houston.........we have US interference.

[kronas]

the council which is responsible for electing a new president has chosen ghazi yawar as iraq's new president, the tribal leader is well respected by all religious backgrounds in iraq and is well respected by all in principle.

but the US has choosen its own leader, adnan pachachi and is trying to lure the council to reconsider its selection in favor of pachachi.

a dead lock has now insued with the US possibly announcing a third candidate compromise.

source: reuters

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5301276

an interesting note:

One Iraqi politician said the Council felt Yawar could rally Iraq's disparate communities; Pachachi, many felt, represented a strain of the old-style pan-Arab nationalism also embraced by Saddam. Some also thought he did too little to oppose Saddam.

so, is the US trying to scratch the backs of the arab nation because of them helping bush in his presidential push over the oil fiasco.

good'ol interfering USA.......

[punky]

Originally Posted by kronas

the council which is responsible for electing a new president has chosen ghazi yawar as iraq's new president, the tribal leader is well respected by all religious backgrounds in iraq and is well respected by all in principle.

but the US has choosen its own leader, adnan pachachi and is trying to lure the council to reconsider its selection in favor of pachachi.

a dead lock has now insued with the US possibly announcing a third candidate compromise.

source: reuters

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5301276

an interesting note:



so, is the US trying to scratch the backs of the arab nation because of them helping bush in his presidential push over the oil fiasco.

good'ol interfering USA.......

Don't forget the UN are doing this too.

Personally, I think they are nuts. The person that was picked was already westernised with strong ties to the US. I never thought the Iraqis would even accept him. And now the US and UN are pushing for someone even more closely linked? Talk about pushing your luck. And at 81, he hardly has a glistening career in front of him. Not meaning to be agist or anything. He isn't knocking on heaven's door, he has a foot in it.

I wish the US would sometimes stop and consider that what is good for the world is good for America and what is good for America is not necessarily good for the world.

Incog.

Bloody typical, high handed, self-serving move by the US.

As Incog said, not everything that is good for the US is good for the rest of the world. Anyone appointed by the US is gonna be seen as suspect to the majority of Iraqi's.

[Jerrek]

Why don't you guys appoint someone?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Why don't you guys appoint someone?

Because we have the sense to keep our noses out of another country's business.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Because we have the sense to keep our noses out of another country's business.

Err, excuse me? Did I imagine all those posts from people saying "Yeah! Let's go into Iraq and kick Saddam out...!!"

[Jerrek]

Russ? Eh? What are you talking?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Because we have the sense to keep our noses out of another country's business.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

Err, excuse me? Did I imagine all those posts from people saying "Yeah! Let's go into Iraq and kick Saddam out...!!"

I'm talking about the subject of who runs it....perhaps being tired last night meant I missed the important bit out.....

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Why don't you guys appoint someone?

Been there, done that, annoyed the natives ... as Undisputed Rulers of the World (retired), we have the experience to know when to let the locals just get on with it. Contrast, if you will, the informal tribal councils we Brits have been holding in Basra and the surrounding villages, fostering good relations with the Iraqis, with the gung-ho, shoot-first-ask-questions-later-with-the-assistance-of-electrodes-attached-to-their-genitals approach taken by the US.

It's time the Americans swallowed their pride and learned a thing or two from a nation that actually knows how to run an empire, and is big enough to admit we have made mistakes in the past. Unless you too are bent on propping up a puppet ruler until the natives get so restless that a religious dictatorship is swept to power, a la Iran?

[abailey152]

Originally Posted by towny

Been there, done that, annoyed the natives ... as Undisputed Rulers of the World (retired), we have the experience to know when to let the locals just get on with it.

Too right! The US would be wise to take a look at the UK. We are hated all over the place for our colonalist ancestors, and they are going the right way to hand the very same problem onto their descendants.

[BBKing]

Surprisingly enough, we aren't hated everywhere, that's the amazing thing. A lot of the former empire is on quite good terms with us, as equals. Malta, to take a rather small example.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Surprisingly enough, we aren't hated everywhere, that's the amazing thing. A lot of the former empire is on quite good terms with us, as equals. Malta, to take a rather small example.

I would say that most of the former empire quite likes us. We all get on in the Commonwealth anyway. Of course you get the occasional mad dictator like Robert Mugabe, but hey, what can you do.

The true source of 'post colonial guilt' comes from those famous yet hard to define 'bleeding-heart liberals', who count among their favourite dinner party topics the imperialist oppression wrought by the British on large swathes of the world.

Where ambivalence really does exist, it is more likely as a result of our decision to march into Iraq behind Gee Dubya. And much of that, I would surmise, is probably reflected hatred originally directed at the Americans.

One of my Uni friends used to live in the Middle East with her family, who were working out there along with a lot of other ex-pats. The belief there at the time was that if you did fall into the hands of one of the extremist groups that existed even back then, the fact that you had a British passport on you was more likely than anything else to save your life, should random hostage-killing ensue. For that reason they more than anyone else mourned the loss of the black British passport in favour of the harmonized Euro-maroon one.