. I've elaborated on why its not already. There is a self serving interest to present Jaafari as being bullied by the US to step down for their own purposes, rather than to break the deadlock. As with any source, I'm sure you'll agree that you'd want to take any alternate motive into account when you evaluate the credibility of the statement.

We sure are being anti-democratic, lol.

From CNN today:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday called for an end to the "political vacuum" in Iraq and for the Iraqis to form a new government.

Speaking at a news conference with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Rice said the next Iraqi prime minister must be a "strong leader" capable of unifying the people of this fractured country.

The chief U.S. and British diplomats are on the second day of a surprise visit to Baghdad aimed at trying to end the political stalemate that has prevented the formation of a new government.

Rice and Straw -- who flew into the Iraqi capital Sunday from northwest England -- met with Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish politicians, who have been stalled in their efforts to form a government following the December 15 parliamentary elections.

"This is a really important time for the Iraqi leadership, for the Iraqi people, for Iraq itself," Rice told CNN after Sunday's meeting. "It's an opportunity to have a national unity government that can really take on and solve tremendous challenges." (Watch CNN's Nic Robertson explain the visit's significance -- 1:59)

"We thought it was important to come and deliver a message that the time has come to end these negotiations and deliver a government," she said.

Rice said a permanent government would have "a bigger impact" on Iraq than many predict as it tackles problems like militias and insurgent violence.

"It's true the country has been accustomed to dealing with problems through violence, through coercion and through oppression," she said. "Now they have to do it through politics."

But once the government is in place and functioning, she said, "people will start to reassert a sense of their Iraqiness, which is one of the strengths of this country.

"They can solve these problems, but they need to start with the formation of a unity government, and soon."

On the plane to Baghdad, Straw said that when he visited Iraq five weeks ago, he was assured that a new government would be put together quickly.

"Sadly ... this coalition formation has taken much longer," he said, and cited "significant international concerns" about the delay.

Dispute over prime minister
A spokesman for President Jalal Talabani said the president had an "excellent" meeting with Rice and Straw. Rice thanked the president for his leadership, and stressed that whoever leads the new government must be a unifying force, the spokesman said.

Others who met with Rice and Straw were interim Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite; Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, a Shiite; Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the top Shiite parties; and top Sunni leaders from the Tawafuq coalition. Talabani is a Kurd.

Rice, who appeared tense following her meeting with al-Jaafari -- in contrast to her appearance after meeting with other leaders -- said that she was "very direct" that the U.S. and Britain have invested a lot to help Iraq build a democratic country.

The Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance, which won the most seats in the elections for the 275-member Council of Representatives, nominated al-Jaafari for the four-year post. But a large bloc of Kurds, Sunni Arabs and secular politicians have been forcefully opposed to Jaafari.

Any choice for prime minister must win approval from the parliament.

Rice said President Bush asked her to go to Baghdad, but added that the United States had no intention of interfering with the Iraqis' selection process. Whoever is chosen to be prime minister, she said, must be able to form a unity government.

"And thusfar, Jaafari has not been able to do that," she said. "Now, maybe he will be able to do it, but the urgency is that whoever is going to be the prime minister candidate is actually able to bring enough of the other votes on board to have a government of national unity."

Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's Kurdish foreign minister, told CNN on Sunday that he believed the only way to end the stalemate over al-Jaafari would be to put the matter before parliament.

"There is a deadlock on this, and the only way to break that stalemate, in my view, is to go to the parliament ... and then to resolve this issue, whether it would be him or somebody else, or to nominate some other people from the United Iraqi Alliance," he said.

Opposition to al-Jaafari has been growing, and the Shiite coalition is being pressured to reconsider its decision. Political leaders are trying to agree on an acceptable candidate before a legislative vote is taken.

Rice praised Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq, calling him "a voice of reason at difficult times for the Iraqi people, someone who has urged unity in the country."

A report released in February praised al-Sistani as a moderating influence on extreme elements in the country. (Full story)

Asked whether the United States and Britain are losing patience with the Iraqis, Straw cited the huge financial investment and loss of lives by both countries in trying trying to mold a democratic Iraq.

"We're committed to Iraq," Straw said. "Very committed. But we need to see progress."

While Rice declined to set a deadline for Iraqis to form a government, she said, "the fact that we're going out to have these discussions with the leadership is a sign of the urgency which we attach to a need for a government."

Iraq's political parties, meanwhile, reached agreement Sunday on the bylaws for the new government's Cabinet, according to a statement from Talabani's office. Representatives from the parties met Sunday at Talabani's home to discuss the issue.

 

I don't think the US 'claimed to be illegally invading and occupying Iraq.' Further this particular administration has been pushing for democratic reform in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan so you're pretty much incorrect.

 

but not to the point of waging war, wasting lives, and billions of dollars..

 

'Wasting' is your opinion and...completely irrelevant to the point.

 

This is a tired line Hayes - stop using it.

Like only the Iraqis are capable of being "self serving".

 

Of course not! After all - Saudi Arabia is a tyrannical government we like.

 

I disagree with a lot of what Hayes is arguing, and I've pointed out before the failings of this country, but that statement, with all due respect, is a load of crap.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Does this have any real meaning? Is it like '1000 million infiniti anti-democracy'?

 

No. Its a realistic assessment.

Sigh. Who said that? I certainly didn't. And btw its not an answer to the observation.

And yet we've been pressuring them for reforms. Whether you ideologues like it or not, the administration has picked up the democracy ball and is running with it. To assert they AREN'T pressuring the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East to democratize is to engage in pure denial.

"At the same time, however, Washington's efforts to drive events in the region, ranging from the relatively successful elections in Iraq and demands for Palestinian reform to encouraging Egypt and Saudi Arabia to move toward political openness, have had an effect on politics in the Middle East. For example, Washington's public support for democracy has forced Hosni Mubarak to style himself a reformer in an effort to defuse the Bush administration's demands for change. To be sure, much of the limited institutional change that has occurred in Egypt has been largely cosmetic, but with Washington watching, Egyptian officials have been forced to allow democracy activists leeway in other areas. Consequently, Egypt's opposition press has unleashed a torrent of criticism on President Mubarak, his family, and the Egyptian government. It seems clear that the combination of American pressure and Mubarak's efforts to deflect it have actually provided political cover for Egyptian democracy activists to pursue their agenda."

"While many of Cairo's reformers oppose US policy in Iraq and Palestine, they nevertheless seem to support-some more grudgingly than others-the Bush administration's pressure for political change. Hisham Kassem, chairman of the board of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights and a leading figure in the opposition party Hizb al-Ghad (Tomorrow Party), has argued that US policy has been decisive in cracking open the door of Egyptian political reform. While not entirely unexpected of Kassem, even Abdel Halim Qandil, a spokesman for Kefaya (Enough) and editor of Al-Arabi (hardly a pro-American bastion) acknowledged that Washington's outspoken support for democracy was providing him and his movement a certain amount of protection from the Egyptian state. Yet, this dynamic is not just occurring in Egypt. In February, the long-time Lebanese Druse leader and fierce critic of the United States, Walid Jumblatt, told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius that US policy was providing momentum for grassroots demands for change in Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria."

"The same is also true of Saudi Arabia. While one can argue that now-King Abdallah recognized the need to pursue a measure of political reform independently of US policy, the timing of the Kingdom's recent municipal elections-the first in more than 40 years-betrays an implicit effort to respond to the Bush administration's assertive calls for political change in that country."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8618/us_democracy_promotion_in_the_middle_east.html

 

Just wondering what makes you think that its a load of crap?

I think there is some truth to that statement.