Thursday February 16, 2012

Iraqi parliament approves U.S. military pact

BAGHDAD —

Iraq’s parliament on Thursday approved a landmark military pact that will see all U.S. troops withdraw by the end of 2011, eight years after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and plunged the country into chaos.

After 11 months of hard-nosed negotiations with Washington and a flurry of internal negotiations leading up to the vote, the pact was approved by 149 members of the 198 who attended the session of the 275-member assembly.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s Shiite-led government succeeded in corralling a comfortable majority to support the historic agreement, including the main blocs representing the country’s Sunni and Kurdish minorities.

“This is an historic day for the great people of Iraq,” Maliki said in a televised address after the parliamentary vote.

“We have achieved one of our most important accomplishments by signing an agreement for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq, and restoring the sovereignty that we lost more than two decades ago,” he said.

“The agreement restores Iraq and its national sovereignty, preserves its wealth, and returns it to the international community as a free country.”

The agreement was approved by the cabinet a week ago and is now virtually guaranteed to be ratified by Iraq’s presidential council.

U.S. President George W Bush hailed parliament’s approval of the “historic” agreement, saying in a statement that it “affirms the growth of Iraq’s democracy and increasing ability to secure itself.”

The measure would govern some 150,000 U.S. troops stationed in over 400 bases when their UN mandate expires at the end of the year, giving the Iraqi government veto power over virtually all of their operations.

It marks a coming-of-age for Maliki’s government, which drove a hard bargain with Washington, securing a number of concessions over nearly a year of tough negotiations.

The accord has still drawn fire from certain quarters, including followers of the hardline Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who reject any agreement with the United States.

As the voting on the pact began, several Sadrist MPs pounded tables in a bid to hinder the vote, chanting “Yes, yes to Iraq… No, no, to the occupation,” but the 30-member bloc failed to defeat the agreement.

The vote came after a flurry of last-minute negotiations in which the main Sunni parties secured a package of political reforms from the government and a commitment to hold a referendum on the pact no later than July 30.

Should the Iraqi government decide to cancel the pact after the referendum it would have to give Washington one year’s notice, meaning that troops would be allowed to remain in the country only until the summer of 2010.

The international agreement will be binding on US president-elect Barack Obama when he assumes office next year, but he could also unilaterally cancel the pact with a year’s notice or withdraw all U.S. troops at any time.

The pact was made possible in part by dramatic improvements in security over the past year, with U.S. and Iraqi forces largely containing the violence and the chaos that erupted in the wake of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and Saddam’s ouster.

But moments before the vote, two people were killed and more than two dozen wounded in separate suicide bombings in northern Iraq targeting local security forces, underscoring the lingering violence in the country.

In the bloodiest attack, south of the city of Mosul, a suicide car bomb rammed into a police patrol, killing two civilians and wounding 25 others, including 15 policemen, police said.

The U.S. military considers Mosul the last urban bastion of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Iraq won a number of concessions in the agreement, including a hard timeline for withdrawal, the right to search U.S. military cargo and the right to try U.S. soldiers for crimes committed while they are off their bases and off-duty.

The agreement also requires that U.S. troops obtain Iraqi permission for all military operations, and that they hand over the files of all detainees in U.S. custody to the Iraqi authorities, who will decide their fate.

The London-based human rights group Amnesty International warned after the vote that thousands of Iraqi detainees in U.S. military prisons could face torture or execution at the hands of their own government.

The pact would meanwhile forbid U.S. troops from making any further arrests without Iraqi authorization.

Wire reports

  • 0

    TooFarGone

    IOW - the war is over.

    The US won.

  • 0

    rjd_jr

    While that is too bloody long for my tastes FINALLY some light at the end of this long tunnel.

    Though I doubt the pro war crowd will feel too chirpy over those concessions in the last part of this article, U.S. forces look a wee bit hand tied behind their backs dont it?

  • 0

    mcheeky

    IOW - the war is over.

    The US won.

    Tell that to our soldiers that continue to get shot at and dodge IEDs. Tell that to the 25 civilians and 15 policemen wounded by the suicide car bomb in Mosul. Tell that to the families of the two people who died there.

