http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/majority-of-iraqi-legisla_n_105427.html

Quote :

"n a letter to Congress, dovetailing with yesterday's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, thirty-one Iraqi legislators, representing a majority of the Iraq Parliament, have expressed "widespread disapproval of the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement if it does not include a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops." We, the undersigned members of the council, wish to confirm your concerns that any international agreement that is not ratified by the Iraqi legislative power is considered unconstitutional and illegal, in accordance with the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. Furthermore, any treaty, agreement or "executive agreement" that is signed between Iraq and the United States will not be legal and will not enter the stage of implementation without first being ratified by the Council of Representatives, in accordance with Article 61 of Section Four of the Iraqi constitution, which gives the Iraqi government's legislative power, represented by the Council of Representatives, the exclusive right to ratify international treaties and agreements. Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters. The chorus of disapproval is of substantial consequence, as it will require a two-thirds majority of the Iraqi Council of Representatives to ratify the security agreement that is currently being hashed out by Iraq and the United States. Congressman Bill Delahunt, who impaneled yesterday's hearings, has co-sponsored a bill with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro that "bars funding for any agreement that has not been approved by Congress.""

Also: http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN04304912

Also: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/04/iraq-parliament/ (Tells Ron Paul that he'd estimate 70% of Iraqi's want the US out.)

So it seems like there is some push from Iraq again for the US to leave.

6/5/2008 1:35:26 PM

No thoughts from the hawks that are hanging out today? BEU etc?

6/5/2008 4:05:04 PM

are we still in iraq?

6/5/2008 4:05:45 PM

These people are obviously out of touch with the situation in Iraq. How naive

6/5/2008 4:08:47 PM

see this is why repubs are the shit

if it goes bad over there they can say we need to stay cause its starting to go bad

if it goes good they will say we need to stay so it can keep going good

6/5/2008 4:12:56 PM

welcome to politics

6/5/2008 4:14:31 PM

Why do people think I dont want us out of Iraq?

I just want everyone to know whats going on in Iraq, so they have a clear understanding about what the candidates are saying.

Iraq is a black hole for our treasure atm. Though we are spending less and less, we need to draw down.

With the immense success of the last year, this will happen relatively soon.

We can not leave without Iraq being able to effectivly police itself.

But, as far as this legislation goes, by the end of the year, Iraq will be stable. This means that our enemies are largly if not entirely defeated. Once this happens there is no force waiting in the wings once we leave to cause chaos. Then a timetable is fine.

6/5/2008 4:15:04 PM

You did not address the issue regarding the Iraqi government AND people both wanting us out, despite frequently posting reports from Americans saying that they 'love' us.

This clearly shows that the government doesn't want us there, and the government says a large portion of the population doesn't want us there. If that is the case why don't we start leaving now? What right do we have to remain in an independent country without permission?

6/5/2008 4:20:03 PM

We have bred an entirely new generation of enemies. The sons of the fallen will not fail to remember what we brought to their doorsteps, and no surge or political maneuvering will heal the deep wounds of destruction that we wrought. Just because the enemy is not in our sights, it doesn't mean they aren't alive and well.

6/5/2008 4:20:07 PM

Quote :

"You did not address the issue regarding the Iraqi government AND people both wanting us out"

100% of Iraqis want us gone!

6/5/2008 4:22:10 PM

If you read the article they estimate 70% but he seemed more than willing to have a referendum if we thought it necessary.

6/5/2008 4:22:55 PM

i think we should let the iraqi people vote in a democratic process

and if it turns out 70% of the voting population wants us out, then ok, they have spoken

but i also think its unfair to insinuate that 100% of the iraqi govt wants us gone, when thats not the case

6/5/2008 4:24:18 PM

^^^^^ so all those reports are wrong?

If Iraqis didnt want us there, we wouldnt have had the lowest death total of the entire war last month.

I need to read more material on why they specifically dont want us there vs them just saying it. Having US troops in your country isnt a bad thing. If you get attacked look who is coming to back you up....

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ^]

6/5/2008 4:24:38 PM

Quote :

"Having US troops in your country isnt a bad thing."

lol

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 4:26 PM. Reason : -]

6/5/2008 4:26:35 PM

Quote :

"If Iraqis didnt want us there, we wouldnt have had the lowest death total of the entire war last month."

not wanting someone there doesn't mean you necessarily want to kill the occupiers.

6/5/2008 4:32:17 PM

Quote :

"Having US bullets in your body isn't a bad thing."

6/5/2008 4:41:03 PM

Quote :

"Having non-Americans blow up car bombs all the time is 100% the United States' fault"

6/5/2008 4:42:11 PM

We've got a real thinker here folks, hold onto your cerebral cortex.

