Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


    Iraq.. who is the enemy, and who is the friend?

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 280906
    Join date : 2012-12-21
    • Post n°1

    Iraq.. who is the enemy, and who is the friend? Empty Iraq.. who is the enemy, and who is the friend?

    Post by Rocky Sun 01 May 2022, 8:24 am

    [size=39]Iraq.. who is the enemy, and who is the friend?
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
    Iyad Amber
    01 May 2022
    [/size]
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    The German thinker Karl Schmidt (d. 1985) summarized the essential characteristic of political action as being based on "the distinction between friend and foe", a distinction that defines the form and content of politics.
    And the distinction identified by Carl Schmidt is quite different from the saying that many politicians invoke: “Neither enmities nor lasting friendships, but lasting interests.” The difference in the criteria that defines the friend or the enemy, and then the impact of the political considerations that determine who is the “enemy” and who is the “friend”, because the result of the distinction is the declaration of war or the use of all the capabilities of the state to confront the enemy.
    The rule of defining the enemy and the friend may be one of the axioms of political action, and it cannot be stopped in its analysis for long.
    However, the deliberate absence of it by the political class that rules Iraq makes the issue of discrimination subject to the temperaments of the political leaders, more than its reliance on rules that depend on political discourse and positions, so you find those who are accused of (terrorist) and (agent for the foreigner), or who is included Through the matter and justice procedures, he will be a partner or an ally after a short period of time, and all charges of employment and treason will be dropped from him, even if the Internet sites retain his statements and positions in which he declares hostility to the state and not only to the ruling political class!
    Politicians differ a lot in Iraq, public opinion is preoccupied and social media is buzzing with debates about their differences, and public opinion remains divided over their differences that are entrenching social rifts.
    However, they return and sit at one table, certainly not united by love of the homeland or the search for a solution to a political impasse, but rather they sit to share the spoils of power and their shares of the ministries. The citizen remains confused about what they differed from the beginning, and how did we believe that they could disagree?
    The political disputes in Iraq are an opportunity for political missteps, and they begin with referring files to the judiciary, which may be implicated in files of corruption or waste of public money, or even accusations of issues related to terrorism.
    But it ends with political mediation and the issue is resolved by mutual consent, and overnight all charges are dropped and all files are closed! Whoever was accused of corruption or terrorism cases returns with a festive scene carried on the shoulders, and the crowds chant for him (Hala Beyik, Hala.. Bejetak, Hala).
    All this is happening, because the political class and its leadership do not distinguish between those who declare hostility to the state and those who oppose the political process. Therefore, the issue remains dependent on her mood and interests in forgiving and pardoning those who offend the state and society! The state has been completely abolished, and amnesty and forgiveness are dependent on political calculations that are not related to achieving political and societal reconciliation, but rather to the mood of a political leader or prime minister who wants to use or drop the accusation files according to his interests or under the motive of embarrassing or influencing political opponents.
    When the political class works to abolish or dwarf the state, its law and its institutions, and the political wills of the leaders are the ruler, the natural result is that whoever agrees and reconciles with this or that political leader and is under his care, all charges may be dropped from him, even if he glorifies and glorifies the dictatorship of the regime. The former, or chant and call for victory for the terrorist groups over the Iraqi armed forces!
    Even at the level of foreign relations, it can be said that Iraq is the only country in the world that does not set clear and specific criteria for who is a friendly country, and who is an enemy country! The issue is subject to the mood of governments more than clear principles based on determining the interest and sovereignty of the Iraqi state. In 2009, after terrorist bombings targeting Baghdad, Nuri al-Maliki - then Prime Minister - accused Syria of supporting and harboring the groups that carried out that operation, and demanded the UN Security Council to investigate the bombings. But in 2010 he sent an official delegation to Syria to confirm the depth of the strategic relationship between Damascus and Baghdad, which (the exchanged statements between the two countries in the previous stage of tension do not affect it). We later found Iraq, the country supporting the Syrian regime, after the events of 2011 in Syria!
    So is our relationship with Turkey, as despite the aggravation of Turkish problems and violations of Iraq’s sovereignty and security in the northern regions of Iraq, and the continuation of threatening Iraq with drought and desertification due to the encroachment on Iraq’s share of water, all these actions were not dealt with by the Iraqi government as acts that originate from an enemy country and cannot be dealt with by the Iraqi government. Consider it a friendly country! As it targets the sovereignty of the state and its economic security. It seems that the issue is subject to considerations and interests that take precedence over the state's interest.
    And not to distinguish between who is the enemy and who is a friend on the basis of criteria of loyalty and innocence to the state and not to a political leader or a specific government, it means driving another nail in the coffin of the state. The state, which has lost all its features, is a political class that has entrenched chaos and corruption and completely abolished all elements of the rule of law and the rule of institutions. These ruling elites did nothing but waste all opportunities that could overcome the diseases of the transitional period and move towards building a democratic political system.
    Therefore, it is no longer surprising that whoever does not know that politics is based on the principle of distinguishing between enemy and friend, cannot know the meaning of the state and how to manage it according to the principle of the supreme interest, not the interests of political leaders or the mood of governments.
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    • Back to top
      Current date/time is Sun 17 Nov 2024, 11:44 am