    But keep those blinders on so they know who they are talking to.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Though I doubt the pro war crowd will feel too chirpy over those concessions in the last part of this article, U.S. forces look a wee bit hand tied behind their backs dont it?

    How Chirpy are you sbout this part?

    The London-based human rights group Amnesty International warned after the vote that thousands of Iraqi detainees in U.S. military prisons could face torture or execution at the hands of their own government.

  • 0

    mcheeky

    How Chirpy are you sbout this part?

    How chirpy are you?

    Some of those people are there just for having weapons in their home, something Americans at home do all the time, many also illegally. Difference is, they are not living in a war zone with foreign troops wandering around breaking in doors in the middle of the night, and tribal factions shooting and blowing each other to bits.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Some of those people are there just for having weapons in their home,

    Ak-47's, RPG's, Mortar Tubes, IED's, you know the stuff just used for hunting and household protection..........Right.

  • 0

    mcheeky

    Ak-47's, RPG's, Mortar Tubes, IED's, you know the stuff just used for hunting and household protection..........Right.

    Hunting? Don't be ridiculous!

    Naturally, if it were you and your family, you would follow the rules to the letter, like our American Revolutionary War ancestors did, right? Just knives for you, no matter who is on the other side of your door kicking it in, right?

    Honestly can't see what problem you have with the AK, or even mortar tubes and RPGs. IEDs though, yeah, that is going to warrant some detention and investigations, but you cannot tell me there is no good reason whatsoever to have such a thing when living in a war zone. Its not the IED in such a case, its what you do with it. As if the U.S. military and the coalition of the willing have done a bang up job protecting the ordinary citizens of Iraq! No need for anyone to arm themselves at all! Or even bust up bombed out houses for fire wood during a complete blackout because it violates martial law (and yes, people got in trouble for that).

    And now I think is a good time to mention the old anonymous tip that gets your hated neighbor carted off for indefinite detention.

    Amazing how hard people of fought for simple rights like the right to self defense and the right to a fair trial, and you just shrug them off from the comfort of your computer.

  • 0

    TooFarGone

    "Every Iraqi soldier I saw this morning wished me a Happy Thanksgiving."

    http://www.thedonovan.com/

  • 0

    skipthesong

    The London-based human rights group Amnesty International warned after the vote that thousands of Iraqi detainees in U.S. military prisons could face torture or execution at the hands of their own government."

    Well, as almost all agree, its time for the US to stop meddling in other countries' business'. If their culture/laws call for what ever type of punishment, who are we to do anything about it?

  • 0

    sailwind

    Honestly can't see what problem you have with the AK, or even mortar tubes and RPGs.

    They're used to kill American soldiers might be my problem. I don't see a whole of concern on your part on that piece of the equation.

  • 0

    Nippon5

    I have no problem with the pact signed.. In fact Ill one up it.. We should just take option three and get out troops all out of the ME, Japan, Europe, and every other country out side of the US and its territory.. Im not pro or anti war, Im tired of all the bitching that happens when American military is on another country... I dont care what the reason is to go/be there, I dont care what country or place, I dont want any American troops in other countries. I also dont want to send money to any other country, let them defend themselves and feed themselves..

  • 0

    SezWho2

    There is very little to cheer about for either the pro-war or anti-war side.

    The pact passed the Iraqi parliament with a scant majority so the resistance to the American occupation continues to be strong--strong enough that 18% would vote against the pact and 28% would rather not indicate how they would vote. This is not an indicator of a war that has been won.

    On the other hand, those who complain about the American government using its tax dollars--or its deferred tax dollars--to hold the hands of needy Americans at home can find solace in the fact that they will get to use those deferred taxes to continue to hold the hands of Iraqis abroad. This is, no doubt, a disappointment to those who entertained the unrealistic expectation that the American-propped Iraqi government was going to denude itself of foreign protection.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Why did the Iraqi parliament even bother with this pact? President-elect Obama has already said he will withdraw all the troops by May 2010, one year and seven months earlier than this pact calls for. Perhaps the Iraqi parliament suspects Obama will break his promise...

    "the American occupation"

    Hw many Iraqi government ministries are the Americans running, Sez?

