“BAGHDAD – Iraq wants to eliminate any chance U.S. forces will stay here after 2011 under a proposed security pact, and to expand Iraqi legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops until then, a close ally of the prime minister said Thursday” to Associated Press. So after all the hours spent debating it on the campaign trail, how and when the U.S. military leaves Iraq may not be a matter for the next decider in chief but instead settled by Iraqis.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
102 Comments
It seems the Iraqis should have a voice, a choice, be listened to…
as it should be
What?! They have a say??? LOL
How dare those Iraqis suggest we set a date for surrender! I bet Al-Malaki would even meet with Ahmnidinijad without preconditions! I’ve heard he’s a Palestinian sympathizer, so I’m not surprised.
They obviously are putting domestic politics ahead of the security of Iraq.
Well, Linda, the Iraqis do have a voice. As you are aware, what is being negotiated is a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement). If no agreement is reached before 31 December 2008, the current U.N. resolution under which the U.S. and other coalition forces are in Iraq expires. It is my understanding that in order for a new resolution to be enacted by the U.N., the Iraqis must request the same.
So, the Iraqis not only should have a voice, etc., as you posted, it seems that their voice may well be the most important one in the discussion.
As it should be and that opportunity for Iraq to make such a decision in a free society was paid for by our troops.
ReguLIAR has no problem with the fact that we stalled elections for years there, and that the Iraqis overwhelming vote for parties that want the US out now.
It’s like Hamas getting elected in Palestine.
Democracy is great as long as they vote to support what we want.
Then, not so much . . .
Regular, not only our troops, but forces deployed in Iraq by the other coalition members such as Great Britain.
Correction– If not, then not so much.
I’m glad that their government is stabilizing and growing strong enough that they are flexing their muscles about being independent. I was hoping they would want to keep a couple of U.S. military bases in theater {ideally far from the populace} for stability, but obviously it’s their choice.
Regular posted October 31, 2008 at 1:52 pm
As it should be and that opportunity for Iraq to make such a decision in a free society was paid for by our troops.
———–
A few (sarcasm) Iraqis also “paid” with their lives.
“…how and when the U.S. military leaves Iraq may not be a matter for the next decider in chief but instead settled by Iraqis.”
Or may be. We will see. We don’t know, but let’s yak about it.
As it should be and that opportunity for Iraq to make such a decision in a free society was paid for by our troops.
A “free society”? Did you actually type that without cracking up?
It would be nice if we left Iraq anything close to that. I once opposed leaving Irsq simply because of the unstable, militia-driven Hell-on-Earth we’d created.
I am also no fan of the Al-Maliki government, but sometimes your choice are bad vs. worse.
In the 80s Kanan Makia wrote a book about Iraq under Saddam called The Republic of Fear. Today Saddam is in prison and we Iraqis are constantly being told that we have been liberated but when I look around I still see a Republic of Fear.
Life seems to have lost its value and we are shutting up and shutting down because of fear. This is about how when everyone came to destroy what was wicked they killed what was good as well.
More. . .
So people I give you the future of Baghdad. Districts will become tightly controlled fortresses that are ethnically/religiously homogeneous. Outsiders are only let in after being inspected and checked. I really want to go back to Kadhimiya but only after I get my fake Shia ID.
Having trouble getting into a Shia district doesn’t mean that I am OK in Sunni areas. Sunni areas are even tougher. To start with they have their own set of fashion rules. There is a whole What Not To Wear spin-off for the west of Baghdad and the prize isn’t just a special wardrobe but you get to stay alive.
Let me give you a quick run down. Let’s look at men’s fashions first. Things that can get you killed include:
Shorts
A goatee beard
Jeans that are a bit tight or are too fashionably “distressed”
Colourful shirts
Hair Gel!!!
A necklace
A Shia name (anything that has anything to do with Imam Hussein or a member of his family)
http://justzipit.blogspot.com/2006/06/i-am-working-on-two-new-video-blogs.html
Well, fleet, if there is no agreement or no resolution, then there becomes a question of the legitimacy of the continued presence of the troops in Iraq. I know, just a formality and all.
