What has happened to al Sadr?

[Dreadnought]

They didn't stand up to anybody, they just attacked innocent people and burned shops and houses, vandalising both mosques and private property. They got their ***es kicked wherever they went by real Iranians and than went on to scream "Basij!", those Basijis who were involved in restoring order wore uniforms and anti-riot gear, the others were just people which weren't accepting this. Also these rioters attacked police stations and policemen but on their 30 second youtube videos they don't show that, they only show when they get hit themselfes by police who are defending themselfes and others.

*Blame the lunitic in charge that cheated them out of free and fair elections. He regulary calls for supporters to hit the streets in his support but when it is in protest its a different world and the Basij gets sent out to beat them, in some cases murder and torture them. WTF would you expect, they are humans and they do have rights! There are two sides to everything not just the leaders. And from what the world saw I think they would strongly disagee they were attacking innocent people. More like being attacked for voiceing the oposition.

All you've done ws show how garbage the past rulers were, something all Iranians know (and even the Shahis hate the Qajars), but thankfully, this all changed after the revolution.

*And the point remains the same though. Your country was once a "puppet" to the Russian government. Like it or not its the truth and you cant deny that every time you call someone else's government a "puppet".:P

And Saddam was hated by 90% of the population, it's not a very good example.

*The fact remains the same, Saddam has religious roots like many in that country. But his government was not theocratic and is now past tense and one elected by the people to replace it. Keep that in mind.

90% of the civilized world right now more then likely dont like Irans leaders either. I guess thats their fault to though rite for disagreeing with extremeist idiots? But then again you have North Korea to keep you company though rite?)

They have the power to rigg the elections, but if they did so is another matter.

*Please do explain how they have the power, first you emphasize that US Troops would stuff ballad boxes, now the US government has the power to do that?

*Which is it and explain just how they would do that since you feel so inclined to mention it? You cant because you are talking out your backside again!

The UN is not neutral, it's a worthless organisation created to portray America's stand as that of the so-called "World community"

*The UN's Security Council is the only thing protecting your countries ass right now and as of this minute. The second Russia and China were to agree, your countries ass would get flatened so fast your head would spin. So be pleased that the UN does indeed exist if not for others but for your own sake.

Speaking of the UN you seem to be the only one that bitches about it bing here in the US, Note no other countries do including Russia, China, France, Germany, Japan, hell even Venezuala. It seems you have a personal axe to grind as S-2 mentioned before.


They'd been counting all day, that's why they didn't need to count the votes the next day, but had finished counting 4 hours after the polls were closed.

Yeah, they counted alright, enough so that every person with a second grade education disagreed they could possibly count that many votes in that period of time. Own up to it...They got screwed and therefore you had the protests for days!

Only reformists, but they are liars.

I find it funny that those that look over assahola would be called liars, but you called it so they must all be.)

How can Wahabi terrorists exist in the United States?

I dont know, maybe from listening to some of the idiot extremeists, kind of like the ones that run Iran I suppose. They do get caught though and prosecuted.

What we have seen is who won the most seats. Sadr won't be the next Prime Minister, if that's what you mean with victor, but there will be no PM without his approval.

*One things for sure, he wont be one of them, He claims he will remain in Iran until US forces are gone. Sounds good to US because some forces are likey to be there for awhile via invitation from Iraq's government.

Enjoy Iran zipperhead, Im sure he feels rite at home with the other theocratic idiots.)

[Kermanshahi]

Read your paragraph here closely and note that dictators don't drop hints of a coup. Also note your comments about contesting elections. Flawed, underdeveloped, misunderstood and contentious electoral processes are one thing.

Dictatorship is an altogether different thing.

Dictators like to claim they're democratic, therefore he would rather first make a a threat to ensure they put him in power and he can save face before he actually does a coup.

Over the last years Maliki has turned more and more into a dictator, he's not quite there yet, I'll give you that, but the outcome here will show the way it's going. One thing we do know is the elections were not free, disputedly they were not fair either (Jaafari alleges Maliki gave himself 800,000 fake voets, Maliki alleges Allawi stole 750,000 Maliki votes, Allawi alleges thousands of his votes were thrown into trash cans, Kurds allege Allawi rigged the polls in Kerkuk).

