carsten

You are correct. While Sadr himself is not a representative of government his personal militia of (some report)(?) 60,000 armed fundamentalist Shia from all over the Islamic world have been used by him to intimidate the new democratically elected government of Iraq.
My contention remains the same. In the face of this tyrannical religious zealot, now is not the time to fold up shop and run for home. It's, what is your word, ludricrous (your spelling) to suggest to the Iraqi people who have given so much to have their shot at freedom that Moqtada al-Sadr is the tipping stone. That the billions of dollars and the thousands of lives spent have been for not because of some bully who sees himself as the new Muhammad. Recreating Islam in the name of Moqtada Sadr.
The head cleric in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has a lot to answer for. I personally think he is hoping that by using Sadr as a thumbscrew and keeping the violence manageable that he will see his Theocracy and extend Shia Fundamentalism further in the Middle East.
With Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and Ayatollah al-Sistani in Iraq more misery will be the lot for many Muslims.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of the al-Qaida affiliate in Iraq, said: "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it".

This has nothing to do with America, this is total inter religious hatred and displaced tribal honour.

And yes friend what the world press reports impacts these events significantly. If you study the Vietnam war any you will find that the North Vietnamese used the press to exert pressure on the U.S. throughout the war. You'll also see how the press has impacted events in Iraq.

OLO? No. Not so much. :-) We don't count.

You are correct. While Sadr himself is not a representative of government his personal militia of (some report)(?) 60,000 armed fundamentalist Shia from all over the Islamic world have been used by him to intimidate the new democratically elected government of Iraq.

And yes friend what the world press reports impacts these events significantly. You'll also see how the press has impacted events in Iraq.

Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 13 January 2007 1:31:25 PM

The point is that not only does Sadr have his 60,000 (?) armed militia, he also controls 30 of the Shiite coalitions 128 seats. He controls a key group of seats that the government needs. He 'intimidates' the elected government from within, regardless of the militia. It is just like the disproportionate power a few democrat senators have/had in Australia - they hold/held the balance of power in the senate, so the elected government acquiesced to their demands. Without their support, the government could not function. Same in Iraq. Maliki's government cannot function without meeting the demands of Sadr. And it therefore cannot attack Sadr's milita.

The US military leaders estimated the coalition needed ~ 500,000 troops to control Iraq (or was that just Baghdad?). The administration put in, what, 120,000? When the administration acts against advice, and their actions fail, it is the role of the media to call them on it. It is the role of the media to report the facts, however uncomfortable they may be. It is the role of government to act responsibly, so they have nothing to fear from the media

"The point is that not only does Sadr have his 60,000 (?) armed militia, he also controls 30 of the Shiite coalitions 128 seats. He controls a key group of seats that the government needs. He 'intimidates' the elected government from within, regardless of the militia. It is just like the disproportionate power a few democrat senators have/had in Australia - they hold/held the balance of power in the senate, so the elected government acquiesced to their demands. Without their support, the government could not function. Same in Iraq. Maliki's government cannot function without meeting the demands of Sadr. And it therefore cannot attack Sadr's milita."

128 seats from 275 leaves 147 seats that is not a disproportional majority. And as I posted earlier women have to occupy 25% of the 275 and a further 35(?) seats made special to the Sunni Iraqis where they are the major pop. of those provinces.

"When the administration acts against advice, and their actions fail, it is the role of the media to call them on it. It is the role of the media to report the facts, however uncomfortable they may be. It is the role of government to act responsibly, so they have nothing to fear from the media"

FACTS; You can't be that naive. In American government the President is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He has the General staff of the Pentagon on hand as well as the NSA, CIA, FBI, and feedback from every friendly nation in the world. And you want to believe the newspapers that George don't ask no questions or listen to advice. Ya right. And Please. The papers have been attacking G.W. Bush since his inauguration and attacked every thing he has every done. George is a Republican. Right wing. Media is for the most part left wing. Media, protectors of the truth. Oh man. Thats a good one.

I'm waiting to see how they report on Iraq when the Dems are running the show. Provided they get elected. We'll see how they run the house for now.

"128 seats from 275 leaves 147 seats that is not a disproportional majority.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 13 January 2007 6:08:06 PM"

Exactly (kind of - some garbled english). The current elected government is a minority government which is why it needs the co-operation of a coalition, including Sadr, to function. I don't understand your point, unless it is to demonstrate why they have to listen to Sadr at all times.

