As well it should be if Iraq insists on the USA giving up sovereignty over its own military. I would call for impeachment of any President who would even consider such a thing. I think it is criminal for U.S. troops to be ordered to be under UN command--limit such missions to volunteers, and okay.
Foxfyre wrote:As well it should be if Iraq insists on the USA giving up sovereignty over its own military. I would call for impeachment of any President who would even consider such a thing. I think it is criminal for U.S. troops to be ordered to be under UN command--limit such missions to volunteers, and okay.
Did you mean, it should be if the USA insists on Iraq giving up sovereignty over its own military?
Cycloptichorn
Yeah, the way the US government and military blundered our war in Iraq and Afghanistan, only the US should be in command; makes a whole lot of sense. Did McCain say 100 more years? We now know what the outlook is when the US commands anything.
No, she meant the agreement the US has with 80 other countries where US soldiers are immune to local prosecution. I believe she was rather clear about that.
Also, most of the coalition "partners" have removed their troops from Iraq; that should be a clue as to how much "progress" we've made in the past five years.
McGentrix wrote:No, she meant the agreement the US has with 80 other countries where US soldiers are immune to local prosecution. I believe she was rather clear about that.
I doubt Iraq will allow such a thing to happen, as we have a habit of killing their citizens with frequency. You don't see that as much in those other countries.
That's only one aspect of the deal that is a sticking point; the US desire for tons of military bases and their unwillingness to let Iraq determine whether or not they are being attacked are also deal-breakers.
Cycloptichorn
There aren't US forces militarily defending the local populace in those other countries either.
The base issue is a non-starter brought on by the Anti-American players in the Iraqi parliment. People that represent Monkey al-Sadr, who has always been against US forces in Iraq. No real surprise from that group.
Most of the bases will be forward operating bases. A forward operating base (FOB) is any secured forward position that is used to support tactical operations. A FOB may or may not contain an airfield, hospital, or other facilities. The base may be used for an extended period of time. FOB's are traditionally supported by main operating bases that are required to provide backup support to them. A FOB also reduces reaction time and increases time on task to forces operating from it. (wiki)
As US forces draw down, so will the need for FOBs.
Interesting that those are referred to as 'permanent bases,' if the need for them is so transient.
I think that your knowledge of the interior workings of the Iraqi government is a little lacking. The deal is being attacked by pretty much every faction of the Shiites and the Sunnis as well.
In other news,
Quote:Ned Parker of the LAT reports that some in the al-Maliki government--and senior members of the Islamic Mission (Da'wa) Party and the United Iraqi Alliance coalition of which it is a part-- are seriously considering asking US troops to leave the country. They believe they can now handle security on their own, and that the Bush administration's demands that they surrender a great deal of national sovereignty in the proposed Status of Forces agreement are unacceptable.
When they ask us to leave, we will comply immediately. Correct?
Cycloptichorn
McGentrix wrote:No, she meant the agreement the US has with 80 other countries where US soldiers are immune to local prosecution. I believe she was rather clear about that.
Thank you. I've always said you should be the official A2K interpreter.
Cycloptichorn wrote:When they ask us to leave, we will comply immediately. Correct?
Cycloptichorn
I sure hope so becasue that will mean our objectives were complete.
perhaps the words of the iraqi prime minister will quarify things (from the BBC) :
Quote:Impasse in US-Iraqi forces talks
Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki has said that talks with the US on a long-term agreement allowing US forces to remain in Iraq have "reached an impasse".
Speaking in the Jordanian capital, Amman, Mr Maliki said the American demands infringed Iraqi sovereignty.
With the UN mandate for US forces to be in Iraq expiring at the end of 2008, the White House wants a deal by July.
The deadlock came as Mehdi Army leader Moqtada Sadr said only a select group of the militia should fight US forces.
Quote:We have reached an impasse... we did not realise that the US demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty
Nouri Maliki
In an apparent attempt to reassert control over the militia, the radical Shia cleric said only a limited number of the estimated 60,000-strong group should be authorised to battle US troops in Iraq.
