we need the troops in iraq for iran

6/8/2008 2:16:57 AM

Quote :

"meh, we are more like necessary police that anything."

Does police action appear anywhere in the oaths you swear?

Just curious.

Quote :

"The majority of iraqis dont know what's good for them."

Is this not an indictment of Democracy generally?

Quote :

"If the Iraqi gov. wants us out, I don't think it's relevant what our generals say. If we went in there to spread democracy, then we should respect their democracy."

Period.

Quote :

"have you guys had a terrorist attack at your house skankinMonky? nutsmackr? the rest of you?"

lol

Bush must be single-handedly preventing those alien invasions, too.

6/8/2008 5:21:49 PM

^lol


we should go ahead and ship retards like you over to baghdad and just drop you off in a taxi with nothing but your pants and shoes.

you'll finally get to feel the love of this world.

6/8/2008 5:23:48 PM

Quote :

"we should go ahead and ship retards like you over to baghdad and just drop you off in a taxi with nothing but your pants and shoes."

Cool! Can I work for a private security firm and get away with rape, murder, and gun-running, too?

[Edited on June 8, 2008 at 5:32 PM. Reason : Iraq: Disneyland for the Criminally Insane]

6/8/2008 5:31:49 PM

you can do whatever the fuck you want. including save up bombs and money for a future attack on US soil

6/8/2008 5:37:57 PM

AMERICA FUCK YEAH

6/8/2008 5:42:27 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4092919.ece

I am wondering will it start to be enforced. Beginning 09? I hope this agreement in whatever form it comes in is implemented when it wont hurt security and done responsible without creating to much of a power vacuum on the ground for any type of militia or groups to spring up. Basically similar to how Petraeus and company make their decisions. When conditions on the ground merit the action.

Very curious what the exact terms will be.

Quote :

"Treaty tensions mount as Iraq tells the US it wants all troops back in barracks Several thousand demonstrators protested against the US Several thousand demonstrators protested against the US in rallies across the country on Friday. The placard says: ’No agreement with US occupiers’ Deborah Haynes in Baghdad American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces. According to a senior Iraqi official, the negotiations between the two allies became so fraught recently that President Bush intervened personally to defuse the situation. On Thursday he telephoned Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, to assure him that Washington was not seeking to undermine Iraq’s sovereignty and that America would reconsider any contentious part of the agreement. The current United Nations mandate for US troops expires at the end of this year and Washington wants to conclude a bilateral agreement with Baghdad for the future deployment of US forces. There are just over 150,000 US troops in Iraq living on scores of bases across the country, from little 30-men outposts to sprawling camps often built around old Iraqi army barracks. Construction work over the past five years has turned these bases into small towns of trailers, hangars and blast walls, equipped with a Pizza Hut, Starbucks-style coffee shops, cinemas and swimming pools. Among a litany of sticking-points surrounding the status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the two countries are Iraqi concerns over how many US bases will remain in the country and who will be in control of Iraqi air space. Other flashpoints include whether private security companies working for US forces will continue to enjoy immunity from Iraqi law and whether US soldiers will maintain the freedom to travel where they want, arrest people and conduct raids without first gaining approval from the Iraqi Government. Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said that under the new deal US soldiers should be confined to the larger bases. “We do need the Americans to leave the cities and the streets,” he said. “They have to be there in the back and . . . in their camps. Whenever we ask them they will be ready to support and help.” As for private security companies, “they should be subject to Iraqi law”, Mr al-Dabbagh said. The immunity of such firms that work for the military or the British or American embassies triggered outrage last year after security guards employed by Blackwater, the largest private security company in Iraq, were involved in a confrontation that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead. A status of forces agreement takes on average more than a year to conclude, but Washington hopes to seal the deal with Iraq by the end of July – a time-frame that the Iraqi side views with less importance than the content of the accord. Sanctioning the continuing presence of US troops is hugely sensitive, with many Iraqis opposed to such a move. Iran has also voiced concern that the deal will enable Washington to use Iraq as a launch pad to conduct attacks in the region. Mr al-Maliki used a weekend trip to Tehran to try to calm the tensions. “We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and [other] neighbours,” he said. The Iraqi Prime Minister will need to tread carefully to win the backing of his parliament for the pact and also ensure that the US side is satisfied. Britain, which will have to sign its own bilateral accord with Iraq to legalise the presence of British troops in the country post2008, is watching the discussions with interest. London will use the US-Iraq arrangements for its own agreement. The senior Iraqi official, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the chief concern is that Iraq’s sovereignty is protected. “President [Bush] has been in touch with the Prime Minister of Iraq and has said that the issues which are rejected or not approved by the Government of Iraq will be reconsidered and the future American presence will be for assisting and coordinating with the Iraqi Government,” he told The Times about the conversation, which took place last Thursday. A senior US official in Baghdad said that such conferences between the two leaders were fairly frequent. “[Mr Bush] has assured Prime Minister al-Maliki consistently we respect Iraq’s sovereignty. The content, the positions we take in the negotiations, will reflect that,” the official said. US diplomats have been meeting their Iraqi counterparts for the past two months to draw up the status of forces document as well as a strategic framework, which sketches out every aspect of the two countries’ relationship from security, politics and the economy to culture, science and education. As part of the process, several Iraqi delegates are due to return this week from a fact-finding trip to some of more than 80 countries, including Japan, Turkey and Singapore, with which the United States already has a status of forces accord. The Iraq-US pact, while based on the same principles of two sovereign nations, will differ slightly because of the need for US forces to be able to fight. “The general premise though is that they operate in a manner which reflects respect for, acknowledgement of Iraqi sovereignty and ultimately an Iraqi decision,” the US official said. "

6/8/2008 10:09:25 PM

the fact that iran really really doesnt want the security treaty makes me think the US should do it

6/8/2008 10:11:11 PM

Quote :

""If the Iraqi gov. wants us out, I don't think it's relevant what our generals say. If we went in there to spread democracy, then we should respect their democracy.""