"FACTS; You can't be that naive. In American government the President is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He has the General staff of the Pentagon on hand as well as the NSA, CIA, FBI, and feedback from every friendly nation in the world. And you want to believe the newspapers that George don't ask no questions or listen to advice. Ya right. And Please. The papers have been attacking G.W. Bush since his inauguration and attacked every thing he has every done. George is a Republican. Right wing. Media is for the most part left wing. Media, protectors of the truth. Oh man. Thats a good one."
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 13 January 2007 6:08:06 PM

The US constitution gives a lot more power to the President than the Prime Minister in Australia. He IS Commander in Chief and can declare war unilaterally - he does not need to listen to anyone else. I have no doubt he listened to the advice given, but who is paid attention to is another matter. It appears he listens to his hawkish pro-oil, pro-defense industry buddies over American interests. The truth is he has squandered the sympathy and goodwill of the world toward America after 911, has seriously weakened the American economy, and has placed the country in a costly situation from which it will be very hard to extricate itself. Although his pro-war buddies ARE profitting enormously. Those are the facts, and cannot be denied.

Whatever Sadr's reported influence is, it is only relative to the 128 seats given the nod by Ayatollah al-Sistani. Sadr's mob muscle not leadership. The current elected government is a coalition government. It does not need Sadr to function. At the moment it must consider the threat that Sadr poses TO government. Which is why the Iraqi government has given notice to Sadr that he has a decision to make. Either he will become part of the solution to a peaceful democratic Iraq or he will be outlawed. Either way he can no longer continue to operate outside of the law.

Nouri Maliki's government, with the assistance of the United states is taking proactive steps to reduce Iranian influence in Iraq. Lebanon and Syria. These steps will significantly impact Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Moqtada Sadr. Both heavily dependent on Iran to function. If Moqtada Sadr does not take heed of his governments warning he may well go the way of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The United States has the biggest national economy in the world, with a GDP for 2006 of $13.3 trillion dollars. [1] It is the world's foremost economic power. G.W.Bush and his Republicans believe the billions spent to help bring democracy and liberty to Iraq is important. Being elected twice says that the American people supported that decision. Bush does not want to extricate from Iraq. He wants to finish the job at hand. He was elected as a Republican. His duty
is to his party's line, not the Democratic party line. He's not going to place the opinions of the left over those of his party.

Bush hasn't failed but, the lefty media sure want to make it sound like failure. It was never said that Iraq would be completely up and running during Bush's time in office. Who ever the new Pres. is may have to finish the job.

This is a non partisan view supported by facts and not lefty hysteria and unfounded accusations and libelous statements.

re:

" ... G.W.Bush and his Republicans believe the billions spent to help bring democracy and liberty to Iraq is important. Being elected twice says that the American people supported that decision."

"Bush hasn't failed but, the lefty media sure want to make it sound like failure."

"This is a non partisan view supported by facts and not lefty hysteria and unfounded accusations and libelous statements."

I think Aqvarivs sincerely believes himself. Does he consider himself neither right nor left, just an unbiased observer? I wonder!

I say that GWB got in by a whisker last November, thanks to electoral fraud, and probably received valid votes from less than 30% of the potential American electorate. The World's Greatest Democracy (oh well, at least the World's Largest Economy) has a fraudulent, third-rate leader getting bad advice from cabinet members with vested economic interests in continuing conflict (that is, if they are not just telling him what to do next).

Some record for a "leader". Not a good recipe for an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, particularly given the difficulties occurring since GWB told us the war was won, back in 2003 -

I will be interested to see what happens with Rep McKinney's impreachment submission. Will GWB continue to act ultra vires? Will the democrat-controlled house call him to account next time he ignores the constitution or international treaties and/or obligations and follows "his" own rules?

All it took for Bill Clinton to get impeached was lying about a dalliance in the broom closet!

I'm interested to see whether the "lefty" press will get stuck into him like they did Presidents Clinton and Carter. Who are the "lefty press" Really Working For? Maybe Aqvarivs can help us out here -

And anyway, what does all of Aqvarivs' tub-thumping for the current US Administration have to do with "Saddam was hung for nothing"?

I say Saddam was hung to go forth and multiply, and hanged to remove evidence of US government involvement in atrocities SH's government committed in the '80's