Mr Sadr agreed to a truce after fighting erupted in Basra and Baghdad when the government launched a security crackdown against his militiamen in March.
But continued attacks blamed on Mehdi Army gunmen against Iraqi security forces have raised questions about how much control the cleric really exerts over the group.
Meanwhile, BBC Baghdad correspondent Nick Witchell says the disagreement between Mr Maliki and US negotiators goes to the heart of the immensely sensitive issue of who is actually in charge in the country: the Americans or the Iraqis.
The Americans are trying to negotiate a new Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqis.
'Rejected totally'
But the Iraqi government regards many of the American demands as infringements of Iraqi sovereignty.
"We have reached an impasse, because when we opened these negotiations we did not realise that the US demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty and this is something we can never accept," Mr Maliki said.
"We cannot allow US forces to have the right to jail Iraqis or assume, alone, the responsibility of fighting against terrorism," he said.
The Americans want to maintain military bases and, it is reported, to keep control of Iraqi airspace.
They also want immunity from prosecution for their own forces and for US contractors, a proposal which Mr Maliki said Iraq "rejected totally".
Mirembe Nantongo, a spokeswoman for the US embassy in Baghdad, said: "We remain hopeful, as do our Iraqi government partners, regarding a successful conclusion to these negotiations."
More than five years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, there are 150,000 US troops based in the country.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7452853.stm
Published: 2008/06/13 14:47:12 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
source :
IRAQ
Here's the key to the problem: "Speaking in the Jordanian capital, Amman, Mr Maliki said the American demands infringed Iraqi sovereignty."
cicerone imposter wrote:Here's the key to the problem: "Speaking in the Jordanian capital, Amman, Mr Maliki said the American demands infringed Iraqi sovereignty."
Well that's good news. Now all the US has to do is ask Mr. Maliki if he would rather US troops either (1) leave Iraq by the end of 2008 or (2) remain after 2008, while continuing to maintain command of its own troops.
I hope Maliki picks (1) AND we leave ASAP, because the mass murder rate of Iraqi non-murderers is currently way below 30 per day.
ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Here's the key to the problem: "Speaking in the Jordanian capital, Amman, Mr Maliki said the American demands infringed Iraqi sovereignty."
Well that's good news. Now all the US has to do is ask Mr. Maliki if he would rather US troops either (1) leave Iraq by the end of 2008 or (2) remain after 2008, while continuing to maintain command of its own troops.
I hope Maliki picks (1) AND we leave ASAP, because the mass murder rate of Iraqi non-murderers is currently way below 30 per day.
You're so smart, you have found the solution for Maliki.
IRAQ:
'Special Weapons' Have a Fallout on Babies
by Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail*
FALLUJAH, Jun 12 (IPS) - Babies born in Fallujah are showing illnesses and deformities on a scale never seen before, doctors and residents say.
The new cases, and the number of deaths among children, have risen after "special weaponry" was used in the two massive bombing campaigns in Fallujah in 2004.
After denying it at first, the Pentagon admitted in November 2005 that white phosphorous, a restricted incendiary weapon, was used a year earlier in Fallujah.
In addition, depleted uranium (DU) munitions, which contain low-level radioactive waste, were used heavily in Fallujah. The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tonnes of DU in Iraq thus far.
Many doctors believe DU to be the cause of a severe increase in the incidence of cancer in Iraq, as well as among U.S. veterans who served in the 1991 Gulf War and through the current occupation.
"We saw all the colours of the rainbow coming out of the exploding American shells and missiles," Ali Sarhan, a 50-year-old teacher who lived through the two U.S. sieges of 2004 told IPS. "I saw bodies that turned into bones and coal right after they were exposed to bombs that we learned later to be phosphorus.
"The most worrying is that many of our women have suffered loss of their babies, and some had babies born with deformations."
