Congress begins acting to get America out of Iraq.

[Keltoi]

The problem with Iraq now are the regional ramifications if the U.S. was to leave prematurely. Iran has the most to gain from this, and the most to lose if the U.S. doesn't leave. The Iranian regime doesn't want a pluralist democratic government as a neighbor. It might embolden the reformists inside Iran and weaken the power of theocracy.

Leaving Iraq might seem attractive to many people, but I would bet a large sum of money that the U.S. will be criticized even more heavily by the armchair generals if Iran's influence in the region grows because of the chaos in Iraq.

 

[Woodrow]

The problem with Iraq now are the regional ramifications if the U.S. was to leave prematurely. Iran has the most to gain from this, and the most to lose if the U.S. doesn't leave. The Iranian regime doesn't want a pluralist democratic government as a neighbor. It might embolden the reformists inside Iran and weaken the power of theocracy.

Leaving Iraq might seem attractive to many people, but I would bet a large sum of money that the U.S. will be criticized even more heavily by the armchair generals if Iran's influence in the region grows because of the chaos in Iraq.

We are in a loose-loose situation. The only option is to take the road that results in the smallest loss of life.

Leaving Iraq might seem attractive to many people, but I would bet a large sum of money that the U.S. will be criticized even more heavily by the armchair generals if Iran's influence in the region grows because of the chaos in Iraq

That is almost a guaranteed happening. Iran wants Iraq bad, and we have in effect given Iran the opportunity to gain control of Iraq.

Arm Chair Generals are always right. Decisons are always easy to make when
based on hindsight.

 

[north_malaysian]

we have in effect given Iran the opportunity to gain control of Iraq.

Iran already controlling Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.... I think Ahmidenajad might belongs to a mahdic group which have to secure easier way to conquer Jerusalem... by controlling Iraq, syria and lebanon it's easier to do so...

 

[Trumble]

Iran already controlling Iraq, Syria and Lebanon....

Do you want to tell Bashar al-Assad, or shall I?

 

[north_malaysian]

Do you want to tell Bashar al-Assad, or shall I?

and either of us being tortured by his secret police... dont mind to tell him..:exhausted

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you north_malaysian;

I heard an interview on one of the news channels that when America sends the extra twenty one thousand troops to Iraq, they will also be sending patriot missiles too. Apparently these missiles would have no benefit for street fighting in Iraq, they would only be needed to intercept missiles from Iran.

The implications of these missiles seems like the Bush administration is looking at Iran now, that is a terrifying prospect.

In the spirit of praying for peace

Eric

 

[north_malaysian]

Greetings and peace be with you north_malaysian;

I heard an interview on one of the news channels that when America sends the extra twenty one thousand troops to Iraq, they will also be sending patriot missiles too. Apparently these missiles would have no benefit for street fighting in Iraq, they would only be needed to intercept missiles from Iran.

The implications of these missiles seems like the Bush administration is looking at Iran now, that is a terrifying prospect.

In the spirit of praying for peace

Eric

Hi Eric,

It's already been speculated in melaysian newspaper 1 day after Bush announced it.... I'm not surprised.

But, the Saddam's beheading clip shows who REALLY running the show in Iraq... "Muqtada Muqtada Muqtada" which is supported by whom?

 

[Keltoi]

Hi Eric,

It's already been speculated in melaysian newspaper 1 day after Bush announced it.... I'm not surprised.

But, the Saddam's beheading clip shows who REALLY running the show in Iraq... "Muqtada Muqtada Muqtada" which is supported by whom?

That is very true, and seldom talked about. Although when I was reading the news this morning it said that one of Muqtada's aids was arrested in Baghdad. Perhaps Maliki is actually serious about cracking down on the Shia militia.

 

[Count DeSheep]

the u.s. had no real support for its attack on iraq either, but did that stop it?
i pray that we will not be so insane as to attack iran, but i am not overly optimistic, as i think much of what we have done is not only wrong, but irrational.

The invasion of Iraq was also a factor I listed that would make an attack on Iran highly unlikely. The U.S. can get away with it once--but only once. America is hurting too bad to strike again. I tell you, it will not happen any time soon.

 

[Pygoscelis]

i would like to see the u.s. spend the same amount of money it is spending now, on reparations and no contracts to u.s. companies.
i think there is a real danger that this issue (u.s. responsibility) will be overlooked, if it is not coupled with the call for troop withdrawal.