Is Bush still borrowing 15 billion a month from China to pay Exxon Mobile, BP, Blackwater and Halliburton? Speaking of China, they’ve done pretty well since they ran our ass out town with the barrel of a gun. As did Vietnam. Using Bush and McWorse’s reasoning, we “won” in China and Vietnam by getting the boot. The Iraq War was misbegotten from the beginning. How can you justify, in any sense of the word, an occupation based upon a lie (or a “misjudgment,” if you’re soft on Bush)?
#
avtolle
Posted October 31, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
Regular, not only our troops, but forces deployed in Iraq by the other coalition members such as Great Britain.
————————
The Brits can congratulate their own troops, I congratulate and thank ours.
The Iraqi Army didn’t exist until the U.S. put them back together again as a viable defense force.
“Well, fleet, if there is no agreement or no resolution,…”
And, there isn’t, just yakking.
Yep, fleet, without an agreement or U.N. resolution, it is all yakking right now; with one relevant and important consequence. On 31 December 2008, the Iraqis can demand the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces, and if the U.S. refuses, incur even more damage to the international perception of the U.S. No matter who is elected as President, this is something he doesn’t need.
Holy Moley! I think there maybe some agreement on this issue! LOL
“Rage
Posted October 31, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Permalink
How dare those Iraqis suggest we set a date for surrender! I bet Al-Malaki would even meet with Ahmnidinijad without preconditions! I’ve heard he’s a Palestinian sympathizer, so I’m not surprised.
They obviously are putting domestic politics ahead of the security of Iraq.”
I hear he is also a Muslim sympathizer.
Ben, Al-Malaki also wears a dress….on purpose!
Since Iraq is already being handed over to the Iraqi forces and violence is down, hopefully their government can get it together. I think this can be achieved soon, as long as a surge of violence and upheaval doesn’t develop. No doubt the new US Pres. will have difficult choices to make.
Since Iraq is already being handed over to the Iraqi forces- should have added “handed over slowly area by area…”
“No doubt the new US Pres. will have difficult choices to make.”
Seems to me if an agreement is not reached we are REQUIRED to leave.
Seems to me if an agreement is not reached we are REQUIRED to leave.
——–
bth,
How would that be enforced? BTW, I am not saying we should stay if the Iraqi Gov. wants us out.
ANTI, there’s the rub. Unless the U.S. would leave voluntarily upon demand being made, I don’t think the Iraqi government has the force to “physically” remove them.
ANTI – good point. I suppose that is like asking how one enforces telling the Russians to get out of Georgia or the Israelis to leave Palestine. Depends on whether countries respect international law.
If asked to leave and they stay, what term will be used to deny it is an occupation?
A conservatorship?
I think there needs to be something in place from the Iraqi standpoint to insure the job is done.
We don’t need to be going back.
“We don’t need to be going back.”
—-
We didn’t need to go in the first place.
lindainks55
Posted October 31, 2008 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
“We don’t need to be going back.”
—-
We didn’t need to go in the first place.
=========
So Linda, are you OK with going back to Iraq in 10 years to finish the job we ran away from? Or should we try to do our best to do things correctly because we are there NOW?
Personally I feel it needs to be set up like every other war that has been fought and country liberated and a US presence kept.
Aren’t there 4 – 6 million Iraqis who are refugees? When will it be safe enough for them to return home? Do they have homes?
This should have never been an issue
Until and unless the Iraqi people are willing to make decisions for themselves and their country, what do we hope to achieve? And why should America have any right to make those decisions for them? If things need to be rebuilt, who better to have those jobs than the Iraqi people?
lindainks55
Posted October 31, 2008 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
Aren’t there 4 – 6 million Iraqis who are refugees? When will it be safe enough for them to return home? Do they have homes?
——–
I thought you wanted an immediate pull out Linda?
Did they have homes in the first place?
Seems they are more “flush” than America too. Maybe they could spend their money for the needs they decide their country has.
Freebird1971
Posted October 31, 2008 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
This should have never been an issue
==========
Doesn’t matter, we can’t change the past. It is an issue NOW. If the Iraqis want us out, we should leave. However, the Iraqis should be advised that the country is now totally THEIR responsibility.
“Mr_Kia
Posted October 31, 2008 at 3:46 pm | Permalink
Did they have homes in the first place?”
YES.
Anti,
I agree with you just saying that had it not been for Bush we wouldn’t even be there and 4000 families would still have their loved ones with them.
Yea freebird – but then George coulddn’t have worn that nifty flight suit in from of his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign!