6/5/2008 4:46:57 PM

yeah cause nobody in TSB thinks that way

i've just been imagining the sentiments that people have shared over the last few years

why are you denying it?

6/5/2008 4:48:27 PM

Ha.

Isnt it obvious, US troops rape and murder everything they see.

Our forces are forcing the Iraqi government to do everything.

For some reason I don't think you can call our forces "occupying forces." We don't really want to be there.

We don't force anyone to do anything except not kill each other, and help force extremists and criminals into dying.

Occupying in the classical sense just doesn't seem right in this situation.

[Edited on June 5, 2008 at 4:51 PM. Reason : dsa]

6/5/2008 4:51:27 PM

People also believe that we didn't land on the moon, and that the Holocaust didn't occur, but so what? I accept the fact that many people are short-sighted and lack wisdom in regards to many many things. That doesn't stop me from mocking them though.

6/5/2008 4:58:54 PM

meh, we are more like necessary police that anything.

I want to know specifically why they don't want bases there. I think I remember reading that they don't want us to have the right to attack other countries from Iraq. And I don't see why the legislation cant be set up where that is illegal.

I don't know about that infidel thing. I wonder if that plays into it much at a governmental level.

6/5/2008 5:02:08 PM

Quote :

"Iraq Looking at Alternatives to US Security Agreement - Iraqi Official -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- London, 06 June 2008 (Asharq Alawsat) Print article Send to friendDisagreements between Iraqi and US delegations over issues relating to "sovereignty" in a draft strategic agreement organizing relations between the two countries disrupted the negotiations between the two sides. A prominent Iraqi official said that Iraq is discussing "alternatives" to the agreement, including "staying under UN protection." Official Spokesman for the Iraqi Government Ali al-Dabbagh said, "Currently, there is open talk on the need to look for alternatives to the long-term security agreement between Iraq and the United States." Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat by phone from his office in Baghdad, Al-Dabbagh said, "At its meeting today [3 June], the Council of Ministers discussed the objections to the provisions of the agreement. There should be agreement between two fully sovereign countries respecting the Iraqi people's rights and sovereignty or no agreement at all." He emphasized, "We do not need an agreement that compromises our sovereignty and harms our people's rights." Al-Dabbagh said, "The Iraqi Government's vision differs from that of the Americans who think that the agreement will give them almost totally a free hand in Iraq and that, as a military force, they must have absolute powers. This stand contravenes Iraqi sovereignty and our people's rights. No Iraqi political force or party would accept this. The issue of the country's sovereignty and people's rights cannot be compromised at all. It is not subject to discussion or even mere talk." He added, "The agreement must respect Iraq and the Iraqis or there should be no agreement. We are not compelled to sign the agreement or submit to it. The agreement must respect our sovereignty and rights." The official spokesman for the Iraqi Government said, "Currently, there is open talk on the need to look for alternatives, if no plan is agreed upon. These alternatives include signing a cooperation agreement instead of a long-term security agreement and staying under the United Nations protection to protect Iraqi funds, in addition to many other alternatives that are under discussion. "Al-Dabbagh denied that the negotiations between Iraq and the US Administration on the agreement have been suspended. He explained, "The negotiators went back to their higher political authorities for consultation. We do not consider the negotiations as having been suspended. Iraq has not submitted and will not submit to any pressure or influence. As a matter of fact, the Americans did not press for accepting the agreement." Earlier, a leader of the Al-Da'wah Party announced that negotiations between the two sides came to an end. Negotiations have been held between the United States and Iraq to reach agreement on the "status of the forces" with the aim of imparting a legal status to the presence of the US Army in Iraq after the 31st of December when a mandate under an international resolution organizing the presence of these forces in Iraq expires. The French News Agency quoted MP Abbas al-Bayyati who represents the ruling coalition assaying, "There are three points that need further discussions. They are the right to detain, the right to enter and exit, and the extent of the immunity granted to US soldiers and security contractors." He added that there are questions about "the fight against terrorism and whether the US forces will enjoy an absolute right to detain people or whether the Iraqi side will have a larger role." The Political Council of the Iraqi National Security that consists of senior officials and political groups recommended that there is a need to continue the negotiations with the United States in order to reach an agreement that will "satisfy the Iraqi people and not harm their interests." Al-Bayyatiadds, "The other issues have to do with the forces' entry and exit. The entry and exit of the forces must be regulated by a clear mechanism, such as imposing entry visas and designating entry and exit points and airports." He continues, "As for the immunity, there is a question as to whether a [US] soldier or an employee of a security firm who commits a crime will stand trial at Iraqi courts or whether the immunity will be limited to the performance of duty." On the other side, however, the Iraqi demands seem to be absolutely contrary to what the Americans are seeking. A source familiar with the draft agreement says, "The Americans demand to control the airspace, enjoy open facilities on land and at sea, have the right to arrest and imprison any Iraqi who they believe poses a threat, and carry out military operations against terrorism without consulting Baghdad." The source who refused to give his name adds, "The Iraqis demand that they be considered a sovereign government. Also, they assert that the Americans must not be granted facilities without their approval. They want the status of the American bases that will be established to be reviewed as is the case in Turkey." The source says, "The Baghdad government insists that US forces do not move from their temporary bases without its approval and knowledge. Also, it insists that the movement of the US Army funds be subject to the Central Bank and that a written approval by the Iraqi Government be secured for any military operation." The same source adds, "The Iraqis reject the arrest of any Iraqi without their consent. Also, they demand that the US forces be given limited corridors in the Iraqi airspace and that US soldiers' legal immunity be limited to military operations, on the condition that such operations be carried out after securing Baghdad's approval." In response to Al-Dabbagh's statements that agreement between the two sides might not be reached, Mirembe Natango, spokeswoman for the US Embassy in Baghdad, said, "These are negotiations conducted between two sovereign countries that work together." In a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, Natango added that the talk about disagreements or failure to reach agreement is premature. She explained, "No final agreement has been reached on any issue to date, and it is premature to say that agreement has been reached." Natango pointed out that negotiations are continuing between Iraqi and US officials at various levels. She said, "Several drafts are currently exchanged between the two sides, and no final draft has been formulated." "

