Kucinich/Paul Resolution: let the Iraqi Gov't decide on occupation

either the US recognizes the new Iraqi government or it doesn't ... if it doesn't, the sham of creating a democracy will be there for all the world to see ... it would be nice to see all Democrats push hard for this legislation ...

btw, imo, the Iraqi Parliament should have a right to kick out the US ... however, if they want the US to stay, that choice should then be made by the American people ...


PRESS RELEASE

Kucinich Introduces Bipartisan Legislation To Allow Iraqi Parliament-Not US House of Representatives- To Vote On The Future Of US Occupation
Kucinich/Paul Legislation Would Have Sovereign Iraq Vote On The Future Of US Occupation


WASHINGTON - December 16 - Irony defined. On the same day the United States House of Representatives debates a bill to have the House of Representatives decided the length of the US occupation of Iraq, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced bipartisan legislation calling on the United States to support a vote in the Iraqi Parliament on the future of the US occupation of the country.

Kucinich issued the following statement today on his legislation:

"The new permanent elected body in Iraq, not the US House of Representatives, should vote on the length of the US occupation. It is their country. What Iraq needs and what Iraq wants in terms of continued US military occupation should be determined by the Iraqis, not the US occupying force or politicians in Washington.

"Over and over this Administration has compared Iraq's progress towards democracy with our nation's struggle over 200 years ago. Using the Administration's own analogy, it is time to allow Iraq the chance to write its own Declaration of Independence.

"Iraq has passed a Constitution, and has held elections to have a permanent elected body. Iraq, by all measurable means, is a sovereign nation. As such, it should be able to debate and vote on the most important issue facing their nation-the US occupation. The Administration has repeatedly stated that if the Iraqis ask us to leave, we will leave. Poll after poll in Iraq indicate that the Iraqi people overwhelming oppose the US occupation.

"It is now time for this Administration to live up to its word, and allow Iraqis to make the most important and basic decision about the future of their country. The Iraqi people cannot fully be free until decisions about their future are made in Baghdad and not Washington."

The Kucinich/Paul resolution will make it the sense of Congress, "that the new permanent Council of Representatives should debate and vote on whether or not a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq is desired by the government of Iraq; and that such a debate and vote should be conducted in an open and transparent manner, and occur as soon as practicable."

They'll try and kill it there, and if they succeed, the other avenue Kucinich has is to attach it onto another bill the Republicans are likely to pass, such as a defense appropriations bill for the war. Attach it as an amendment to such a bill, and fight to keep the Repubs from gaining enough votes to strip it off by going after those on both sides who are open to the idea.

So you know they won't be allowed to do it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5613979

Don't miss it; it's strength of purpose and cutting to the core of the matter at its best.

how extreme can you get?

"The new permanent elected body in Iraq, not the US House of Representatives, should vote on the length of the US occupation. It is their country. What Iraq needs and what Iraq wants in terms of continued US military occupation should be determined by the Iraqis, not the US occupying force or politicians in Washington."

How well does the new permanent elected body in Iraq represent Iraqis? You could argue for a referendum rather than a decision by an elected body.

Voting on the length of the US occupation means what? Does it mean being required to say in advance what the duration will be or does it mean saying "go now" when Iraqis decide that the US military should go?

Also, why should it just be a matter of "go or stay"? Is it possible for Iraqis to have some authority to decide what powers the US military will have in Iraq, what procedures will be followed, what kind of veto power Iraqi civilian authorities might have over US military plans, etc.?

is planned for mid-Feb. At that point the plans will be laid for US withdrawal if Scenario One is in play:



Actually, although I support this proposal by Kucinich/Paul, I'm not sure of its point. The Iraqis will have the right as a sovereign nation to ask to leave, and in accordance with international law, we must leave. If they make a noise about it, even bush-the-asshole would have a hell of time staying. Besides, I think the republican party wants out. Wes Clark, in his op ed., pointed to the same scenario. Questioned on the blog, and we all know how much he hates time tables, he said that if this course is followed, we will be out rather quickly.

But then there is Scenario Two:



Again, we will be asked to leave, but this time by Iranian-leaning forces. The writer seems to think that bush will claim victory and leave before the shit hits the fan. Either way, the Iraqis can ask us leave anytime. I hope they do; I'm sick of this mess. Nevertheless, the two scenarios leave two very different Gulf regions in play. Also, I like to stay away from absolutes, and think that there are many versions of One and Two. It will be hard to tell the political reality that the Iraqi election brings, because the US news is so incredibly useless. Any political leverage we have in this situation comes from our money and the ability of our troops presence. Yes, I know that their presence also fuels the insurgency--what did we expect when we're killing Sunnis and arming the Shi'ites.

Which Scenario does the writer think most probable? Here's the link: Iraq's Tipping Point--Dreyfuss

It's so simple.

Iraq is too fragile and needs the guiding hand of the US military-industrial complex to help guide it to protecting the oil for privatization.

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html
• "Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces."


http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/12/103756/20

Matt Yglesias Front PageIraqi Public Opinion
By Matthew Yglesias |

"The BBC has a recently published poll which sheds some light on something that's gone curiously neglected in mainstream thinking about Iraq -- the unpopularity of the American military presence. Asked "Do you strongly support,somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq?", 47.6 percent marked themselves strongly opposed and 20.8 percent are somewhat opposed. Just 12.8 percent are strong supporters of the presence. 40 percent think coalition forces have done "A very bad job" of discharging their responsibilities in Iraq, and 19 percent say they've done "quite a bad job" (note that while "quite" is an intensifier in America, it's the reverse in Britain and the poll was written up by English people). Asked "how much confidence" they have in various institutions, 54.6 percent of Iraqis say they have "none at all" in coalition forces and 23.2 have "not very much." "

"Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province"

Suppose a referendum just in Maysan confirms that 65 percent figure. Then why not compromise? Announce that coalition troops will withdraw from Maysan and stay out of Maysan provided that Maysan is not used as a base to stage attacks in other regions.

As time passes and Iraqis hear news from whatever sources they trust, they will make comparisons and decide when their own province is ready to join Maysan.

The Iraqi people would prefer a referendum as opposed to letting a potential ruling elite with some elements in bed with the Administration make this decision.

The reason I think this legislation is acceptable is because no Republican would vote for a referendum from Iraqis.