he is said to dwell in the castle of Kronborg, his beard grown down to the floor, and to sleep there until some date when Denmark is in mortal danger, at which time he will rise up and deliver the nation
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Photo of the Day: I Bring You Serfs Pain
--
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
There's nothing much he could do. Not without troops. State? In Iraq? Maliki at that point had the complete backing of Tehran. He could easily intimidate the State Department or ignore their calls for reform or otherwise.
Obama tried to keep the troops there past 2011. The fact that Maliki was that confident to rebuff America means he had laid down roots and would be hard to dislodge. My question is, why did the Bush administration even go forward with him? Knowing full well his connections to Tehran.
So who's really to blame for Iran's growing presence?
Iraq is not America's or Iran's to lose. They are a sovereign independent nation. Not a province of Iran or the 51st state of America.
As for Iran's growing influence in the region? Well....there are consequences of a haphazard approach to the occupation of post-Saddam Iraq.
The failure to halt the looting right after the fall of Baghdad, the failure to properly protect PRT's due to insufficient troop numbers to begin with, the destruction of the technocratic class as a result of nearly 100% de-Ba'athification.
I'm sorry but these strategic blunders are not usually tolerated by enemies like Iran.
They just open the door to Iranian meddling. When CPA interns are sent to rebuild Iraq as opposed to seasoned veterans of the State Department that sends the wrong message to Iraqis.
That the Americans are woefully inexperienced and inequipped to handle the intricate job of rebuilding Iraq.
So they turn to Iran. And Iran certainly made sure not to repeat the sophomoric nation building mistakes America made in the first 6-12 months of its occupation of Iraq.
What's most disturbing is that they were obvious blunders. What was so blinding that the CPA didn't see them?
3 comments:
There's nothing much he could do. Not without troops. State? In Iraq? Maliki at that point had the complete backing of Tehran. He could easily intimidate the State Department or ignore their calls for reform or otherwise.
Obama tried to keep the troops there past 2011. The fact that Maliki was that confident to rebuff America means he had laid down roots and would be hard to dislodge. My question is, why did the Bush administration even go forward with him? Knowing full well his connections to Tehran.
So who's really to blame for Iran's growing presence?
Edi Rama
P.S.
Your title says: "America loses Iraq to Iran."
Iraq is not America's or Iran's to lose. They are a sovereign independent nation. Not a province of Iran or the 51st state of America.
As for Iran's growing influence in the region? Well....there are consequences of a haphazard approach to the occupation of post-Saddam Iraq.
The failure to halt the looting right after the fall of Baghdad, the failure to properly protect PRT's due to insufficient troop numbers to begin with, the destruction of the technocratic class as a result of nearly 100% de-Ba'athification.
I'm sorry but these strategic blunders are not usually tolerated by enemies like Iran.
They just open the door to Iranian meddling. When CPA interns are sent to rebuild Iraq as opposed to seasoned veterans of the State Department that sends the wrong message to Iraqis.
That the Americans are woefully inexperienced and inequipped to handle the intricate job of rebuilding Iraq.
So they turn to Iran. And Iran certainly made sure not to repeat the sophomoric nation building mistakes America made in the first 6-12 months of its occupation of Iraq.
What's most disturbing is that they were obvious blunders. What was so blinding that the CPA didn't see them?
Edi Rama
Edi,
You're starting to sound an awful lot like that Chinese guy that comments here.
In fact, the Chinese moron comments on the wrong blog post too.
I think you've outworn your welcome here, Rama Noodles.
:Holger Danske
Post a Comment