This is an immature democracy that could easily fall into any number of outcomes over time. That's certain. It's NOT, however, remotely close to a dictatorship right now nor has it been. Whether that changes over the next few years is a separate matter but the claim you'd earlier made is just plain wrong.

What do you call a dictatorship then? A country with no elections at all? Because most dictatorships hold elections and in some of them there are Presidents and Prime Ministers who hold all the official power but behind the scenes military leaders still rule the country.

[S2]

"What do you call a dictatorship then?"

Rhetorical. You'd already acquiesced here-

"...I'll give you that..."

He's more than not quite there yet. The state of Iraqi politics is contentious, to say the least. That's hardly indicative of a dictatorship.

Dictatorship. Derives from "diktat". Not close at this point.

[Kermanshahi]

*Blame the lunitic in charge that cheated them out of free and fair elections. He regulary calls for supporters to hit the streets in his support but when it is in protest its a different world and the Basij gets sent out to beat them, in some cases murder and torture them. WTF would you expect, they are humans and they do have rights! There are two sides to everything not just the leaders. And from what the world saw I think they would strongly disagee they were attacking innocent people. More like being attacked for voiceing the oposition.

No-one cheated anyone out of a fair elections, Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power to do such thing and those above him approved Mousavi's candidacy, if they wanted to prevent him from joining they could have just not given him the approval.

*And the point remains the same though. Your country was once a "puppet" to the Russian government. Like it or not its the truth and you cant deny that every time you call someone else's government a "puppet".:P

Our government was also once a puppet of the British, once a puppet of the Germans and once a puppet of the Ameicans. Iran had been a satelite state for too long and that's why we never got anywhere during that time. But the Iranian people did something about it and now we're helping others to do that aswell.

*The fact remains the same, Saddam has religious roots like many in that country. But his government was not theocratic and is now past tense and one elected by the people to replace it. Keep that in mind.

Saddam had no religious roots, he didn't come from a family of Imans nor was he descendant of Mohammad, he was merely nominally a Muslim and if this is your example of a "good" secular government you're very wrong. See the problem in the Middle East is that most "secular" governments (regime of the Shah and his father, regime of Saddam, military junta of Turkey) are all very racist but in the west they don't know that and think that these guys are liberal and somehow more tolerant than fundementalists.

90% of the civilized world right now more then likely dont like Irans leaders either. I guess thats their fault to though rite for disagreeing with extremeist idiots? But then again you have North Korea to keep you company though rite?)

Depends what you call civilised, you don't call Muslims civilised, I don't call rednecks civilised.

*Please do explain how they have the power, first you emphasize that US Troops would stuff ballad boxes, now the US government has the power to do that?

*Which is it and explain just how they would do that since you feel so inclined to mention it? You cant because you are talking out your backside again!

I'm not the one making the fraud allegations, nor am I a spokesman for Jaafari, Allawi, Maliki, Talabani, Barzani, Allusi, Nujayfi, Barzani or any other politician, all I reproted was the fraud claims that have been made and the claim America rigged the elections is also among it.

The UN's Security Council is the only thing protecting your countries ass right now and as of this minute. The second Russia and China were to agree, your countries ass would get flatened so fast your head would spin. So be pleased that the UN does indeed exist if not for others but for your own sake.

Speaking of the UN you seem to be the only one that bitches about it bing here in the US, Note no other countries do including Russia, China, France, Germany, Japan, hell even Venezuala. It seems you have a personal axe to grind as S-2 mentioned before.

As the Imam said: We do not fear an American military invsion, we do not fear economical sanctions, what we fear is an invasion by American immorality.

Fact is your country only picks on the weakest nations in the world, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon, Haiti, Grenada, Iraq, Iran is nowhere in the leage of countries America would dare attack and the UN can't say anything about who the US attacks. But the failures of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made you think twice before starting and losing another war.