Oh I think that's a given.

You'd have to be mighty naive to expect the US to actually care about fixing things. They invaded to attempt to establish a greater foothold in the middle east, for security of Israel and to fight terrorism (though really they just created more) and go for oil.

Once they've got what they wanted or realize that they are spending more than they are gaining (in both money and soldiers' lives), don't expect them to stick around, and don't expect them to care terribly about the aftermath once they are out.

 

[Joan of Arc]

But, the Saddam's beheading clip shows who REALLY running the show in Iraq... "Muqtada Muqtada Muqtada" which is supported by whom?

Well Al-Sadr is in a little trouble now:

Main aide of Muqtada al-Sadr arrested By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 37 minutes ago



U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested one of Muqtada al-Sadr's top aides Friday in Baghdad, his office said, as pressure increased on the radical Shiite cleric's militia ahead of a planned security crackdown in the capital.

Al-Sadr said in an interview with an Italian newspaper published Friday that the crackdown had already begun and that 400 of his men had been arrested. La Repubblica also quoted him as saying he fears for his life and stays constantly on the move.

The raid came as Defense Secretary Robert Gates began his second trip to Iraq in less than a month, arriving in the southern city of Basra to consult with British and other allied commanders.

Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, al-Sadr's media director in Baghdad, was captured and his personal guard was killed, according to another senior al-Sadr aide.

"We strongly condemn this cowardly act," said Sheik Abdul-Zahra al-Suweiadi.

The U.S. military said special Iraqi army forces operating with coalition advisers captured a high-level, illegal armed group leader in Baladiyat, an eastern neighborhood near al-Sadr's stronghold. It did not identify the detainee, but said two other suspects were detained by Iraqi forces for further questioning.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pledged to crack down on Shiite militias as well as Sunni insurgents in a planned security operation. His reluctance to confront the Mahdi Army of al-Sadr, his political backer, has led to the failure of previous efforts to stem sectarian violence in Baghdad.

In the interview with La Repubblica, al-Sadr said his militias would not fight back during the Muslim holy month of Muharram, saying it was against the faith to kill at that time.

"Let them kill us. For a true believer there is no better moment than this to die: Heaven is ensured," he was quoted as saying. "After Muharram, we'll see."

The Muharram starts Friday for Sunnis and Saturday for Shiites.

Al-Sadr said he is being targeted.

"For this reason, I have moved my family to a secure location. I even have had a will drawn up, and I move continuously in a way that only few can know where I am," he was quoted as saying by Repubblica.

Militia commanders have said the Shiite prime minister has stopped protecting the fighters under pressure from Washington and have described pinpoint raids in which at least five top commanders of similar standing were captured or killed in recent months.

The U.S. military accused the main suspect captured Friday of having ties with the commanders of so-called death squads, which have been blamed for many of the killings that have left dozens of bodies, often showing signs of torture, on the streets of Baghdad.

The suspect was detained "based on credible intelligence that he is the leader of illegal armed group punishment committee activity, involving the organized kidnapping, torture and murder of Iraqi civilians," according to the military statement.

It also said he was reportedly involved in the assassination of numerous Iraqi security forces and government officials.

"The suspect allegedly leads various illegal armed group operations and is affiliated with illegal armed group cells targeting Iraqi civilians for sectarian attacks and violence," the statement read, adding he was believed to be affiliated with Baghdad death squad commanders, including Abu Diraa, a Shiite militia leader who has gained a reputation for his brutality.

Al-Suweiadi did not give more details, but another official in al-Sadr's office said al-Darraji was captured during a 2 a.m. raid on a mosque in Baladiyat, less than a mile from a U.S. base.

The official and an Iraqi police officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns, also said one of the mosque's guards was killed in a firefight during the raid that damaged the mosque walls, while four other people who were with the sheik were arrested.

Abdul-Razzaq al-Nidawi, an al-Sadr aide in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, demanded that al-Darraji and other detainees from the cleric's movement, be released and called for demonstrations after the weekly Friday prayer services.

"America is playing with fire and our patience is beginning to fade," he said. "This savage barbarian act will not pass peacefully."

Gates, who met earlier with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, said they had expressed concern about whether al-Maliki can deliver on his promises to rein in the violence and "quite frankly, these are reservations that have been expressed in Washington, and we will be watching."