My only concern, however unlikely, is that the Iraqi government acts unwisely ignoring warnings from our generals.

But to be quite honest, I am coming around to the belief that it really doesn't matter what form this agreement ends up in, because the progress is so remarkable the Iraqi forces should be able to maintain a stable country almost on their own. (with our continuing logistical support and such)

6/8/2008 10:14:13 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25585978/

Quote :

"BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday. The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year. On Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding. Story continues below ?advertisement Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq." "We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy Shiite city of Najaf. He was speaking to reporters after meeting Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Rubaie said he spoke to Sistani about the U.S. talks, but did not say if the cleric had an opinion on the negotiations. The revered cleric is routinely briefed on key national issues. "I informed the (clerical leaders) about some of the advances in the talks. There are real problems and difficulties, and we have many roadblocks ahead. There is a big difference in outlook between us and the Americans," Rubaie said. The Bush administration has always opposed setting any withdrawal timetable, saying it would allow militant groups to lie low and wait until the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq left. On Tuesday, the White House said the talks were not aimed at setting a hard deadline for withdrawal. "Negotiations and discussions are ongoing every day," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in Japan, where President Bush is attending a Group of Eight summit. "It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal." Dispute over immunity for U.S. troops In a further complication, Iraq's deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiya said lawmakers must approve any deal the Iraqi government reaches and will probably reject the document if American troops are immune from Iraqi law. It would be virtually unthinkable for the United States to allow its soldiers to be subject to Iraqi law. Al-Maliki's preference for a memorandum of understanding, which could be an attempt to bypass parliament, is in contrast to earlier talks which have all been leading to the signing of a formal Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). "Without doubt, if the two sides reach an agreement, this is between two countries, and according to the Iraqi constitution a national agreement must be agreed by parliament by a majority of two thirds," Attiya told Reuters in an interview. Washington has SOFA pacts with many countries, and they typically exempt U.S. troops from facing trial or prison abroad. Iraq said last week Washington was showing flexibility on some key issues, which officials said included dropping a demand for immunity for private contractors working for the U.S. government. Control of military operations and airspace are other points of contention, along with the detention of prisoners. Fall in violence emboldens government Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability, and Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days. Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists."

They want us out, they want a timetable. Does that make it time to 'cut and run'?

7/8/2008 12:31:53 PM

These people obviously don't know what's best for them.

7/8/2008 12:34:17 PM

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/005770.html

Quote :

"Iraq Timetable Iraqi officials insist on withdrawal timetable Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the U.S. unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces. The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. It came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the U.S. to have some type of timetable for withdrawal. First, it appears that Iraq is getting more and more confident that their military and police forces will be able to maintain security. They're probably not too far off base on that, though there's still quite a ways to go. Secondly, the "withdrawal" being discussed here is not a withdrawal from Iraq, just from the major urban areas: The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country. After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said. There is nothing earth-shaking about this. In fact, our troops were already beginning to withdraw a bit from day-to-day city life in 2006. That, of course, is when things began going south in a hurry. Our long-term plan almost certainly involves our troops from pulling back and providing reaction forces and a deterrent to outside forces. Though we would certainly like to lower the troop level, it's not going to get too low too soon. Nothing I'm seeing about this latest announcement seems to alter that at all."

7/8/2008 1:54:19 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080708173950.vpy06uxo&show_article=1

Quote :

"The United States on Tuesday rejected a demand from Iraq for a specific date for pullout of US-led foreign troops from the country, saying any withdrawal will be based on conditions on the ground. "The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said. Iraq said on Tuesday it will reject any security pact with the United States unless it sets a date for the pullout of US-led troops. "We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops," national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie told reporters in the holy city of Najaf. The controversial demand from Baghdad's Shiite-led government underlines Iraq's new hardened stand in complex negotiations aimed at striking a security deal with Washington. "

And of course, the US stance is simply "we don't care." I agree with what someone said earlier in the thread:

Quote :

"If the Iraqi gov. wants us out, I don't think it's relevant what our generals say. If we went in there to spread democracy, then we should respect their democracy."

7/8/2008 2:03:54 PM

I have been against pulling out until the situation was stable. Based on the recent stabilization and now the Iraqi gov't wanting us to set a timetable, it's time to do so.

7/8/2008 3:29:36 PM

"Please, sir, can I have civil war?"

7/8/2008 8:53:42 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25736448/

US and Iraq are now calling for a timetable.

7/18/2008 11:37:37 AM

hahah

"time horizon"

"aspirational goals"


Those bastards just can't admit when they're wrong. Ever.

7/18/2008 11:52:45 AM

timetable = too restrictive in a fluid/dynamic environment....

would be like the bombing approvals for 'nam....

7/18/2008 11:55:33 AM