Yeah, they counted alright, enough so that every person with a second grade education disagreed they could possibly count that many votes in that period of time. Own up to it...They got screwed and therefore you had the protests for days!

Not every person, everyone which was determined to believe the elections were rigged. This included traitors like supporters of the Munafeqin e-Kalq and the Shah, Iran-hating Zionists, rednecks and racist Westerners like you, hard-core supporters of this mass-murderer and unfortunetly at the time some real Iranians which believed Mousavi had proof.

I find it funny that those that look over assahola would be called liars, but you called it so they must all be.)

You seem determined to fool yourself into thinking the votes were not counted, however how do you then explain those "real" results Mousavi published which gave him 19 milion votes and Ahmadinejad 5 milion? So either the elections were just counted, or Mousavi is a liar, like I said.

*One things for sure, he wont be one of them, He claims he will remain in Iran until US forces are gone. Sounds good to US because some forces are likey to be there for awhile via invitation from Iraq's government.

Enjoy Iran zipperhead, Im sure he feels rite at home with the other theocratic idiots.)

He doesn't want a place in the government, but if those in his party, which are loyal to him get prominent positions in that government it gives him power. Also right now, Maliki and others are negotiating with him, not with those elected MPs.

Americans will leave by end 2011, the Iraqi government and people don't want them to stay and it would be impossible to form any new coalition without agreeing for an American withdraw. There is infact even a possibility now that you'll have to leave earlier. Also Obama doesn't seem like he wants to stay at all, despite what some neo-cons have been hoping for that they'll never leave.

I dont know, maybe from listening to some of the idiot extremeists, kind of like the ones that run Iran I suppose. They do get caught though and prosecuted.

Not even knowing the difference between a Wahabi and a Shi'a sais enough about your knowledge of the region. You're talking from your ass, Dreadnought, I have no time for morons like that.

[Kermanshahi]

"What do you call a dictatorship then?"

Rhetorical. You'd already acquiesced here-

"...I'll give you that..."

He's more than not quite there yet. The state of Iraqi politics is contentious, to say the least. That's hardly indicative of a dictatorship.

Dictatorship. Derives from "diktat". Not close at this point.

Yet he bans politican opponents from joining elections and threatens courts and election commissions to declare him winner while there are large scale human rights abuses done by his regime. Doesn't seem very democratic, does it? Sounds more like a dictatorship.

And there are plenty of dictatorships like Yemen and Egypt were there are elections but the dictator and his party seem to win big everytime and are thus President or Prime Minister for life, many of them have even started de facto monarchies like Azerbaijan's Heydar Aliyev making his son Ilham Aliyev president after he retired and Mubarak appointing his son as successor.

[S2]

"...Doesn't seem very democratic, does it? Sounds more like a dictatorship."

Immensely democratic as compared to, say, mullocracy. Malformed and immature, yes. Little question though that there's a profound democratic political process at play in Iraq. You've provided all the requisite proof with the joustling going on to form coalitions of the willing.

Then there are the constituencies. Maliki knows that inclusiveness will be part and parcel to the picture lest the sunni and Kurds find the climate incapable of accomodating their perspectives...and that matters if he or any other shia politician (or sunni/Kurd) to include fat-boy wishes to call the lands they govern I-R-A-Q.

"And there are plenty of dictatorships like Yemen and Egypt were there are elections but the dictator and his party seem to win big everytime and are thus President or Prime Minister for life, many of them have even started de facto monarchies like Azerbaijan's Heydar Aliyev making his son Ilham Aliyev president after he retired and Mubarak appointing his son as successor."

Irrelevant to Iraq. What's happening there is absolutely and utterly unique to the region. I appreciate your abiding desire to see anything other than a real democracy emerge. It explains the mullocracy's abject interference in Iraqi political affairs. Not the ONLY explanation but the most prominent and profound.

Nothing so threatens the mullahs to the east.

[Dreadnought]

Depends what you call civilised, you don't call Muslims civilised, I don't call rednecks civilised.