“We didn’t need to go in the first place.”
“This should have never been an issue”
Live in the now and stop sounding like children.
“but then George coulddn’t have worn that nifty flight suit in from of his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign!”
See above.
fleettwood
Posted October 31, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
“We didn’t need to go in the first place.”
“This should have never been an issue”
Live in the now and stop sounding like children.
———————————————-
Those that fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
The now is the fact that we have troops there and risking their lives for one man’s ego and inability to admit he was wrong
Agreed freebird. My analogy: I am facing surgery as a result of previous malpractice. Do I stick with the same failure of a doctor for the new surgery?
bth
Posted October 31, 2008 at 4:01 pm | Permalink
Agreed freebird. My analogy: I am facing surgery as a result of previous malpractice. Do I stick with the same failure of a doctor for the new surgery?
———————————————–
Hopefully you are smarter than the president.
It is always helpful for the person who deems himself an adult and others children to simply attack, add nothing, not even attempt answers to any questions posed, just attack.
Until and unless the Iraqi people decide what i best for them, what do we hope to achieve? Why should America decide what the Iraqis need? If their country has things that need to be rebuilt why should Blackwater, Halliburton… have those jobs?
How many votes does it take to cut off all the funding?
Would cutting off the funding get our soldiers home more quickly or more safely?
fleet, to be sure, enough to override a veto in both Houses of Congress.
“The now is the fact that we have troops there and risking their lives for one man’s ego and inability to admit he was wrong”
Ask freebird and ben. Why don’t you people cut off the funding?
“fleet, to be sure, enough to override a veto in both Houses of Congress.”
Congress knows the American people won’t stand for it. One of the reasons McCain is going to win.
I don’t know what kind of answer you need, you’ll have to decide that and let us know.
My answer is: Because it wouldn’t be safe for our soldiers. It would serve NO purpose.
Didn’t say they shouldn’t be funded,just that they shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Fleet,
I’m guessing body counts are a turn on for you.
“One of the reasons McCain is going to win.”
In a bit over 4 days we shall know.
Freebird1971
Posted October 31, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
Didn’t say they shouldn’t be funded,just that they shouldn’t be there in the first place.
=======
That doesn’t justify abandoning the Iraqi’s.
“That doesn’t justify abandoning the Iraqi’s.”
So if they tell us to leave we should overthrow their government again and hang al-Maliki?
ANTI
Posted October 31, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Permalink
Freebird1971
Posted October 31, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
Didn’t say they shouldn’t be funded,just that they shouldn’t be there in the first place.
=======
That doesn’t justify abandoning the Iraqi’s
————————————————
so if the Iraqis want us out we are to stay anyway? Damn here I thought Bush was all for letting them run their own country. Guess they can run it as long as they agree with us
so if the Iraqis want us out we are to stay anyway?
========
I already answered that question, I believe twice.
“One of the reasons McCain is going to win.” — fleetwood
“In a bit over 4 days we shall know.” — bth
Thank goodness! My biggest hope is that no later than the morning of November 5th thee is a clear winner.
“So if they tell us to leave we should overthrow their government again and hang al-Maliki?”
Here you go ben:
“reductive fallacy
One of the basic logical fallacies is the reductive fallacy, or in Latin, ‘reductum ad absurdum’. Basically means taking a normal argument to such a far extreme (reducing it in an absurd manner) as an attempt to try to say it is wrong.”
fleettwood – you analysis is meaningless.
THREAD HEADER:
Iraqis may decide U.S. exit strategy
Let me help you out with my stance Freebird & bth,
These are my statements from above:
“I am not saying we should stay if the Iraqi Gov. wants us out.”
&
“If the Iraqis want us out, we should leave. However, the Iraqis should be advised that the country is now totally THEIR responsibility.”
Now hopefully this will help you out before you make some over-dramatized reply.
bth,
Off topic but hope you have a good eve,I’m taking the grandson out for trick or treating
Had my grandkids over last night – greeted them wearing my Dracula cape. Was immediately attacked by Spiderman, a Power ranger and a pirate – with a sword! I’ll be handing out candy tonight.
linda – I’m guessing we will know Tuesday night.
“THREAD HEADER:
Iraqis may decide U.S. exit strategy”
MAY, the may not is assumed.
pirate – with a sword!