Highlighting the challenges, a rocket struck a British military base late Thursday in Basra, wounding six soldiers, spokeswoman Capt. Katie Brown said, hours before Gates arrived.

British military spokesman Maj. Chris Ormond-King told reporters that no "hard evidence" had been obtained of Iranian arms, money or weapons technology entering southern Iraq, but he added, "As a gut feeling we know there is Iranian influence" here. The predominantly Shiite Muslim areas of southern Iraq have historic ties to Iran, which is a predominantly Shiite nation.

The Bush administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

Ormond-King, also said it was possible that Basra province, which includes the city of the same name, could be turned over to full Iraqi government control by this spring. He said there is no firm timetable. Basra is Iraq's second-largest city after Baghdad.

Britain, which has the largest troop contingent among the U.S. allies, with about 7,000 soldiers in the Basra area, is planning to withdraw a large portion of them this year.

A roadside bomb killed one U.S. soldier and wounded three others in an attack against a patrol that was escorting a convoy in northwestern Baghdad, the military said Friday.

U.S. and Iraqi forces are gearing up for a major neighborhood-by-neighborhood sweep to quell the spiraling violence in the capital.

At least 3,030 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

___

They are also saying that Iraqi and American forces now have the Mahdi Militia under seige and there have been 500 arrests.

 

[KAding]

i would like to see the u.s. spend the same amount of money it is spending now, on reparations and no contracts to u.s. companies.
i think there is a real danger that this issue (u.s. responsibility) will be overlooked, if it is not coupled with the call for troop withdrawal.

But what does 'taking responsibility' entail in your view? Apparently Bush thinks it means sending more troops to secure at least Baghdad.

 

[SolveEtCoagula]

Woolsey takes up President Bush's Challenge on Iraq

Woolsey takes up President Bush's Challenge on Iraq
January 17, 2007, Washington , DC

Introduces H. R. 508 -- comprehensive alternative to escalation: plan would bring all US troops home within 6-months

Joined by Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Maxine Waters (D-CA), Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today introduced the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007, sweeping legislation, which would establish a 6-month timeframe for withdrawal for all US military forces from Iraq, provide a framework for bringing stability back to Iraq, and fully fund the VA health care system. The proposal is a direct response to President Bush's challenge over the weekend for those who oppose his planed escalation to put forth a plan of their own. Woolsey introduced the bill during a press conference held this afternoon in the Capitol. Below are her remarks, as prepared for delivery:

"Today Congresswomen Waters and Lee and I are introducing a bill that would bring our troops home from Iraq within a six month timeframe.

"The Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act is the first comprehensive legislative proposal to end the occupation and provide a framework to help bring stability back to Iraq.

"Last Wednesday night, President Bush demonstrated to the world that he continues to remain blind to the realities on the ground in Iraq. Instead of putting forth a plan that would withdraw our troops, the President is increasing our military presence, by escalating the number of troops by over twenty thousand. What President Bush fails to grasp is that our military presence is only fueling the insurgency, plunging Iraq further into chaos and civil war.

"The November elections showed just how fed up the American public is with the President's failed Iraq policy. It is time to honor that mandate. It is now up to the Congress to catch up with the will of the American public.

"During his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Bush challenged those of us who disagree with him to offer a plan of our own. Today, we stand before you, and the American public, to take up his challenge.

"The Congress has already appropriated funding that will support our troops and keep this occupation going for at least another six months. That funding instead should be used to finance an aggressive withdrawal plan that brings our troops home to their families. Our bill would do exactly that.

"Our plan will also...

Withdraw all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months from date of enactment.
Prohibit any further funding to deploy, or continue to deploy U.S. troops in Iraq. The bill does, however, allow for funding to be used, as needed, to ensure a safe withdrawal of all US military personnel and contractors, diplomatic consultations. Funding may also be used for the increased training and equipping of Iraqi and international security forces.
Accelerate, during the six month transition, training of a permanent Iraqi security force.
Authorize, if requested by the Iraqi government, U.S. support for an international stabilization force. Such a force would be funded for no longer than two years, and be combined with economic and humanitarian assistance.
Guarantee full health care funding, including mental health, for U.S. veterans of military operations in Iraq and other conflicts.
Rescind the Congressional Authorization for the War in Iraq.
Prohibit the construction of permanent US military bases in the country.
Finally, we believe that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis. Once the oil is in the international market, the U.S. will certainly have access to our share. That's why our bill ensures that the U.S. has no long-term control over Iraqi oil.