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Sarge,

    I don't know the answer to your question. Do you? Even if there were none, you would have to be fairly oblivious to facts to quarrel with the fact that the US invaded Iraq, occupied it and is now seeking Iraqi blessing to continue the occupation.

  • 0

    Sarge

    The answer is none. The Iraqis have assumed official control of all government ministries and have even taken over responsibility for security for most of the country's provinces. Not exactly an occupation.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Sarge,

    You don't know that the answer is none. That Iraqis head the ministries does not mean that they are not controlled by the US. In any event, what the US is doing is exactly an occupation.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    I especially like it how the Iraqi government pushed hard for a total ban of use of its land or airspace for attacks by US forces against its neighbors.

    John mccain's 'bomb, bomb, bomb!' song and all the losers who didn't criticize him for it will now need to find another way to attack Iran and bury America even further into debt.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge - "President-elect Obama has already said he will withdraw all the troops by May 2010, one year and seven months earlier than this pact calls for."

    Great! Bringing the troops home early will actually help you and your family directly by gradually stemming the haemmoraging of spending that has led to your government having to hold out a tin can to China and Japan to fund its $700 billion bailout that isn't working.

    But you don't seem to see it that way. Even the Iraqi government would say you are wrong. :-)

  • 0

    adaydream

    This is a wonderful Thanksgiving. And the Iraqi's have made it sweeter.

    Bring the troops home as soon as possible. < :-)

  • 0

    TooFarGone

    'sushisake' has written

    "John mccain's 'bomb, bomb, bomb!' song and all the losers who didn't criticize him for it will now need to find another way to attack Iran and bury America even further into debt."

    But the topic here is Iraq.

    John McCain's surge succeeded beyond Barack Obama's wildest expectations.

    The surge (which Obama opposed) made this historic agreement possible.

    The latter humbly admitted this, to Bill O'Reilly, on Fox News, in an exclusive interview, seen nationwide.

  • 0

    adaydream

    John McCain's surge succeeded beyond Barack Obama's wildest expectations.

    John McCain's Iraq war, that so many people like to assert the surge war such a great thing, shouldn't have been started at all. Unjustified, hyped up, lied about and premetitated.

    Tout the damn surge as so special. It would have been special to not start the damn thing at all. < :-)

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Toofargone - "John McCain's surge succeeded beyond Barack Obama's wildest expectations."

    In what way? Reducing some of the violence in Iraq? What about the economic situation back home, where the US government is now facing the most severe depression in 80 years thanks in no small part to the insane spending on Iraq?

    The "surge" has helped calm some of the violence, but at what cost to Americans and the world???

    It's 1 step forward, 8 steps backwards.

    At the end of the day, Americans have lost despite the reduction in violence in a country 8,000 miles away.

    Oh, and then there's the drugs -

    "One in six American soldiers in Afghanistan and one in eight in Iraq are taking daily doses of prescription antidepressants, sleeping pills or painkillers to help them cope with the stresses of combat, according to figures contained in a US Army mental health advisory team report seen by The Herald.

    The findings mean that at least 20,000 troops are on medication such as Prozac or diamorphine while serving in the front line or on equally dangerous convoy escort or driving duties in conflicts where insurgents regularly target the supply chain.

    While the vast majority would have been barred automatically from combat roles in earlier wars on medical and safety grounds, the pressure to provide up to 200,000 soldiers at any given time for the two major deployments has led to a relaxation of the rules."

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    TooFarGone - saying that "John McCain's surge succeeded" is like saying the engines on the Titanic worked well.

    It's still going to the bottom of the ocean and taking everything down with it (read: the economy).

    Still think that Iraq is a shining success in the overall scheme of things??

  • 0

    TooFarGone

    "One in six American soldiers in Afghanistan and one in eight in Iraq are taking daily doses of prescription antidepressants, sleeping pills or painkillers to help them cope with the stresses of combat, according to figures contained in a US Army mental health advisory team report seen by The Herald."

    The ones who voted Obama?

  • 0

    adaydream

    Someone who critisizes American soldiers, when they have been fighting this damn surge you so proudly tout TooFarGone is pretty damn hypicritical of you.

