Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s two-day trip to Iraq is a clear sign that the surge has in fact worked, or that Iraq is stabilising at very least.

This is reflected in Iran cutting its backing for radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who directs Mahdi Army militia.

- and that was the signal for al-Maliki’s current push on Sadr. It’s “okay” with Tehran.

So, notwithstanding “the US’s provocation of the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq”, you keep saying the Shi’ite dominated parliament will see no need to extend the Coalition presence in Iraq beyond December. You keep saying it.

Sigh.

Not for the reasons propagated by the Bushies.

The Bushies never wanted a theocracy (and good on them for that at least). But that’s what they’ve got.

Moreover, what the Bushies certainly haven’t got is a government in Iraq that:

1. Has a stable majority.

2. Does the bidding of the US.

3. Does the bidding of anyone, because no one can command a majority to achieve anything significant in Iraq.

Perhaps, one day Iraq will have another general election. Surely its about time.

An interesting feature of the Iraqi constitution is that it does not seem to stipulate the maximum time that should elapse between elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Iraq

This means that the current parliament is a self perpetuating oligarchy.

Given that the US drew up this constitution, the question is why this should be. Perhaps the US expected a pro-US self-perpetuating oligarchy.

That certainly is not what the US got. (ie., the Iraqi govt is not a Vichy-style puppet.)

…don’t conflate Democracy with Socialism like the commines always do

Priceless momement.

Have a Minty.

“As the majority of members who continue to appear in the Iraqi parliament are Shi’ite, that would suggest strongly that I believe that the Shi’ites are not united behind Maliki.”

The Shi’ite dominated Iraqi parliament will be, then, decisive in any outcome. Any outcome would require their assent. You keep saying it.

So, notwithstanding “the US’s provocation of the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq”, you keep saying the Shi’ite dominated parliament will see no need to extend the Coalition presence in Iraq beyond December. You keep saying it.

If there being “no need to extend the Coalition presence” doesn’t constitute progress, given the levels of Ku Klux Resistance violence in Iraq before the surge, I don’t know what does.

This situation:

Just one problem: who in the Iraqi parliament is gunna vote for such a proposition?

means that Maliki cannot command a majority in the Iraqi parliament. As the majority of members who continue to appear in the Iraqi parliament are Shi’ite, that would suggest strongly that I believe that the Shi’ites are not united behind Maliki.

Can I make that any clearer?

The second case is a hypothetical case. By implication, which I’m sure that intelligent readers would surmise, I believe that it is quite unlikely to occur.

In other words, to make my meaning crystal-clear, I believe that even if Maliki wanted to, he would not be able to convince a majority in the Iraqi parliament to vote to invite the US to stay on after the end of the UN mandate.

You have thus read my comments to mean the opposite of my intentions. Accident, or not?

I usually treat my interlocutors with civility, until provoked. Your denseness is provocative.

I have never alleged that the government has “broad Shi’ite assent”.

Oh, I’m sorry Kat. Because you said this on Mar 6th, 2008 at 5:53 pm;

Just one problem: who in the Iraqi parliament is gunna vote for such a proposition?

- in reference to any future proposal to extend past December the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, I took it you were conceding that the assent of the elected, Shi’ite dominated Iraqi parliament would be decisive in any such outcome.

You actually said;

In that case, the Americans would be welcome to stay, and legally too!

Since the Shiite blocs are the largest in Iraq’s parliament, and their assent would legalise the continued Coalition presence, as you have pointed out, I took these statements by you as acknowledging that the government has “broad Shi’ite assent”.

Obviously I’m mistaken, judging by your ad hominem outburst. Perhaps you could explain you “logic” to me? Or perhaps think of some new devastating, swingeing persoanl abuse that will have me reeling. ha ha.

Katz, you’re the one who argues that the elected government of Iraq, with broad Shi’ite assent, will see no need to extend the Coalition presence in Iraq beyond December.

1. I have never alleged that the government has “broad Shi’ite assent”.

2. This statement is further evidence of your inability to follow a logical line of argument or of your antagonistic relationship with the Billy Goats Gruff.

There is an unresolved tension in your definition of democracy stemming from this confusion. The Socialist Alliance are foregrounding the process at the expense of the anti-democratic character of the Hamas agenda, which may arguably be in bad faith, although I’d have to see more than a poster to argue that. Your own assumption that this means that Socialist Alliance support the Hamas agenda is also in bad faith.

Therefore, according to his bizarre sense of rectitude, the US’s provocation of the rise of “al Qaeda in Iraq�? constitutes progress.

Katz, you’re the one who argues that the elected government of Iraq, with broad Shi’ite assent, will see no need to extend the Coalition presence in Iraq beyond December.

Klaus K says:

Hamas won a victory at an election in 2006 – a victory widely reported in the media at the time – the political repercussions of which are obvious: the question being asked is whether or not the United States will remain committed to promoting the democratic process overseas when it yields results that are going to make things more difficult for its allies, and for its own agenda in the region.

That Socialist Alliance would suggest that an American unwillingness to deal directly with a regime that openly advocates religious genocide represents a betrayal of democracy gives you some idea of Socialist Alliance’s own notions of “democracy”.