*Wrong, I have no problem with Muslims,Arabs, Indians, Pakistani's etc the same as any other people. Only that certain countries leaders/clerics wish to rule them by force, threats and death if they do not comply with their leadership/religious leadership and deny them basic human rights. And with your attitude the only ones that you would consider civilized are those drinking the same coolade you are. Complete and total bullshit. Your country and NK have much to share in common. Your both pathetic when it comes to treating people with dignity and respecta nd the rights they were born with. The worlds is going to be a much better place once the two regimes have ended. The people will rejoice.

You're talking from your ass, Dreadnought, I have no time for morons like that.

*Son, You've been talking out your ass ever since this thread and others like it based upon their nuclear weapons program began. More then several times indisputable proof has been given to you from sources outside the US and UK and by many others then myself. For those that dont believe, revisit the past threads on Iran. Many here have already recognized it with your posts on several threads that you:

A) Dont pay attention to facts (They must all be lies to you) even though they are undisputable and much proof has been offered. You are blind and deserve to live the life of the blind as suited. So be.

B) Have been given vacations from the WAB because of your pathetic deniablility and rants in the face of those that have served there and are from there. No big surprise there either.

Even Arajet has had to correct you on several occasions that you felt so strongly about that you assumed nobody knew different. But he did and so did 1980.

In fact Arajet and 1980 is ten times more in tune then you over much of what is discussed and dont bother with rhetoric.

You have an axe to grind with the West and it shows. Pathetically it does and you can ask others that have read these threads time and time again its quite apparent.

*Enjoy the coolade for as long as you want to drink it, dinnerjacket and his pathetic bunch will keep on mixing it, pathetic as it may be. Enjoy and see you soon in the UN sanctions.)

[Dreadnought]

I don't call rednecks civilised.

*Well I'll take that well then since apparently you know even less about American culture then I gave you credit for.

*Im a damnned Yankee. From the NORTH!:P

And besides many of the people YOU would call rednecks I would call some of the most nicest and down to earth people I have met in the US and some of their cooking is the best I have ever eaten. It's called hospitality and manners son!
Maybe one day you will learn that among several other things.)

[Officer of Engineers]

al Sadr is going to learn what every politician has learned through 1000s of years experience. You cannot run a part from outside the country. Kermanshahi suggestion that al Sadr is now a kingmaker ignores one thing. Al Sadr has not chosen a king. I'll give him this though, he's astute enough not to.

[Kermanshahi]

Immensely democratic as compared to, say, mullocracy. Malformed and immature, yes. Little question though that there's a profound democratic political process at play in Iraq. You've provided all the requisite proof with the joustling going on to form coalitions of the willing.

People and parties being banned from the election due to politican views: undemocratic
Election losers threatening with violence to cling on to power and succeeding: undemocratic

We have to still see if that last one happens, though. But by your standards we could label all dictaorships as so-called "Beginning democracies."

Then there are the constituencies. Maliki knows that inclusiveness will be part and parcel to the picture lest the sunni and Kurds find the climate incapable of accomodating their perspectives...and that matters if he or any other shia politician (or sunni/Kurd) to include fat-boy wishes to call the lands they govern I-R-A-Q.

Maliki has Sunnis in his own list to claim it's "non-secterian," he has no obligation to join with any Sunni party.

Irrelevant to Iraq. What's happening there is absolutely and utterly unique to the region. I appreciate your abiding desire to see anything other than a real democracy emerge. It explains the mullocracy's abject interference in Iraqi political affairs. Not the ONLY explanation but the most prominent and profound.

Nothing so threatens the mullahs to the east.

Elections where people with too different views get banned from running while the rest can compete and call themselfes "democratic," is not unique to the region at all, we have elections like that in Kuwait, in Jordan, in Iran, in Turkey, in Aliyevbaijan, in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Oman, in Qatar.

Note: to be a democracy there has to be freedom of speach, if there isn't (like in Iraq), than democracy can't work and also elections shouldn't be fraudulent.

al Sadr is going to learn what every politician has learned through 1000s of years experience. You cannot run a part from outside the country.

He's a cleric, not a politician, Sadr has no interests to become a minister or mp or prime minister and run the country but what he does want is to have influence over the politics and with his party growing, so does his influence.

