Thursday, May 15, 2008

Obama on talks with Ahmadinejad

I bet I've been closer to Ahmadinejad then either Obama or Clinton.

I was walking back to work past Prime Minister Maliki's compound in the IZ and was stopped by Ahmadiejad's convey driving in for the visit with Maliki.

I would have taken a picture but my battle-buddy said it was not a good idea to point anything at the convey as Ahmadiejad's folks were cocked-and-loaded.

They did have a window rolled down and waved at us as they drove into Maliki's compound. A few weeks later we started taking incoming Iranian made Rockets from Sadr City.

So much for talks.


Dr Bermangolu said...

How do you know that they were "Iranian made rockets"? Since they were coming from Al Sadr, maybe they were Iraqi made rockets from the millions of tons of munitions that we let them have.

Maliki is allied to Iran. You little anecdote makes it sound like Maliki was somehow appealing to Ahmadinejad, that this failed, and that Iran started dropping rockets. Goes to show that you didn't learn very much playing soldier boy in Baghdad for a couple of weeks.

Bill Baar said...

I have no idea what Maliki was saying to Iran.

I just know a few weeks later rockets started coming from Sadr City into Maliki's compound.

What ever Maliki and Ahmadiejad said, it didn's top Iranian sponsered groups from shelling us later.

Dr Bermangolu said...

Bill, Maliki is an Iranian sponsored group. What's your point?

Bill Baar said...

If Maliki is sponsered by the current Regime in Iran, why did they send Rockets into Maliki's compound? I watched them hit. And they killed Iraqis....

some sponser... I saw kids playing there, and walking to school... and boom... that's your sponser Doc.

Dr Bermangolu said...

"If Maliki is sponsered by the current Regime in Iran, why did they send Rockets into Maliki's compound? I watched them hit. And they killed Iraqis...."

What makes you think the rockets came from Iran? How do you know that they didn't come from the Iraqi weapons stockpiles we left lying around, or the many tons of US weapons that are for sale everywhere, or from the general flow of weapons from all over the place that are available in the country?

Your neo-con religion requires you to ignore the fact that there is a civil war in Iraq. The factions ALL have some sort of popular support, which is why we CANNOT defeat them simply by killing "bad guys" as you keep implying. Since you have a religious belief that only an evil person could possible oppose the US in Iraq, it has to follow that anyone firing a missile against us or Maliki must simply be an agent of a foreign power or government. If Iran and the other surrounding countries were to suddenly disappear, then suddenly everyone would line up behind the government.

It was probably the Badr Brigade that was firing the rockets. The Badr movement existed under Saddam, who killed their leaders whenever he could get his hands on them. They are NOT, in fact, simply clients taking Iranian orders. They are a NATIONALIST faction in the civil war. In your world, of course, an Iraqi can only be a nationalist if the US says so.

You would have been far better off if you had stayed home from Baghdad and read some histories of the region. Then maybe you might start sounding like you know what you are talking about.

Bill Baar said...

I thought the Iraqi's going to Iran to negotiate was a tip off as to who's firing the rockets.

Dr Bermangolu said...

You should actually read the things you cite.

"The Iranians helped end the standoff by throwing their weight behind the government after a delegation of Shiite members of Parliament visited Iran earlier this month, according to three people involved in negotiating the truce."

The Iranians threw their weight behind Maliki, not their supposed client Al Sadr. Any more questions?

Bill Baar said...

I think WSJ's Editorial nailed it.

The truce suggests, instead, that Iran has grudgingly come to respect Mr. Maliki as a serious opponent. Having invested itself so heavily in Mr. Sadr's success, Tehran had little reason to suddenly lend its diplomatic offices unless it felt the Mahdi Army was on the verge of defeat. Last week's truce may have postponed that moment, but there's little doubt Mr. Sadr's movement has suffered an embarrassing defeat.

However fitfully it began, the Basra campaign is a sign that Iraqis are in fact "standing up" for their own security. It is also a personal vindication for Mr. Maliki, who recognized to his credit that his government had to have a monopoly on violence in Shiite neighborhoods as much as in Sunni enclaves.

Dr Bermangolu said...

Wall Street didn't nail it. If Maliki really had the upper hand, why did he allow this armed opposition movement to survive? And how, unless the have Maliki in their pockets, could Iran intervene? Why should he care? Could Iran intervene with us, say, if we had been the ones fighting in Basra and had Sadr's guys against the wall?

The attack in Basra didn't prove anything. The civil war is not over. The government does not have control. WSJ and you are just trying to put this in the best possible light. Maliki was defeated.

Bill Baar said...

The provincial elections will tell Doc...