I have no qualms in inviting everyone to look at the poster themselves and form their own conclusions. http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/6288143.jpg

It is a fair stretch of the imagination to suggest that that poster is advocating Hamas’ agenda in any way. On the other hand, it is no great stretch, given your comments, to understand why you do read it that way.

Therefore, according to his bizarre sense of rectitude, the US’s provocation of the rise of “al Qaeda in Iraq” constitutes progress.

Can there be a more absurd rationalisation than this?

Don’t stop Eliot Ramsey. Your craziness is achieving an unprecedented level of perfection.

There’s nothing in that poster that suggests Hamas’ victory is worthy of praise, Eliot. It is a response to the fact that Hamas won an election.

Klaus, I think you’d better have another look at that neo-Comm poster

I don’t think you’d have to be Herbert Marcuse or Roland Barthes to deconstruct the meaning of the image at the bottom right of the layout showing Hamas mums and dads and kids joyfully hurling ‘ballots’ at a ‘ballot box’ in apparent reference to the Intifada, images of which regularly feature scenes like this of mums and dads and kids throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks.

Also, the major image in the poster is of a hooded Hamas thug, armed with an AK47. Apprently he is the very epitome of democracy Hamas style to the lads down at the Socialist Alliance PR department.

Now, sure, the neo-Comms are probably no more respectful of democratic process than their forebears were back in the days when Chomsky was rooting for Pol Pot and Wilfred Burchett was torturing prisoners for Kim Il Sung, but the poster is indisputably a lame attempt at equating democracy with Hamas violence.

In any case, it hardly appears to lament the “Victory” of Hamas, whose constitution actually;

(a) calls for he extermination of Jews wherever Muslims find them:

The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim) (Article 7)” and;

b) proudly announces itself as a military, not political organisation;

The Hamas are Soldiers (Article Thirty-Six)

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

Okay, I understand the neo-Comms don’t have a purpose of their own anymore, but don’t you think it a bit pathetic they climb into bed with a paramilitary organisation whose “soldiers” greet each other with Nazi salutes and think it “heroic” to kill schoolboys at their desks by shooting them point-blank?

Thoughts? Comments?

Granted, shooting schoolboys point-blank is fairly heroic by Hamas standards, I mean, compared with strapping remote activated bomb belts to retarded kids, which they’ve done in the past.

Just don’t conflate Democracy with Liberalism like the neo-cons always do.

Sure, so long as you don’t conflate Democracy with Socialism like the commines always do.

Katz says;

If the above is the case, has Eliot Ramsey forgotten, if he ever knew, that there was no “al Qaeda�? in Iraq before the US invasion?

Well, that’s because back then the Iraqi government didn’t need to outsource killing Shiites and Kurds, having the resources and leisure enough to do it itself.

If the above is the case, has Eliot Ramsey forgotten, if he ever knew, that there was no “al Qaeda” in Iraq before the US invasion? Well, o.k., it may be incumbent upon the US to clean up the horrible mess it made by seeking to redress what they have caused.

Indeed I am on the record as saying that the US should have attempted to do such a thing.

However, having given the US now almost five years since Flightdeck Bush hubristically announced “mission accomplished”, there comes a time when it becomes clear that the tradesman is simply incapable of completing the task.

Remember the episode of Fawlty Towers when Basil hired and then rehired the incompetent Mr O’Reilly? Well, President Bush is the Mr O’Reilly of world politics.

Unfortunately, there is no world politics Sybil Fawlty in existence to send Bush packing with a flea in his ear.

But that’s what’s going to happen soon enough, so I suppose the US Constitution is Sybil Fawlty.

Just don’t conflate Democracy with Liberalism like the neo-cons always do.

And you really gotta stop that analogous labeling, you’ll have a lot more credibility here if you stop oversimplifying issues and groups. Stick to using the real names for stuff, for instance wtf does the KKK have to do with it? Or are you suggesting that the insurgency in Iraq is led by white, American extremists?

That’s nicely done Eliot, good attempt at a dodge.

Oh my goodness? Was that a serious question? Oh, okay then: I’d say the “job will be done” when the Ku Klux Resistance whom “we have no choice but to support” is so well and truly crushed that it cannot any longer carry out bombing attacks like the one in the market yestrday. And when it realises that Sunni ascendancy in Iraq is finished and that even the Sunnis are sick of them.

As for “we” who “have no choice but to support” them, though, the job might be done when Socialist Alliance and other “peace groups” stop plastering Newtown with posters like this one praising the latest Hamas “victory”. Okay?

Really, boys. About time that one came down. Wouldn’t you say?

“the lazy generalisations of Baby-Boomers”

which I hail as an apt and widely-applicable description of what passes for “thought” or “analysis” by some folk.

We learn a little about a conflict. Years later we see another conflict and try to transfer our [meagre] understandings across the gulfs of time and place, to a zone where there are different religions, histories, social practices, armies, politics and other influences. It makes no sense. And what makes even less sense, is to launch tirades and abuse against others who are struggling to understand the conflict.

Yes, I mean you.