PDA

View Full Version : Iraq allies urge Bush to turn to Iran, Syria


Alonzo
11-13-2006, 03:40 PM
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - President Bush was under pressure from some of his closest allies on Monday to turn to arch enemies Iran and Syria for help in stabilizing Iraq amid Iraqi government paralysis and fears of all-out civil war.

ADVERTISEMENT

A suicide bomb that killed 11 Iraqis on a minibus and news that at least nine U.S. and British troops died in the previous two days kept the pressure on Bush as he met the bipartisan Iraq Study Group on Monday to talk about changes in Iraq policy.

Monday's violence, which also underlined Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's problems trying to curb the bloodshed, followed attacks which killed more than 100 people on Sunday including a suicide attack on police recruits which killed 35 in Baghdad.

Bush has said he is looking for "fresh perspectives" on Iraq after his Republican Party received a drubbing in last week's mid-term elections, losing control of both houses of Congress.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair will call on Monday for Syria and Iran to be engaged in efforts to stem violence in Iraq and to secure a broader Middle East peace settlement.

Blair will argue the need for a Middle East strategy that includes making clear to Damascus and Tehran how they can help in the region while warning them of the consequences of hindering peace, a spokeswoman said.

His comments, to be made in an annual foreign policy speech, will show his willingness to work with Syria and Iran on Iraq -- an idea so far spurned by Bush, who is fiercely critical of both countries and has accused them of fomenting violence in Iraq.

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, another of Bush's loyal backers in Iraq, also said on Monday talks should be held with Syria and Iran on ending the violence in Iraq.

Quite how far Tehran or Damascus are motivated to step into the turmoil of Iraq to aid Washington is unclear.

MALIKI SEEKS RESHUFFLE

Under pressure to avert civil war and facing criticism his government is paralyzed by infighting, Maliki on Sunday told a parliament crackling with sectarian tension that he would fire a host of under-performing ministers.

Maliki has talked of reshuffles in the past but Sunday's move appeared to be his most determined effort yet to shake up a government formed six months ago after months of horse-trading between Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs, ethnic Kurds and other groups.

Maliki, a Shi'ite, has been under pressure from U.S. officials to show progress in curbing violence, particularly by Shi'ite militias linked to some of his political allies.

Maliki has said he will not necessarily stick to "quotas" of cabinet posts according to parties' strength in parliament but would appoint those competent for their tasks -- something Iraq badly needs, with its economy still in a morass despite high oil prices and its ministries accused of rampant corruption.

Alaa Meki of the Iraqi Islamic Party, part of a bloc of Sunni parties in government, said the defense and interior ministry portfolios were the crucial issue and called for "real and tangible" action from Maliki against militias.

Hasan al-Shimmari, a member of parliament from the Fadhila Party, a Shi'ite group, said he expected to see six to nine ministers changed. "There is still no official timeframe but I think by bringing this up now clearly and publicly it will be soon, and we hope it will be before the end of this year."

Sunnis, dominant under Saddam Hussein, have threatened to quit the government if they are not given a bigger role.

White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten on Sunday accused Iran and Syria of "meddling in Iraq in a very unhelpful way."

Asked if Washington would consider convening talks to include Syria and Iran, he told CNN: "Nothing is off the table," but said the main priority was to support the Iraqi government.

Maliki has accused Iraq's neighbors of being unhelpful, and Sunni Arabs are particularly nervous about any perceived influence from Shi'ite non-Arab Iran.

U.S. General John Abizaid, the head of the United States Central Command, met Maliki on Monday to discuss security.

"The influence of neighboring states on security in Iraq was also discussed during the meeting," Maliki's office said.

The U.S. military announced on Monday two more U.S. soldiers were killed on Sunday in Iraq. That followed news on Sunday of three other U.S. deaths and four British troops killed, keeping pressure on Bush and Blair to start withdrawing forces.

Carl Levin, the Democrat tipped to chair the Senate's Armed Services Committee, said on Sunday: "We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months."

(Additional reporting by Mussab Al-Kharailla, Alastair Macdonald in Baghdad, and by London and Washington bureaux


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061113/ts_nm/iraq_dc_64

lily
11-14-2006, 01:59 AM
Let's see we have Tony Blair, John Howard and the Baker/Hamilton report saying this.........and on the other hand we have the Lone Ranger. Sad.

A suicide bomb that killed 11 Iraqis on a minibus and news that at least nine U.S. and British troops died in the previous two days kept the pressure on Bush as he met the bipartisan Iraq Study Group on Monday to talk about changes in Iraq policy.

