Muqtada al-Sadr new fighting force to battle U.S

[LJS8510]

Originally Posted by paperhouse

Iraqi PM says security talks with US at impasse - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq - broken link)

In case you're interested, the Parliament has denounced our long term policies and are going back to the negotiations to determine the US' role in the future of their country. The next President may not have a say in when troops leave Iraq. We wouldn't want to occupy a democratic country, would we?

Al-Jezeera is reporting the same things.

Al Jazeera English - News - Talks On Us-Iraq Pact At 'Dead End'

I think this will be the way it goes.
We have done all we can do, any more just goes against what the democratically elected government wants.
The worst part is they want close ties with Iran.

Actually the worst part is every single piece of this miserable mess was predicted before this war was ever started. Including being stuck in a quagmire!

[paperhouse]

Originally Posted by LJS8510

We have done all we can do, any more just goes against what the democratically elected government wants.
The worst part is they want close ties with Iran.

I think Iran is an overblown issue. Ahmadinenajad is an elected President and will most likely lose his position in 2009. Iran is made up of young people. There isn't a 40-something crowd. Most of the men of that age group were killed or maimed in the Iran/Iraq war thanks to our intervention and assistance provided to Iraq. They love Americans, the people. The worst thing we could do would be to invade Iran. Let Iraq have it's regional allies. If we are really there fighting for a Democratic Iraq, it's the only thing we can do.

[LJS8510]

I agree Ahmadinenajad may be voted out & Iran problem is overblown. But I think the clerics are the ones truley in charge.
The youth has been trying to break out but have not been able to do it. They may vote someone "better" in, but the clerics are the same.
As far as Iraq & Iran becoming allies, like you said we have freed Iraq so that it can chose their own future. This will happen regardless of what we do, it is however a consequence of what we did.
They will become a very powerful force. They will hopefully not follow the example of the USA and choose a peaceful existence with their neighbors.
Ironic how we invade a country because they had WMD's aimed at us, only they didn't.
Now because of our invasion of Iraq's & Iran are allies and
Now because of our invasion Iran does have or will have WMD's.

[Delta Planter]

If he is captured, rather than sent to his virgins, keep him where he's found. Abu Ghraib comes to mind. He's looking healthy, the US sure doesn't need to feed him at GITMO.

[Reactionary]

Like sanrene said - isn't Mookie al-Sadr in Iran?

And didn't the Iraqi Army just kick Mahdi Army butt in Basra?

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

Like sanrene said - isn't Mookie al-Sadr in Iran?

And didn't the Iraqi Army just kick Mahdi Army butt in Basra?

There are a lot of dynamics at play in Iraq right now. I would not bet the mortgage on who is on who's side and who we can count on. Folks may have intentionally backed off and made life easy for the elected government. That also makes it easier for the government to go tough in negotiating the security agreement with us. They are going tough and it may be that Iran has assured them they can control the Shiite Militia better then we can by fighting them. Bush is the only one that seems to think negotiations are going well and that is when speaking to a domestic audience.

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

Like sanrene said - isn't Mookie al-Sadr in Iran?

And didn't the Iraqi Army just kick Mahdi Army butt in Basra?

there is another thread about his new army and this is from a Washington Post article today:

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 13, 2008; 1:43 PM

BAGHDAD, June 13 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Friday denounced demands made by the United States to extend the presence of American troops in Iraq, saying that the two sides are deadlocked and far from reaching an agreement.

"We found out that the demands of the American side are strongly violating the sovereignty of Iraq, something we could never accept," Maliki said.

Speaking during a visit to Amman, Maliki for the first time added his voice to the growing chorus of senior Iraqi politicians opposed to U.S. proposals for a status of forces agreement, which would authorize the presence of American troops, and a long-term strategic agreement between the two countries. He said the drafts presented by the American side were unacceptable, but that both parties would continue to work toward a deal.

"The initial drafts that were presented have reached a dead end," Maliki said.

But Maliki specifically rejected two positions that American officials have signaled are nonnegotiable. He said the Iraqis expected the United States to commit to protecting Iraq from foreign aggression, and he ruled out allowing Americans to be immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

The Bush administration has said it cannot promise to protect Iraq from foreign aggression without submitting such a commitment to Congress for approval, a step the White House does not wish to take.

The United States initially demanded that both American troops and private contractors be granted immunity, but over the past week Washington has softened its position and dropped its demand for immunity for contractors. Maliki, however, said that was an unacceptable compromise.