Middle East News
Baghdad conference ends, warnings of regional instability (Roundup)
Mar 10, 2007, 19:35 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Iraqis greet US-Iran dialogue at Baghdad conference (2nd Roundup)
- Khalilzad will measure success "on the ground" (Extra)
- Iraq conference key for region, say Syrian analysts (Extra)
- Baghdad conference begins with Iraq, Syria attending (1st Lead)
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. A Syrian smuggler on a "humanitarian mission"
- 2. UN chief: Ball is in Iran's court to solve nuclear stand-off
- 3. Iran trying to attack Israelis abroad, counter-terror bureau warns
- 4. Violence kills 26 across Syria, activists say
- 5. OBITUARY: Anthony Shadid, award-winning US reporter, dies in Syria
Older Talkback
page: 1
Al Maliki seems to me to be beating round the bush when he asks for external forces to bring stability and security to Iraq. He knows, the Americans know, and most Iraqis know that the way forward is to genuinely seek power sharing with Sunni political forces. This can only be done through amendment of the constitution, repeal of the de-bathification law, allowing a reformed Baath party to take part in the political process, distancing Iraq from Iranian interests, and a postponement of calls for federalism in southern Iraq. What is needed above all is de-politicizing religion. Perhaps a new parliamentary block may emerge grouping liberals and democrats and independent Shia and Sunni politicians. The Americans committed a grave mistake when they allowed after 2003 the development of politics around sect and religion.
beating around the bush or bush beating off?
little hope in the MalikiMar 10th, 2007 - 19:49:43
Al Maliki seems to me to be beating round the bush when he asks for external forces to bring stability and security to Iraq. He knows, the Americans know, and most Iraqis know that the way forward is to genuinely seek power sharing with Sunni political forces. This can only be done through amendment of the constitution, repeal of the de-bathification law, allowing a reformed Baath party to take part in the political process, distancing Iraq from Iranian interests, and a postponement of calls for federalism in southern Iraq. What is needed above all is de-politicizing religion. Perhaps a new parliamentary block may emerge grouping liberals and democrats and independent Shia and Sunni politicians. The Americans committed a grave mistake when they allowed after 2003 the development of politics around sect and religion'.
You have made some very good points but seemed to have overlooked the most fundamental of all. The Americans must get out. No country can function properly when occupied. Look at the hell Palestine has to put up with. I repeat occupiers out. Then and only then can the road to recover a nation be traveled.
Late 2003 in an international conference in South Africa I was scorned by republicans for calling the US “liberation” of Iraq an “occupation”.
It is ironic that after all the disasters that took place in my country since 2003, I am more inclined now to use the term “liberation”. There is a good reason for this change of heart and mind.
For centuries, the Shia of Iraq have been effectively suppressed as de facto second class citizens because of their creed. The collapse of the Saddam regime presented an opportunity for the first time in a very long history where all citizens can become equal regardless of their beliefs or color. The Shia of Iraq are today being betrayed by non other then their own political leaders because restoration of equality by definition cannot be built on exclusivity even one that can be secured by the ballot box. The overwhelming majority of Shia want a united Iraq. They do not want to exclude others from power or wealth.
The US army cannot stay in Iraq for ever. But a premature departure before a political settlement is reached and the foundations of the new state of Iraq take firm root will amount to a betrayal of the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans who have split blood in the quest for justice and liberty.
Wht does 'instability' mean? To the totalitarian, it's a veiled threat to anyone challenging them. To western governments, it means business as usual is over. To the individual living under the cloud of oppression, it means more of the same.
'To the totalitarian, it's a veiled threat to anyone challenging them'
A failed state in Iraq will be the biggest gift to the totalitarian regimes in the Arab countries. Their threats are substantiated by pointing a finger to Iraq.
Thank YOU America. Keep on spreading your so called 'Democracy'. ONly 800,000 Iraqi civilians died because of your greed for oil!!! God only bless America!
So now we agree this is destabilizing??? Who exactly is the cause of it? Let me guess... the Boogie Man. Do these people really think we are that dumb?
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story