6/6/2008 9:45:36 AM

^^maybe they don't want a foreign army in their country. especially one that they didn't ask to be there in the first place. i think it's perfectly reasonable.

6/6/2008 9:47:31 AM

Creating a timetable for withdrawal is not the same as saying we will leave immediatley as Barack Obama proposes.

The latest polls show that most Iraqis, in fact, over 60% of Iraqi DO NOT want us to leave immediatley though the majority of Iraqis believe should leave eventually.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf

And that's an actual poll. Not someones guess (as linked on ThinkProgress).

Next?

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 10:18 AM. Reason : ``]

6/6/2008 10:15:14 AM

I think the more interesting question is not whether or not the Iraqi parliament wants the United States to provide a withdrawal time line but how quickly they want the United States to withdraw. I know the Reuters article had one politician calling for an immediate pullout, but I'd be curious to see what most Iraqi parliamentarians and Iraqis have in mind.

6/6/2008 10:17:37 AM

Quote :

"leave immediatley as Barack Obama proposes"

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

He wants to beginimmediately. AKA, a timetable.

6/6/2008 10:17:55 AM

^ because obviously I was implying that Barack Obama wants to teleport the troops out of Iraq so they are gone in a single instant.

Barack Obama wants us to begin withdrawing troops immediatley and be out of Iraq in 16 months. Most Iraqis (over 60%) DO NOT want the US to begin withdrawl immediatley.

Creating a time table for withdrawal is not the same as starting withdrawal today.

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 10:22 AM. Reason : ``]

6/6/2008 10:19:35 AM

agreed

I just want someone to whisper in Obama's ear that hes wrong and that he needs to listen to the generals.

That is all.

[Edited on June 6, 2008 at 10:22 AM. Reason : sd]

6/6/2008 10:21:44 AM

I guess it's time for Iran to take an asswhooping. Let's let the Air Force do its job there. No ground forces needed. Just take out the key sites. You know what to do.

I'm in favor of the Iraqi draw-down. Let's let them commit suicide.

Pakistan, you're next too bitches.

6/6/2008 10:22:18 AM

yes, let's invade our ally.

6/6/2008 10:28:33 AM

WHAT WE NEED MORE OF IS THREE- OR FOUR-FRONT WARS WITH A MILITARY THAT'S ALREADY STRETCHED TOO THIN

HELL YES

6/6/2008 10:29:22 AM

Quote :

"Barack Obama wants us to begin withdrawing troops immediatley and be out of Iraq in 16 months. Most Iraqis (over 60%) DO NOT want the US to begin withdrawl immediatley."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

apparently so...

Quote :

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

6/6/2008 7:30:23 PM

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

6/6/2008 7:42:01 PM

Quote :

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

6/6/2008 8:35:17 PM

As much as we love spreading freedom and democracy; if the iraqi gov't says they want us out shouldn't they have the right to give us the boot. That is unless we truely are just an occupying force.