========
I learned the hard way that wearing a ‘cup’ around short pirates, cavemen, and wizards is a great idea!
http://electoral-vote.com/
Eastern Time Zone – if VA, OH, and FL go to Obama it will be a LONG night for the McCainiancs. (note: some of FL is Central)
oh ,,, and NC …
It has to reach the point where the Iraqis decide their own future and when to tell the U.S. to leave.
Until that day we have to insure that no one else can decide for them. We broke it and have to fix it is our responsibility. BUT we are not the one to decide for the Iraqis or refuse them when they do say its time for us to go. No pulling strings at the U.N. no declaring that Iraq is in a receivership and not by force of any measure. If we do stay against the Iraqis will it would have the same effect as if we leave too soon.
And draw into the conflict the other countries making it the U.S. against the World. And contrary to what those that led us into this mistake. The World will say “Oh really just how big a boy do you think you are?”.
Agreed WD
Iraq’s busy running their agreement by their neighbors to see if they can get Iran to sign off on it.
Had we expended the time, effort, and money we’ve spent on Iraq, we could have stabilized Afghanistan.
I think Iran will be willing to wait until 2011 for our withdraw.
#
bth
Posted October 31, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
Had my grandkids over last night – greeted them wearing my Dracula cape. Was immediately attacked by Spiderman, a Power ranger and a pirate – with a sword! I’ll be handing out candy tonight.
——————————-
Hmmm, always thought you were a scientist, not a blood-sucking lawyer. :D
Does it humiliate Republicans that Iran’s President is greeted with open arms in Iraq, and ours has to sneak in and out in the dead of night?
Anyone who said we should invade Iraq in 2002 can no longer claim to be smart on foreign policy. People who warned us not to invade in 2002 are the ones we should be listening to. They were right. But will Republicans ever admit it?
Personally I think the cost of the Iraq war should be divided among the 60 million people who voted for Bush in 2004. So far that comes out to a bit over $10,000 each. Now, if you really believe invading and occupying Iraq has kept terrorists away from your local mini-mall, then you should have no problem forking over the money to pay for it. Should be worth the price, right?
Do Republicans really think it was worth the price? The answer lies in their response to my proposal.
Regular
Posted October 31, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Permalink
As it should be and that opportunity for Iraq to make such a decision in a free society was paid for by our troops.
–
So is Iraq going to pay us back for the billions Bush and Cheney spent on their war?
A free society? What are you talking about? Iraqi Prime Minister, al Malaki, has already shown his loyalty to the Iran President by cozying up to him and promising him that he would not allow any US attacks from Iraq.
With friends like Al Maliki, who needs enemies?
And to think we lost 4,000 soldiers lives and countless injured soldiers to arrive at a place where we are knifed in the back by a man Bush and Cheney put into place. Is this what Bush meant by mission accomplished?
Someone should decide.
Sure as heck can’t wait on Obama.
“With friends like Al Maliki, who needs enemies?”
Could be worse – we could have Bush/Cheney’s darling Ahmed Chalabi!
Holy crow! HOW did we miss this one?
Take note of the reaction of Cindy and Sarah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mBi7d6e5KI
My fellow prisoners?
PTSD?
His intentions for us if he wins?
He’s almost as bad as Bush.
Prediction: The al-Maliki government will ally itself with Iran. As will Afghanistan. Right now the most stable parts of Afghanistan are the west due to Iranian influence. As Iran emerges more and more as a regional power – through diplomacy rather than military might – the Gulf states will also move closer to Iran.
Wahabi/alQuada Saudi Arabia will be the holdout which will place the US in a very difficult position. Support alQuada as the only alternative to Iraq just as we supported Saddam? What a choice Bush has created.
Syria becomes an interesting question. Sunni which would tend to make them an enemy of Iran. However, they have been allied (convenience) with Iran against the US-Saddam axis and also against the US-Israel alliance. In that latter arena they have supported Shiite Lebanese and Sunni Palestinians.
Syria seems to have been drifting away from Iran – Turkey has been a part of that. If Turkey – which is on good terms with Israel – can manage to broker an agreement between Syria and Israel then Syria has little reason to ally with Iran. This becomes even more true if an agreeement could be reched between Lebanon and Israel.