"Our plan, with the exception of Veterans' benefits, will cost the American people pennies on the dollar as compared to continuing the occupation for two more years. It will save lives, bodies, and minds, and it will give Iraq back to the Iraqis. It is an important step in regaining our credibility in the region and throughout the world, and provides the President, and this Congress, with a comprehensive way to respond to the majority of Americans who want our troops to come home."

This bill is co-sponsored by: Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Diane Watson (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Bob Filner (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Donald Payne (D-NJ) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX).

Take Action Now!

Tell your member of Congress to support H. R. 508, and
Tell Speaker Pelosi to get us out of Iraq.

http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-01-17-22-20-47-news.php

 

[snakelegs]

The invasion of Iraq was also a factor I listed that would make an attack on Iran highly unlikely. The U.S. can get away with it once--but only once. America is hurting too bad to strike again. I tell you, it will not happen any time soon.

yes, it would make no sense - but it made no sense to invade iraq in the first place, so it wouldn't surprise me at all. worries me, tho.

 

[Asvi]

finally, its bout time.

 

[snakelegs]

But what does 'taking responsibility' entail in your view? Apparently Bush thinks it means sending more troops to secure at least Baghdad.

in all honesty, i don't know. how can we undo this hell we've unleashed, which could easily become regional (and which was quite predictable)?
in any case, we should pay for the rebuilding of everything we've destroyed. how and when, i don't know.
we can never really compensate for what we've done.
i hold the u.s. responsible for creating the circumstances that make all this sectarian killing possible.
to just bring home the troops is not going far enough, tho i guess it would satisfy those who only care about american blood. but it is good as a first step.
if the troops suddenly left, what would happen?
on a side note, our invasion of iraq has, if anything, made a terrorist attack on the u.s. more likely than it was before, not less.

 

[Keltoi]

in all honesty, i don't know. how can we undo this hell we've unleashed, which could easily become regional (and which was quite predictable)?
in any case, we should pay for the rebuilding of everything we've destroyed. how and when, i don't know.
we can never really compensate for what we've done.
i hold the u.s. responsible for creating the circumstances that make all this sectarian killing possible.
to just bring home the troops is not going far enough, tho i guess it would satisfy those who only care about american blood. but it is good as a first step.
if the troops suddenly left, what would happen?
on a side note, our invasion of iraq has, if anything, made a terrorist attack on the u.s. more likely than it was before, not less.

How much more "likely" does it need to be after 9-11? That was a rhetorical question. I get your point, and I agree that the War in Iraq will probably increase the possibility of future terrorist attacks, but I think the U.S. was obviously under threat of future terrorist attacks already. If it wasn't Iraq it would have been Afghanistan, and I don't believe anyone seriously concerned with American security could oppose the War in Afghanistan. Perhaps you do, but the vast majority of Americans supported and still support the mission there. It is Iraq that has divided us.

 

[snakelegs]

i am concerned about american security, but i was opposed to our attack on afghanistan. but you're right, most supported it. i don't think afghanistan raised (or lowered) the threat of a terrorist attack, but iraq increased it for sure.

 

[Agnostic]

I believe America had to go into Afghanistan, It was basically a safe haven and a training ground for the people that plotted 9-11. However Iraq was a huge mistake in my opinion, not just in the act of the invasion but the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't listen to there own generals and sent a force of 140,000 when the military wanted to send almost 500,000 troups. This led to the looting (in the beginning) and the sectarian violence we have today, there is no way the smaller force could provide security for an entire nation.
Now we dont know how to get out.

 

[Keltoi]

I believe America had to go into Afghanistan, It was basically a safe haven and a training ground for the people that plotted 9-11. However Iraq was a huge mistake in my opinion, not just in the act of the invasion but the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't listen to there own generals and sent a force of 140,000 when the military wanted to send almost 500,000 troups. This led to the looting (in the beginning) and the sectarian violence we have today, there is no way the smaller force could provide security for an entire nation.
Now we dont know how to get out.

Good point. Donald Rumsfeld's transformation of the Cold War era U.S. military into a "mobile and versatile" force is all well and good for taking down a regime, but to provide security for a country requires massive troops levels. Personally, I don't think Donald Rumsfeld actually intended to stay in Iraq for an extended period of time. Rummy is a scapegoat on many levels.