Iraq Shia leader seeks tougher U.S. action

One of Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite leaders said after meeting U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday that civil war could only be staved off if U.S. forces struck harder against Sunni-led insurgents.

While Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the biggest party in Iraq's government, SCIRI, met Bush in Washington, the U.S. envoy and military chief in Baghdad implored Iraqis to break a cycle of violence which they said would destroy the country.

Hakim denied that majority Shi'ites were stoking sectarian violence and put the onus on Washington to take tougher action against insurgents.

"The strikes they are getting from the multinational forces are not hard enough to put an end to their acts," he said.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04313279.htm

Unfortunately, the idiot fratboy is probably considering that as a way of saving face no matter the cost in lives.

I'm shocked.

That'll solve everything!

the best way to peace is by us attacking the Shi'ites! Well that's just an interesting pickle.

Iran and other rivals wants us to drain our treasury, degrade our military, and soil our name world wide. They saw what happened to us in Vietnam, and what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan. They suckered us into fighting them on their own terms.

GHWB and Reagan being suckered into trading arms to Iran for no hostages in the '80s, or W being suckered into supporting Iranian surrogates militarily in Iraq?

I just read a history of the battle of Passchendaele in 1917. On the one hand, it's encouraging that today's screwups kill only a couple of soldiers a day, not 10,000. But otherwise, the parallels are depressing.

Stinger missiles and other arms, and Reagan got Iran to hold the Hostages until he was sworn in. Iran hated Carter more than they hated Reagan.

This absurdity has got to stop.