6/6/2008 8:41:10 PM

Honkeyball,

Does that mean you are also against immediate withdrawal? According to the latest ABC-BBC poll, over 60% of Iraqis do not want the US to leave right now (though they do want us gone eventually).
http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf

If so, does that mean you disagree with Obama on Iraq (I seriously doubt anyone will answer this question). If not, does that mean you really don't think Iraqi's know what is best for them?

PS* Just to repeat, setting up a time-table as the legislators suggest is not the same as beginning US withdrawal. The legislators did not ask for us to leave now, they only asked for us to make it clear that we do not intend to stay forever.

6/6/2008 8:56:34 PM

Quote :

"You did not address the issue regarding the Iraqi government AND people both wanting us out, despite frequently posting reports from Americans saying that they 'love' us."

Sometimes, when you love someone, you have to let them go.

6/6/2008 9:31:53 PM

^^ The repetition of skokiaan's statement was to clarify that it was, in fact, in jest.

I want us out as quickly as is feasible, and I don't mean in a "As soon as they're as safe as main street America" way... I mean as soon as is logistically possible, without jeopardizing our guys on the way out.

I don't buy into the "if we leave our men's sacrifices will be in vain" crap. It just doesn't hold water.

Obama's plan to move one to two brigades home is ambitious... I doubt it'll be a 16 month pullout, but that's a question for someone with a little more military background than myself.

6/6/2008 10:22:45 PM

i know you guys are gonna call sarcasm on me...

but i think we need to pull the fuck out and start saving some damned money

i don't care now. oil is ridiculous. fuck you bush

6/6/2008 10:25:09 PM

^

6/6/2008 11:49:20 PM

Quote :

" I just want someone to whisper in Obama's ear that hes wrong and that he needs to listen to the generals."

more like, the generals need to listen to the civilian leadership.

6/7/2008 9:45:20 AM

Listening to Petraeus is why we have such positive results in Iraq atm. Just in case you missed that.

Quote :

"I don't buy into the "if we leave our men's sacrifices will be in vain" crap. It just doesn't hold water. "

Well if you dont buy into that, how about making sure don't leave to quickly.

Thats what it all boils down to. Not sending to big a shock to the system so it doesn't unravel. If you listen to the people on the ground, this is possible.

Obama's plan with getting 2 brigades out a month is the fastest way to withdrawal that is logistically feasible. He wants us out as fast as we can get out, not as fast as we should get out.

This is the problem. Or at least the problem with what he is saying now, and maybe not what will actually happen.

6/7/2008 11:18:01 AM

^ 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.

6/7/2008 11:38:18 AM

Quote :

"more like, the generals need to listen to the civilian leadership. "

the generals do listen to the civilian leadership.

"listening to the civilian leadership" doesn't mean not providing the advice and insight that only they can. that's their job. it means steering the civilian leadership towards what they judge to be the best decisions, then executing to the best of their ability whatever judgement is made by those civilian leaders. i think they've done that.

Quote :

"If the Iraqi gov. wants us out, I don't think it's relevant what our generals say. "

I tend to agree. Doing otherwise would amount to an occupation, would it not? That said, (1) I'm not as well schooled as I probably should be on how Iraq's gov't works, but I doubt that the Parliament is the end-all authority (no more so than our Congress represents our entire government). (2) they do not specify that the timeable be declared publicly. (3) they do no specify the details of the timetable--i.e., there is no requirement to vacate the country in the most expeditious fashion--only to develop and adhere to some sort of a concrete plan and schedule for leaving.

in other words, i take their Parliament's decision seriously, but I don't take it for more than it is.

6/7/2008 3:45:10 PM

of course the Iraqis want us out. They want to be free to finish their genocide without US interference.

6/7/2008 6:08:18 PM

if i were under pressure from death threats by the mafia to vote a certain way, why i'd probably save my and my childrens neck too

skankinMonky makes threads in general like this without thinking about actual real world data.

just sees a way to break up and into the never failing republican logic which has been working for the past 7 years.

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

i haven't. i'll complain that our administration is handling the situation wrong when it does.

6/7/2008 6:26:14 PM

^yea, it goes something like this.

OMG I FOUND A POINT THAT KINDA PROVES THAT EVERYTHING I SAY IS RIGHT!

Quote :

"of course the Iraqis want us out. They want to be free to finish their genocide without US interference."

you and rat make some crazy shit up.

the legislation will end up with some sort US of presence in Iraq. Wether its just advisors, or bases. The Iraqis just wahave been fighting for nt to maintain their sovernty, which is what we will give them. And, in fact, its what we for the past 5 years.

6/7/2008 6:40:48 PM

english much?

6/7/2008 6:44:00 PM

^ that was almost certainly a post-while-drunk

6/7/2008 11:56:09 PM