    It takes even the ones who voted for Obama to carry a weapon and fight in Afghanistan or Iraq. < :-)

  • 0

    mcheeky

    They're used to kill American soldiers might be my problem. I don't see a whole of concern on your part on that piece of the equation.

    Remember this: I never would have put them in harm's way in the first place. There can be no greater care than that. You think the people that put them there care more? LMAO!

    Not all those weapons are trained on our soldiers, and just because someone has them, does not mean he intends to.

    And gosh. Now that our soldiers are there, I really don't mind putting the people of Iraq before them. Anybody who cannot accept that order of priority has NO BUSINESS being in a position of liberating those people. Either you are for liberation and you accept the risks or you don't. And if you cannot provide security, then you darn well better let the people provide their own.

  • 0

    mcheeky

    Well, as almost all agree, its time for the US to stop meddling in other countries' business'. If their culture/laws call for what ever type of punishment, who are we to do anything about it?

    We are the ones who locked them up. We have an obligation to ensure they are set free if they are guiltless and not punished for being born Sunni or Shia on a silver platter we furnished.

    I will be more than happy to see an end to meddling once that is done.

  • 0

    sailwind

    I never would have put them in harm's way in the first place.

    How noble of you.

    I really don't mind putting the people of Iraq before them.

    Nice.....Who do think they are putting themselves in harms for? Bolivians?

    And if you cannot provide security, then you darn well better let the people provide their own.

    That would be the Iraqi Security forces responsibility and not the insurgents and we have been training and fighting alongside of them so they can fullfill that task or do you prefer going back to daily suicide bombings and daily attacks on our troops.

    You have a strange idea of who the bad guys are in Iraq and who the good guys are.

    Iraqi Security Forces.......Good

    Insurgents.................. Bad

  • 0

    mcheeky

    That would be the Iraqi Security forces responsibility and not the insurgents and we have been training and fighting alongside of them so they can fullfill that task or do you prefer going back to daily suicide bombings and daily attacks on our troops.

    Must you drag us in circles here? You find a genuine insurgent and he can face whatever justice he faces. I am not talking about genuine insurgents. I am talking about people who were summarily locked up on guesses and unproven claims. Some of those people are innocent, or even guilty of nothing more than possessing weapons in a war zone and were never adequately protected by our forces nor even Iraqi Security Forces. They deserve their day in court.

  • 0

    OnTheRecord

    I don't think so Iraq's. We made you, we protect you and we have built you into a mMid East Utopia.

    We leave on our terms, we will not leave and see all our sterling work destroyed within weeks. Civil war, attacks from Iran etc would ruin everything we have done.

    We are in Iraq, we leave when we want, NOT before!!!

  • 0

    SezWho2

    This was the right thing for the Iraqi parliament to do although it remains to be seen how much popular support it actually has. Absent this approval, American troops would be forced into either (1) a precipitous withdrawal, (2) the insult to sovereignty that OnTheRecord proposes or (3) an equally offensive appeal to the Security Council to continue the mandate without Iraqi approval.

    Even before the surge, Americans who favored withdrawing from Iraq did not favor precipitous withdrawal. They favored the immediate formulation of a plan to bring the troops home commencing at an a early date--for example 60 days after enabling legislation had been passed. Immediate withdrawal may have been the pipe dream of some, but it was definitely the bogeyman constructed by those who were hoping against hope that America could somehow "win" this war.

    The surge itself will likely be a footnote to history. While it may have brought about the conditions under which this present agreement is possible, it has not yet succeeded in bringing security to Iraq, in solving the inherent problems of Kurdish separatism, Sunni fear and Shiite majority or in reducing terrorism in the world. This agreement basically accomplishes the desire of the Americans who wanted troop withdrawal--just a little later and with more lives and dollars lost.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    The US remained in Japan for seven years following WWII. Given the differing circumstances this pact seems reasonable to me. The Iraqi government could have asked the US to leave, but they chose otherwise for their own purposes. They did negotiate a good bargain for themselves from my stand point. I would have liked to have seen more protections for US troops in the final agreement - we will just have to wait and see how things play out.

    The most telling part of this entire article is this one:

    The London-based human rights group Amnesty International warned after the vote that thousands of Iraqi detainees in U.S. military prisons could face torture or execution at the hands of their own government.

