Should Nouri al-Maliki get a Pension? Secret Service protection?

[Stinky The Clown]

Looks like the hapless Nouri al-Maliki is not long for his office. He is a slam dunk to win the Didn't Do Jack Shit While In Office award. but that's about it. (By the way, that Nouri there, third from the left, next to Snoozie Dee and Snoozie Dumb.)



I'm wondering ..... does this guy deserve anything more than his skin and maybe a back shave? Does he deserve the Iraqi version of Secret Service protection? Maybe a permanent Blackwater contingent? How about a pension?

[babylonsister]

1. For what? What exactly has he accomplished? nt

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. Retirement plans for Iraqi leaders have not

been, well, let's just say, un-needed in the past.

M'kay?

[Rick Myers]

3. Yes!!! He should get Dubya's detail... Let the little prick PAY for security...

Send him to live in Kennebunkport or the Pig Farm!!!

[spirit of wine]

4. Free burial services

There needs to be some kind of follow through if not from this administration then whoever gets voted in. It must be very patriotic or very greedy for someone like Maliki to want this crazy job in the first place, it seems inevitable that his destiny is already signed in blood. Working with Bush should make him realize this.

-Peace

[MADem]

5. I hate being a contrarian, but here I go...YES, he should, if he is forced to run and hide.

He should get the same kind of deal we gave to the senior leadership in South Vietnam and Iran and elsewhere.

Even if it sucks.

Here's why:

There may come a day when a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress wants to accomplish goals that might not be popular in the country in question, but NEED to happen for simple reasons of morality and decency, and they enlist the aid of leaders who face an uphill battle convincing factions within their own country to play ball.

Say a Saudi ruler who wants to give females equal rights, voting rights, and the ability to move about freely without a man-relative in tow comes along. We help him achieve power within the context of the Royal Family in exchange for pushing hard on these issues, but next thing ya know, there's a downturn in the economy, some jerk takes over in a coup, slaughters half his family, obtains his Swiss bank numbers and cleans him out, and leaves him at an OPEC Conference somewhere without two pence to rub together.

Do we help that guy? After he stuck his neck out to achieve goals that didn't impact him, personally, but satisfied a moral imperative of ours? He's not safe, he has nowhere to hide, he needs protection and a place to live. Do we keep our word as a nation?

People around the world need to know that we ARE a nation that keeps our word, even if an asshole in charge makes the deal. From my viewpoint, it's a bigger issue than Democratic vs. Republican politics, or Liberal vs. Conservative viewpoints. It's why Jimmy Carter took care of Shah, even though he wasn't a guy on Jimmy's Top Ten list.

Most people around the world don't see us straight off as people belonging to political parties, just as we don't compartmentalize people from other nations quite that way at first glance either--they see that we have good leaders sometimes, and bad leaders other times. But overall, they still don't hate us as individuals, even though they hate our government. That's because, we, as a people, are pretty good at the quaint notion of "Keeping Our Word."

So, if we gave the guy assurances, even if "we" was Asswipe George or Bozo Condi, we need to make good on them. It's our reputation on the line.

[ProudDad]

7. Damn, what???

"People around the world need to know that we ARE a nation that keeps our word"

When did that start? I guess I didn't get the memo.

This country NEVER keeps its word unless it's about protecting the worst of the worst...

[MADem]

9. Ah, your mileage varies. I am not surprised. It always does.

I gave you two examples--South Vietnam and Iran. They were our allies, and when it went to shit, we got the people who supported our endeavors, mistaken or otherwise, out.

Jimmy Carter, who was no friend of Shah, worked deals to persuade Egypt to help Shah. We gave him medical care as he slowly died. That's what a guy who understands the Big Picture does. Even if he doesn't LIKE the guy.

We gave South Vietnamese officials new lives and businesses, many in Southern California.

We kept our word in taking care of leaders who were on "our team"--even if our efforts were misguided in those instances. If we don't do that sort of thing, we won't be able to influence any events around the world. Ever. We'd be known as the people who abandon our allies when things go badly.

And not ALL influence is a bad thing.

But hey, whatever. I didn't expect you to agree, anyway.

[deadmessengers]

6. put me down for "feh"

He's *their* problem, not ours.

[welshTerrier2]

8. here's a step-by-step program on how to deal with Maliki

1. first, we should give him some chemical weapons, perhaps mustard gas, to put down all these insurgencies. I think we should let him kill about 300,000 Iraqis to help "stabilize" the country.
2. after that, we should "green light" his invasion of Kuwait so that he can steal some oil from those arrogant Kuwaitis.
3. then, to help him "stand up to" the Iranians, we should sell him about every possible kind of military hardware we can. If that makes a buck or two for American defense companies, no problem.
4. next, we should tell him to destroy all the weapons we sold him. It's one thing for our companies to make a buck but we can't let a heavily armed madman go around the Middle East invading other countries to steal their oil.
5. then, just to make sure he obeys us, we should ban all trade with Iraq and starve the Iraqi people. we could do this until maybe 1/2 million children are dead and perhaps another million adults or so.
6. we could offer an "oil for food" program to show our "humanitarian side". no sense hurting "our" oil companies just because of Maliki.
7. then, and we'd of course have to get the support of the Democratically-controlled Senate just as was done with the IWR, we would have to invade Iraq and completely destroy its infrastructure and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
8. and finally, we would have to hang Maliki because he'd know the truth of what we did.

after that, the cycle, like the onset of spring, could begin anew with a brand new US puppet ... thus, as you can see, there is no need for a pension ...

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Brilliant!

You need to put that one in its own thread!

[welshTerrier2]

11. thanks, buddy !!

i loved it myself ... i don't say that about all of them ...

i'll find a way to work it into another thread ... maybe when the Iraqi Parliament kicks Maliki out ...