Monday's violence, which also underlined Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's problems trying to curb the bloodshed, followed attacks which killed more than 100 people on Sunday including a suicide attack on police recruits which killed 35 in Baghdad.

Are they still trying to pull our elections? Ramadan is long over, so that can't be it.

MALIKI SEEKS RESHUFFLE

Under pressure to avert civil war and facing criticism his government is paralyzed by infighting, Maliki on Sunday told a parliament crackling with sectarian tension that he would fire a host of under-performing ministers.

About time he did something.......hmmm......maybe the change in the Whitehouse has him scared? He no longer can just sit there.

BoogyMan
11-14-2006, 02:24 AM
I am having a hard time seeing how bringing an apocalyptically minded xenophobe like Ahmadinejad into the mix as a player will help quell the issues we are facing in Iraq.

lily
11-14-2006, 02:30 AM
You can by-pass alphabet soup name and talk to the High Holy Leaders, or go the other route and talk to Syria and Turkey and let them put the pressure on him. Iraq can not stand alone, surrounded by enemies.......and we can not stand alone if Australia and Great Briton talk to the surrounding coutries and ask them to co-operate.

BoogyMan
11-14-2006, 02:38 AM
You can by-pass alphabet soup name and talk to the High Holy Leaders, or go the other route and talk to Syria and Turkey and let them put the pressure on him. Iraq can not stand alone, surrounded by enemies.......and we can not stand alone if Australia and Great Briton talk to the surrounding coutries and ask them to co-operate.


Alphabet soup name? LOL

I don't see how that is possible without making the situation worse. I can see Turkey being a valid partner in the debate but with their concerns over the creation of a Kurdish state I don't think we can expect completely honest input from them.

lily
11-14-2006, 02:41 AM
It's better than doing nothing.

BoogyMan
11-14-2006, 02:55 AM
It's better than doing nothing.


I am reminded of a saying that ECW posted the other night in another thread that goes something like "if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas."

I see this as appeasement for Ahmadinejad and Asad, and quite frankly see this as a step closer to handing Iraq over to Iran.

lily
11-14-2006, 03:23 AM
You see it as appeasement. I see it as tackling the problem from a different direction. What harm can come from talking..........especially when your coalition of the willing is more willing than the one they are backing?

Not every thing is a sign of weakness, boogyman. As I said, this was also one of the recomendations that the Baker/Hamilton report recommends. Gates used to be a member. He is soon to be replacing Rumsfailed......things are going to change. Bush can either be on board or stall, and let someone else clean up his mess. Either way, we've had 3 years of stay the course and we are no further ahead then when he claimed Mission Accomplished......in fact we're further behind.

Americans are not going to stand by and have more soldiers killed because of a stubborn man.

We wouldn't be in this mess, if Rumsfailed demand that the borders be secured. Oh, we've had battles over the border and secured them.....then left again. Just like taking over the cities over and over. Going around in circles isn't accomplishing anything and it's certainly not the soldiers fault........

BoogyMan
11-14-2006, 03:31 AM
You see it as appeasement. I see it as tackling the problem from a different direction. What harm can come from talking..........especially when your coalition of the willing is more willing than the one they are backing?

What will you do when we cave in to Ahmadinejad and Iran controls the oil reserves of both Iran and Iraq and is a credible threat against Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Turkey?

You just don't negotiate with crazy people and Ahmadinejad is the nutjobs nutjob.

Not every thing is a sign of weakness, boogyman. As I said, this was also one of the recomendations that the Baker/Hamilton report recommends. Gates used to be a member. He is soon to be replacing Rumsfailed......things are going to change. Bush can either be on board or stall, and let someone else clean up his mess. Either way, we've had 3 years of stay the course and we are no further ahead then when he claimed Mission Accomplished......in fact we're further behind.

Lily, not everything is adviseable as a valid effort either.Â*Â*I am well aware of the recommendations of Baker and Hamilton, I just happen to disagree with their assessment.

Americans are not going to stand by and have more soldiers killed because of a stubborn man.

You don't negotiate with men like Ahmadinejad.Â*Â*I don't think I will ever see the supposed wisdom in this position.Â*Â*We should learn from the Clinton administration trying to talk with Kim Jong Il, wow, that one went well.

We wouldn't be in this mess, if Rumsfailed demand that the borders be secured. Oh, we've had battles over the border and secured them.....then left again. Just like taking over the cities over and over. Going around in circles isn't accomplishing anything and it's certainly not the soldiers fault........

I have to agree with you that we should have secured those borders and done it first rather than you and I sitting here batting the topic around right now.