    Amnesty International is a far Left political group that actually doesn't want the Americans to return Iraqi citizens to their own government. Incredible! What is their solution to this situation then - continue the occupation? The Left is never happy. I am diffinately sure that the Left does not like that fact that Barack (censored) Obama is retaining Bush's defense secretary which is a de facto endoresment of Bush's war policy. Now that the election is over and he snookered the raving mad anti-war types to vote for him he has given his supporters the middle finger - hillarious!

  • 0

    sailwind

    The surge itself will likely be a footnote to history. While it may have brought about the conditions under which this present agreement is possible,

    Duh..Ya think.

  • 0

    adaydream

    OnTheRecord at 09:44 PM JST - 28th November - I don't think so Iraq's. We made you, we protect you and we have built you into a mMid East Utopia.

    Where have you been these past 5 years? We have built a Utopia. Where the hell is this damn Utopia we built. We blew up damn near every powerplant, watger processing plant, sewage plant and community in Iraq. We destroyed schools, hospitals and homes.... 100,000s of homes.

    Apparently you've been seeing a totally different Iraq than I've been seing these past 5 years. Where have you gotten all this wonderful news about how Iraq is a Utopia now?

    I'm glad to see us on our way out, especially when they kick our asses out. You wanted them to have democracy so bad, now they have taken that same democracy and told us to scram, vamoose, leave, get ther hell out and you like to say...We are in Iraq, we leave when we want, NOT before!!! Get over it. < :-)

  • 0

    SezWho2

    sailwind,

    Duh..Ya think.

    I couldn't possibly think on that level.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Wolfpack,

    If "the Left" is never happy, apparently "the Right" never ceases to complain about it.

    The US has ignored Amnesty International before and probably will have little trouble doing it again. Contrary to popular alarmist mythology, "the Left" is not an undifferentiated mass, it is an actual spectrum that finds its border at the center. In many cases it encroaches on "the Right"--as for the last 8 years in the US "the Right" has encroached upon "the Left" by increasing the size of government, by spending more than it has and by refusing to stay away from foreign entanglements.

    I don't think continuing the occupation is the correct thing to do. I think the correct thing is to recognize Iraqi sovereignty and hand back the prisoners to Iraq. This would be a test of the glorious system we have helped create.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "the occupation"

    How many Iraqi government ministries do the "occupiers" run again?

  • 0

    sailwind

    I couldn't possibly think on that level.

    That is why you will never get why the surge worked and you never will.

    I post that with respest toward you.

  • 0

    HaroldSteptoe

    Gawd, OnTheRecord, didn't you know McCain lost? Iraq can now look after itself without mass killings by American troops and prisoner abuses.

    It can also make some good use of the oil revenue Busgh and Cheney tried to steal. Oh yes, USA go home. Blimey Iraq can look after itself better than America, Jeremy Paxman said so, just the other day.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Typo!

    Mean respect Sezwho....Sorry

  • 0

    Sarge

    "the oil revenue Busgh and Cheney tried to steal"

    Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

  • 0

    adaydream

    Sarge you're so funny. You fail to remember that george bush had the oil contracts for all the oil wells signed and given to the Big-5. Then the new Iraqi government came in and stopped all this. They said that they belonged to the Iraqi people and not to george bush to give away.

    How quickly and completely you avoid the truth.

    That was the first time of the Iraqi people started getting the strength and courage to tell the United States to get the hell out of Iraq. < :-)

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Then the new Iraqi government came in and stopped all this ( "this" being adaydream's dream )"

    And who made it possible for the new Iraq government to take power?

    Jordan fades back...

  • 0

    adaydream

    Sarge you like to think that this war was so jusitfied because you can come back with your retort...

    And who made it possible for the new Iraq government to take power?

    We've destroyed a nation literelly. Infrastructure and homes, millions of homes. We've murdered 100,000s of innocent civilians. We've left millions of children with no parents. We've created more than 2.5 million refuges and you beat your chest with...

    And who made it possible for the new Iraq government to take power? Jordan fades back...