"I had two children who had brain damage from birth," 28-year-old Hayfa' Shukur told IPS. "My husband has been detained by the Americans since November 2004 and so I had to take the children around by myself to hospitals and private clinics. They died. I spent all our savings and borrowed a considerable amount of money."
Shukur said doctors told her that it was use of the restricted weapons that caused her children's brain damage and subsequent deaths, "but none of them had the courage to give me a written report."
"Many babies were born with major congenital malformations," a paediatric doctor, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "These infants include many with heart defects, cleft lip or palate, Down's syndrome, and limb defects."
The doctor added, "I can say all kinds of problems related to toxic pollution took place in Fallujah after the November 2004 massacre."
Many doctors speak of similar cases and a similar pattern. The indications remain anecdotal, in the absence of either a study, or any available official records.
The Fallujah General Hospital administration was unwilling to give any statistics on deformed babies, but one doctor volunteered to speak on condition of anonymity -- for fear of reprisals if seen to be critical of the administration.
"Maternal exposure to toxins and radioactive material can lead to miscarriage and frequent abortions, still birth, and congenital malformation," the doctor told IPS. There have been many such cases, and the government "did not move to contain the damage, or present any assistance to the hospital whatsoever.
"These cases need intensive international efforts that provide the highest and most recent technologies that we will not have here in a hundred years," he added.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) expressed concern Mar. 31 about the lack of medical supplies in hospitals in Baghdad and Basra.
"Hospitals have used up stocks of vital medical items, and require further supplies to cope with the influx of wounded patients. Access to water remains a matter of concern in certain areas," the ICRC said in a statement.
A senior Iraqi health ministry official was quoted as saying Feb. 26 that the health sector is under "great pressure", with scores of doctors killed, an exodus of medical personnel, poor medical infrastructure, and shortage of medicines.
"We are experiencing a big shortage of everything," said the official, "We don't have enough specialist doctors and medicines, and most of the medical equipment is outdated.
"We used to get many spinal and head injures, but were unable to do anything as we didn't have enough specialists and medicines," he added. "Intravenous fluid, which is a simple thing, is not available all the time." He said no new hospitals had been built since 1986.
Iraqi Health Minister Salih al-Hassnawi highlighted the shortage of medicines at a press conference in Arbil in the Kurdistan region in the north Feb. 22. "The Iraqi Health Ministry is suffering from an acute shortage of medicines...We have decided to import medicines immediately to meet the needs."
He said the 2008 health budget meant that total expenditure on medicines, medical equipment and ambulances would amount to an average of 22 dollars per citizen.
But this is too late for the unknown number of babies and their families who bore the consequences of the earlier devastation. And it is too little to cover the special needs of babies who survived with deformations.
(*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who has reported extensively from Iraq and the Middle East). (FIN/2008)
McGentrix wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:When they ask us to leave, we will comply immediately. Correct?
Cycloptichorn
I sure hope so becasue that will mean our objectives were complete.
But, but, but, PNAC wanted permanent bases!! I'm sure they will be so disappointed.
Joe(not as much as when they only got one pony for their birthday instead of two, but still.... .)Nation
If we have done the thing we have done in Iraq in those other countries; then perhaps those alleged other countries should look for some protection against the US. The contractors and the abuse scandals should be able tell any reasonable person why Iraqis would want to be able to defend themselves against the US instead of having their hands tied and having to rely on the US judgement and decision regarding those matters. A country should not be allowed to just do what it wants in a country not their own even if they do nothing wrong which was not the case with us. Surely in those other countries we are not allowed to jail who we want and attack who we want regardless of the wishes of the country we are stationed in?
If the Iraqis give in to this; they may as well sign over their country to the US; well, really just the Bush administration. I am not sure how that work out in future administration and if it can't be legally upheld against the wishes of the future administration; why in the world are they doing it seeing as how they are leaving soon? The whole thing makes no sense.
Bush is pushing a funny kind of democracy on Iraq; it's our way, or ....