Kermanshahi suggestion that al Sadr is now a kingmaker ignores one thing. Al Sadr has not chosen a king. I'll give him this though, he's astute enough not to.

Negotiations are still ongoing, Sadr has his demands, the others are making him offers (and Maliki is releasing supposedly "innocent" prisoners who fought in the Special Groups as goodwill towards Sadr), but it might take a little while before he chooses his king.

[Officer of Engineers]

He's a cleric, not a politician, Sadr has no interests to become a minister or mp or prime minister and run the country

So he starts a war for nothing.

Negotiations are still ongoing, Sadr has his demands, the others are making him offers (and Maliki is releasing supposedly "innocent" prisoners who fought in the Special Groups as goodwill towards Sadr), but it might take a little while before he chooses his king.

He isn't. He has ran referrendums and is standing by that choice.

[Kermanshahi]

So he starts a war for nothing.

That war is over, but it sure wasn't for nothing.

He isn't. He has ran referrendums and is standing by that choice.

For all we know they might have rigged the outcome, the referendum was very unorganized anyway with no-one needing to show id and nothing preventing people from voting more than once and. We knew already prior to the referendum that Ibrahim al-Jaafari was his favourite for PM, he'd have tried to push fowards Jaafari anyway but Sadrist politicians have said that they will not nececerily keep to the results of the referendum. But time will tell...

[Officer of Engineers]

That war is over, but it sure wasn't for nothing.

That's right. It was to establish himself as a political leader.

For all we know they might have rigged the outcome, the referendum was very unorganized anyway with no-one needing to show id and nothing preventing people from voting more than once and. We knew already prior to the referendum that Ibrahim al-Jaafari was his favourite for PM, he'd have tried to push fowards Jaafari anyway but Sadrist politicians have said that they will not nececerily keep to the results of the referendum. But time will tell...

Either way, if he stays in Iran, it's not his call to make.

[Kermanshahi]

That's right. It was to establish himself as a political leader.

If that was the objective he sure succeeded, if he had never opposed the occupation he wouldn't have been nearly as powerfull and influential as he is.

Either way, if he stays in Iran, it's not his call to make.

Yet everyone is sending delegations to Qom to beg him for their support.

Sadr has now removed his veto on Maliki, saying there will be no red-lines regarding Premiership in an alliance with the SLC (Maliki's coalition), however the reason the long anticipated SLC-NIA coalition hasn't been created yet (Maliki is desperetly pushing for this as otherwise he's out) is that Sadr has given Allawi the chance to send a delegation to convince him, which even Allawi knows is his last chance at Premiership. Sadr's opposition to the occupation has given him an image of nationalist (along with Shi'a Islamist), this is why he has more sympathy among the secularist/nationalist camp than the other Shi'a leaders like al-Hakim.

Most likely either Sadr will allow Maliki to become PM, or they'll compromise in that area and make Sadr's cousin Jaafar al-Sadr PM. But next to the PM there are four other important positions, the head of their parliamentary bloc (previously this was the late al-Hakim), the Deputy PM (which is currently held by Allawi's coalition parner Rafi al-Issawi), Vice President (the current VPs are Allawi's coaliton parner al-Hashemi and ISCI's Adil Abd al-Mahdi, the latter is likely to become the new VP as there now will only be one) and the Speaker of parliament (currently Tawafuq leader Iyad al-Samarae'i) which might be given to a Sunni again. If Maliki becomes PM, these positions will be given to Sard's list. But if Maliki makes this coalition he won't be able to do anything without Sadr's approval since he needs him to form a majority.

[Officer of Engineers]

If that was the objective he sure succeeded, if he had never opposed the occupation he wouldn't have been nearly as powerfull and influential as he is.

No, his objective was an uprising. He failed. This was a consolation prize.

Yet everyone is sending delegations to Qom to beg him for their support.

Vis-a-vi the backdoor discussions going on with the other parties, this is peanuts. It doesn't hurt to talk to him but he is not the kingmaker you've made him out to be.