Alonzo
11-14-2006, 03:45 AM
You don't negotiate with men like Ahmadinejad. I don't think I will ever see the supposed wisdom in this position. We should learn from the Clinton administration trying to talk with Kim Jong Il, wow, that one went well.

This argument always puzzles me. Clinton negotiated and Kim Jong stopped enrichment for a while. Bush refused to negotiate and Kim Jong Il built a bomb and conducted a nuclear test. Neither was a real success, but one wasn't a spectacular failure.

BoogyMan
11-14-2006, 03:49 AM
You don't negotiate with men like Ahmadinejad.Â*Â*I don't think I will ever see the supposed wisdom in this position.Â*Â*We should learn from the Clinton administration trying to talk with Kim Jong Il, wow, that one went well.

This argument always puzzles me. Clinton negotiated and Kim Jong stopped enrichment for a while. Bush refused to negotiate and Kim Jong Il built a bomb and conducted a nuclear test. Neither was a real success, but one wasn't a spectacular failure.


Who gave Jong Il the nuclear fuel to get his reactors going Zo? Whose secretary of state wound up admitting that Kim Jong Il tricked them? Hmmmm, sounds like spectacular failure to me.

Alonzo
11-14-2006, 04:02 AM
The key equipment to make nuclear weapons, such as the centrifuges, came from Pakistan.

But Bush is the one who chose principle over reality and refused to deal with Kim in direct talks between the nation, and instead insisted on including other nations. The situation was simply whether we give up a few principles and prevent, at least for now, North Korea from getting Nukes, or stand by our principles and guarantee that they are armed with nuclear weapons. Bush chose the latter.

lily
11-14-2006, 04:50 AM
BoogyMan


What will you do when we cave in to Ahmadinejad and Iran controls the oil reserves of both Iran and Iraq and is a credible threat against Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Turkey?

Holy cow! We've gone from talking to caving in. What country is smack dab in the middle of Iraq?

We have got to get these countries to stop suppling the terrorists and sending in more terrorists. We've got enough to handle with the civil war......as I've said, there was a reason Bush 41 didn't go into Iraq when he had the chance. I'm glad that Bush 43 finally decided to listen to these men who served his father, rather than the two he choose to begin with.........and as I also said, it's going to be a pretty lonely coalition of the willing pretty darned soon. Seems we're not the only country that is unhappy with the way this war is going.

Lily, not everything is adviseable as a valid effort either.Â*Â*I am well aware of the recommendations of Baker and Hamilton, I just happen to disagree with their assessment.

No offense boogy.......but I have a feeling you're not going to be happy with anything they recommend.


You don't negotiate with men like Ahmadinejad.Â*Â*I don't think I will ever see the supposed wisdom in this position.Â*Â*We should learn from the Clinton administration trying to talk with Kim Jong Il, wow, that one went well.

I don't do Clinton did.



I have to agree with you that we should have secured those borders and done it first rather than you and I sitting here batting the topic around right now.

I'll take one out of three!

BoogyMan
11-14-2006, 12:08 PM
No offense boogy.......but I have a feeling you're not going to be happy with anything they recommend.

How so Lily, I object to one recommendation and now I am completely unreasonable?

I don't do Clinton did.

This has always given me a laugh Lily. I am not attacking Clinton, I am pointing out that caving in to men like Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't work. If you REFUSE to learn from the past because of some personal scruple about talking about Clinton that is your problem, not mine, and it certainly shows you arent truly interested in debate.

lily
11-14-2006, 03:51 PM
BoogyMan


How so Lily, I object to one recommendation and now I am completely unreasonable?

Unreasonable?!? Boogy you sure do read into more than I actually write. I say talk, you say cave. I say I think you aren't going to be happy with anything they recommend, you say unreasonable.

Let me ask you, since this is the first recommendation that has come from the report and it seems our strongest allies see nothing wrong with it.......what would you do instead? The surrounding countries have to be on board, or there will be continuing war.



This has always given me a laugh Lily.Â*Â*I am not attacking Clinton, I am pointing out that caving in to men like Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't work.Â*Â*If you REFUSE to learn from the past because of some personal scruple about talking about Clinton that is your problem, not mine, and it certainly shows you arent truly interested in debate.

I'm glad I can amuse you.:D

Let me see if I have this right. I don't discuss Clinton did, so I am not here for debate and again you confuse talking with caving in. As was already pointed out to you......talking kept them from where we are now. Boogy......there comes a time in a presidency when "you own it". That means the good and the bad.