    That's real mature thinking. < :-)

  • 0

    HaroldSteptoe

    The Americans must leave, oh yes, let Iraq be free. Many American soldiers are on drugs and some are convicted criminals, not the type who should be in control of security, gawd, that's obvious.

  • 0

    USAFdude

    I am diffinately sure that the Left does not like that fact that Barack (censored) Obama is retaining Bush's defense secretary which is a de facto endoresment of Bush's war policy. Now that the election is over and he snookered the raving mad anti-war types to vote for him he has given his supporters the middle finger - hillarious!

    Well, the Left includes the vast majority of US troops; come to Ramstein and I'll show you prove. Barack HUSSEIN Obama - President of the United States of America. Thank Christ!

  • 0

    HaroldSteptoe

    USAFdude- American troops are not on the left. Did you watch the MIchael Moore film. The American soldiers are thugs without any feelings for innocent Iraq's. Iraq has the ability to look after itself. America go home, stop the killing.

  • 0

    adaydream

    HaroldSteptoe - Times have changes dramatically since Michael Moore did any films and the truths held by the troops have changed. The troops aren't stupid. They know why they are there and choose to serve this wonderful country, earn a living and be good military troops.

    Don't allow the right wingers to fool you. The troops helped Barack Obama get elected.

    It's also the support and hard work of the troops that will effectively get themselves and fellow troops out in an orderly and safe manner.

    That's since Iraq said "Go Home Yankee." < :-)

  • 0

    USAFdude

    adaydream - Thank you.

  • 0

    GeorgeRoper

    Iraq wants Americans to stop killing them and ruining their country. I hope they leave Iraq and stop killing innocent people. Let Iraq sort itself out, strewth how many more people must Americans kill?

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Sarge,

    Once again, the answer to your question is that the US does not head any ministries and it is unknown how many it controls.

    And, once again, control of ministries is not a necessary condition for occupation. Occupation is accomplished by the simple act of occupying. Building bases in the hope that they will be permanent only underscores that.

    Additionally, it is enough that Iraqi citizens feel that they are occupied. Put 150,000 US troops on the streets into Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma, concentrate their presence in the cities and ask the residents if they think they are occupied.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    sailwind,

    Claiming respect after showing disrespect is a waste of words. Responding to someone else's idea with a "duh" and a statement to the effect that "you just don't get it and you never will" is a similar waste. You show respect by dealing with another person's comments and not by speculating on the limits of that person's understanding.

    The surge may have created the conditions that made this agreement possible. I don't think you have any idea what the Iraqi parliament would have done absent the surge. The Iraqis wanted us out before the surge and they want us out now.

  • 0

    Nippon5

    Actually we dont know what the Iraqis want since we are not on the ground talking to everyone of them. We know what a select few who protest want, we know what a percentage of the law makers want, but we have no idea what the people themselves want.

    The surge was a good idea, but we shouldnt have had a surge we should of havd a large enough troop presents to do the job right in the first place.

    But to make a country stable is a pipe dream, as long as terrorist type of attacks are in the game, any small group of people can cause issues.. Look at the washington snipers and how many problems those two guys caused in the states..look at India right now...

    Preaching what should be and what will be is just wasted breath.. Everyone has 20/20 hind sight and everyone feels they know whats best.. Truth is we dont have any idea what will happen in 6 months---2 years or any other amount of time in Iraq.. We could leave and they could become the image of democracy, or they could become the image of hell on earth.. The point is simple we need to leave and let the people of Iraq make the decision of what they will become..

    Then and only then can we stop hearing all the BS that people talk about when they tell us what will happen what caused what and what the people of Iraq want...

  • 0

    Nessie

    Put 150,000 US troops on the streets into Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma, concentrate their presence in the cities and ask the residents if they think they are occupied.

    Make them Iraqi troops for a proper comparison.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Make them Iraqi troops for a proper comparison."

    How about admitting that we liberated Iraq from an awful dictator and gave them the freedom to choose their own leaders in free elections? Nah...

  • 0

    sailwind

    I was touched by this.