All of thee scenarios have one thing in common – the US is not an intermediary in any of them. That is another legacy of the Bush policies on unilateralism.
mom
Posted October 31, 2008 at 6:36 pm | Permalink
Regular
Posted October 31, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Permalink
As it should be and that opportunity for Iraq to make such a decision in a free society was paid for by our troops.
–
So is Iraq going to pay us back for the billions Bush and Cheney spent on their war?
——————————-
There’s only been a very small handful of countries in the world that has paid the U.S. back for assistance during and after wars.
“There’s only been a very small handful of countries in the world that has paid the U.S. back for assistance during and after wars.”
And since WW2 has the US paid back countries we have destroyed wih our wars?
Bet there’s not a bushie on here that wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice the 4000 Americans and money, If they had a choice to undo what bush has done, or to have things where(ever) they are at now.
#
bth
Posted October 31, 2008 at 8:25 pm | Permalink
“There’s only been a very small handful of countries in the world that has paid the U.S. back for assistance during and after wars.”
And since WW2 has the US paid back countries we have destroyed wih our wars?
———————————
Well, the victors don’t have to pay back funds.
However, with the U.S. help, Japan and Germany were re-built and re-tooled with massive American assistance.
Nice try, go get your treat now…
They want us to leave, we want to leave…so let’s leave already.
So why does McCain insist we stay? All you cons even agree that it’s been a “success”…why the hell hang on, haven’t we spent enough money and American lives? We sure got our money’s worth with this one!
Note that I said “since WW2″- that was the exception.
As for ‘paying the US back for our assistance” just how did we “assist” countries like VietNam? Why should they want to “pay us back” other than “in kind”?
#
bth
Posted October 31, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Permalink
Note that I said “since WW2?- that was the exception.
As for ‘paying the US back for our assistance” just how did we “assist” countries like VietNam? Why should they want to “pay us back” other than “in kind”?
————————–
Vietnam didn’t want any assistance, they went Kommie.
The Malaki government will not boot out the US simply because it doesn’t have either the power or the desire. Ultimatums such as this serve two purposes: one, to temporarily mollify the Iraqi people and two, to extract more money from us to add to their already brimming personal Swiss accounts. When we do leave, so will the current government, or it will risk the same fate as Saddam.
Ben, you’ll find this interesting and understand the significance — there was a major stem cell conference in Tehran a few weeks ago. Scientists from all over the world attended. I have it on good authority that it was well attended and good science presented. Seems the intellectual community is being courted by Iran.
#
lindainks55
Posted October 31, 2008 at 8:47 pm | Permalink
Ben, you’ll find this interesting and understand the significance — there was a major stem cell conference in Tehran a few weeks ago. Scientists from all over the world attended. I have it on good authority that it was well attended and good science presented. Seems the intellectual community is being courted by Iran.
—————-
No gay scientists though – according to ima dinner jacket there are no gays in Iran.
You are correct linda. Iran has a surprisingly high profile in the scientific community. They are especially active in European scientific organizations and their scientists routinely attend scientific meetings.
Although much of the image of Iran is dominated in the US media as nutcase they are actually quite pragmatic.
Mr_Kia
Posted October 31, 2008 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
Personally I feel it needs to be set up like every other war that has been fought and country liberated and a US presence kept
—
You still just don’t get it, do you? We had no business invading Iraq in the first place! They had nothing to do with 9/11.
The US is seen as the aggressor in this war and that is what the most damage George W. Bush and Dick Cheney has done to our country – the loss of respect around the world.
Mary_Caruso
Posted October 31, 2008 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
They want us to leave, we want to leave…so let’s leave already.
So why does McCain insist we stay? All you cons even agree that it’s been a “success”…why the hell hang on, haven’t we spent enough money and American lives? We sure got our money’s worth with this one!
—
I suspect it is because of the oil. We still do not have control of their oil.
All of thee scenarios have one thing in common – the US is not an intermediary in any of them. That is another legacy of the Bush policies on unilateralism
–
Let’s not forget that John McCain will refuse to talk to anyone without his preconditions – which is translated to – he will not talk but send big guns in blazing. Isn’t that the same attitude that got us into this mess?
If NATO member Turkey becomes a major player in the Levant and Iran becomes the major power in the Gulf the US will see its influence diminished dramatically. Our only remaining allies in the region from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean might be Israel and Wahabi/alQuada Saudi Arabia. And – Turkey has good relations with Israel. If moderates gain power there …