    Really touched.........Iraq is really going to be okay in the long wrong now. I don't need more proof of that then this after the new SOFA agreement.

    http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=K2zp4D1z3kM

  • 0

    GeorgeRoper

    Jeremy Paxman said that the only way to secure peace in Iraq is for Americans to leave, and i agree. He said Bush wanted to steal the oil to give to his friends. Strewth, he's a troublemaker. Iraq can look after itself, even MNildred agrees, all they want is peace and to stop being bombed by Americans.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Sarge,

    We liberated Iraq from an awful dictator. We did not liberate Iraq from unreasonable insecurity.

    There were no free elections. There were elections and those who oversaw them agreed that they were free in that no one dictated votes or issued reprisals for suspected voting and that they were fair in that the votes were counted without chicanery and that people were not deprived of the right to vote. But there are no free elections under occupation. There will be no free elections until at least the second election after the US leaves.

    But the key point, I think, is this: we did not do this for the benefit of the Iraqis. We did this for the benefit of ourselves. However, we ended up doing it to ourselves. The attempt to cover a massive boondoggle with a veneer of humanitarian concern won't hide the dry rot.

  • 0

    Patrick Smash

    We invaded Iraq because the US president wanted revenge on that country. They had a dictator, who wasn't very nice, but he wasn't an Islamic extremist. Iraq was relatively free as the area went, and Saddam had women in his cabinet. Saddam's Iraq was a lot more forward-thinking than some other places we could mention. Places like Saudi Arabia, where most of those 9/11ers came from, along with Bin Laden for example. The Iraq invasion was a huge mistake, and was based on lies. We did not need to do this. We had to befreind Pakistan to take Iraq too, and that country was then and still is a major sponsor of terrorism. Afghanistan was a just war in my view, but so many troops are committed to fighting in Iraq, that neither war is now winnable.

    So, we have spent billions and billions toppling one of many dictators, and have seen the deaths of over a million Iraqis, as well as thousands of British and American troops. The country is in a much worse state than it was when we went in, and we'll continue to see huge casualties for another 3 years. Then when the troops finally leave, it'll probably be a matter of a months before a hardline Islamic regime takes power. And there are people who still think this was a good idea, and say we have brought democracy at a price worth paying.

  • 0

    goodDonkey

    Wolfpack said:

    Obama is retaining Bush's defense secretary which is a de facto endoresment [endorsement] of Bush's war policy.

    Yeah, that's what it is. It has nothing to do with Obama's massive focus on our crumbling financial structures. It has nothing to do with largest unemployment since Clinton bought the number of jobs to historic highs. Unemployment that is about to explode because of mismanagement of regulations already on the books. Financial regulations of existing laws have been very lax in the waning years of the Bush administration. New regulations to deal with the increasing use of derivatives which were never written. Yes, Bush's inactions and his directing of inaction towards enforcing current regulations has put our economy in grave danger. The full impact of the sub-prime debacle could have been averted by addressing it years ago. Now it is too little too late. So Obama's decision, which I think is a wise decision, to retain Gates will provide a further ability to focus on our pressing economic problems. Besides Gates will be ordered to lower the troop levels which he raised in Iraq. What could be more appropriate than asking Gates to dismantle the forces in Iraq and apply them in Afghanistan where they always belonged anyway.

    I am glad this military pact was enacted. It will create stability in many ways. The areas which the U.S. obviously got a bad deal because we are funding operations and now have reduced authority will on the other hand provide political cover for the Iraqi politicians. They better use it to get their affairs in order. They have not made good use of the time "the surge" was allegedly meant to provide so that they could solve pressing political issues that needed addressing. The Shī‘ah need to bite the bullet and work out power sharing, oil revenue sharing and various other issues with the other factions to create a sense of belonging for all the Iraqi citizens. Besides the rift with the Sunnis there is major discontent among the Kurds who would prefer to have their own state which would include areas of Turkey. The Iraqi government could quell some of the unrest in the Kurdish areas if the Kurds were busy working on building the future of Iraq.

    Anyone who believes that Obama has in anyway made any representation of an "endoresment [endorsement] of Bush's war policy" is obviously still in denial that Obama will be president on January 20, 2008. Since we all know the truth we should not be bothered by such lame attempts to paint Obama. Believe me these same people will be spending the next eight years trying to paint Obama with some broad brush or another.

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

More in World

View all

View all