9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2008 02:58 pm
@hamburger,
Alas, ham, I intended to rely on our and Iraq intelligence services--both military and civil--to determine whether or not al-Qaeda is increasing or decreasing or remaining the same in Iraq.

But now that I have been blessed with your silly interpretation of my words, I think I should find a way to conscript you into ocasionally surveying the al-Qaeda in Iraq. Your obvious incompetence to do that now makes you an excellent potential student for learning how to do that objectively in the future.

By the way, don't count your fun before it hatches.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 07:48 am
Quote:
BAGHDAD " Iraq’s cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces from the country by the end of 2011. The cabinet’s decision brings a final date for the departure of American troops a significant step closer after more than five and a half years of war.

The proposed pact must still be approved by Iraq’s Parliament, in a vote scheduled to take place in a week. But leaders of some of the largest parliamentary blocs expressed confidence that with the backing of most Shiites and Kurds they had enough support to ensure its approval.

Twenty-seven of the 28 cabinet ministers who were present at the two-and-a-half-hour session voted in favor of the pact. Nine ministers were absent. The nearly unanimous vote was a victory for the dominant Shiite party and its Kurdish partners. Widespread Sunni opposition could doom the proposed pact even if it has the votes to pass, as it would call into question whether there was a true national consensus, which Shiite leaders consider essential.

The proposed agreement, which took nearly a year to negotiate with the United States, not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal, but puts new restrictions on American combat operations in Iraq starting Jan. 1 and requires an American military pullback from urban areas by June 30. Those hard dates reflect a significant concession by the departing Bush administration, which had been publicly averse to timetables.

Iraq also obtained a significant degree of jurisdiction in some cases over serious crimes committed by Americans who are off duty and not on bases.

In Washington, the White House welcomed the vote as “an important and positive step” and attributed the agreement itself to security improvements in the past year.


The rest at the

source

Quote:
ATLANTA AIRPORT -- The Iraqi cabinet approves the SOFA by a wide margin. Funny what a U.S. president who's committed to withdrawal can yield. Grand Ayatollah Sistani backed the thing, if half-heartedly, which appears to have given the Shiite blocs room to sign on -- in the cabinet at least. The parliamentary math is harder: the more-moderate Sunni faction has its misgivings. Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the Washington Post that the parliament has to approve this thing before its recess at the end of December. Could be difficult, but from this distant vantage the momentum favors passage. I say this like I actually know, which I don't.

Another thing I don't know is whether the psychological impact of this has sunken in. The Bush administration intended the SOFA process to entrench the occupation. Instead it gave the Iraqi government the means to end it. And that's the best-possible way for the war to end: with the Iraqi government -- the one we've disingenuously told the world we're in Iraq to support -- showing its political maturation to get us out the day after tomorrow. And out actually means out. The SOFA demands that every last U.S. serviceman is on a plane by December 31, 2011. Obama's plan for a 30,000-troop residual force? Officially overtaken by events. As I say, the impact of this appears not to have sunken in. The Iraqis have forced an end to the war.


source
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 11:35 am
@revel,
Hooray! Finally the Iraq government has had the gonads to itself set a date for the removal of American forces from Iraq. It has thereby set a date for ending America's obligation to the Iraqi people to replace Saddam's government with a viable self-securing democracy.

Quote:
The Bush administration ... gave the Iraqi government the means to end it. And that's the best-possible way for the war to end: with the Iraqi government -- the one we've ... told the world we're in Iraq to support -- showing its political maturation to get us out ... . And out actually means out. The SOFA demands that every last U.S. serviceman is on a plane by December 31, 2011. ... The Iraqis have forced an end to the war.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 12:51 pm
@ican711nm,
As though the bush administration was just waiting for the iraqis to set the date.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:08 pm
@revel,
Do you actually think that the bush administration was just waiting for the iraqis to set the date? Or, do you think that I think that? I think it obvious that is not true.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:09 pm
@ican711nm,
Nah, they're just waiting for someone else to clean up their mess.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 07:48 am
Just to clear up one matter, from the viewpoint of Yadlin, though it's probably not quite as close to the situation and truth of things in the middle east as, say, Hannity.

Amos Yadlin, Israeli chief of Military Intelligence says that the US can halt Iran nuclear program with dialogue.

[quote]"Dialogue is not appeasement" he said.
[/quote]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1038192.html
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 07:59 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Dialogue is not appeasement" he said


Oh my!! The power of assertions to those habituated to them.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:06 am

Legal opinion: the invasion was illegal.

How come this took so long?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/iraq-us-foreign-policy
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:19 am
@McTag,
Load of bollocks.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 09:33 am
@spendius,
How so? From what I read he was spot on.

Quote:
Contradicting head-on Lord Goldsmith's advice that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: "It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had." Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions "passes belief".


He is right there was no factual hard evidence Iraq broke the UN resolutions at the time the US and Britain and those other few coalition members invaded Iraq. Had they finished inspections which at the time were largely successful, they would have known there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq before the invasion.

For the record I don't think Obama's administration aught to try and prosecute any war crimes for either the Bush administration or interrogators of detainees. It would simple be too time consuming plus hard to prove. I think the Obama administration aught to clean up the mess, put laws on the books to prevent this sort of thing if need be and then move forward.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 03:40 pm
@spendius,

Not so, Spendy old son.

Mature, if overdue, best legal opinion.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 05:44 pm
The USA will have succeeded in Iraq when the Iraq Legislature approves the Iraq cabinet's request for the USA's military to pull out of Iraq by December 31,2011.

THE TRUE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USA's INVASION OF IRAQ
General Franks, describing the Iraq invasion he led in March 2003, wrote:

American Soldier, page 519, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
... a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Isla terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons



Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 09/08/2006, wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq


CONGRESS'S TRUE WHEREASES

Of the 23 “Whereases” (i.e., Reasons) given by the USA Congress for its October 16, 2002 resolution, 11 were subsequently proven FALSE. The remaining 12 were subsequently proven TRUE. These TRUE Whereases are more than sufficient to justify the USA invasion of Iraq, and are listed in the following quote:


Congress wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;


Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq[/u];

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens[/u];


Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.


0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 07:24 am
Unofficial Translation of U.S.-Iraq Troop Agreement from the Arabic Text






revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 07:31 am
@revel,
Thousands of followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada Al Sadr gather in Baghdad to protest a proposed Iraq-US security pact.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 10:42 am
@revel,
Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/56116.html
Unofficial Translation of U.S.-Iraq Troop Agreement from the Arabic Text

Article 24


Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq


Admitting to the performance of Iraqi forces, their increased capabilities and assuming full responsibility for security and based upon the strong relationship between the two parties the two parties agreed to the following:

All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.

All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces mentioned in item (2) above are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns that will be determined by the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) before the date determined in item (2) above.

The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.

The two parties agree to put a mechanism and preparations for reducing the number of U.S. forces during the appointed period. And they are to agree on the locations where the forces are to settle.

okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 10:50 am
@ican711nm,
ican, looks like all the anti-war / anti-Bush people have been proven wrong. Will they ever admit it? Even Obama said the surge had succeeded beyond what anybody expected. Does that include the people that thought it would succeed, otherwise why would they have instituted the policy? And why did anyone in Congress vote for the war if they never thought it would succeed? Does Obama think that just because it succeeded more then he ever dreamed, does he think that everyone thought like he did? Does he have a monopoly on thought?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 10:57 am
@revel,
Quote:

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10261475.html
Thousands of Al Sadr supporters protest US-Iraq security deal
Despite attempts by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, a Shiite, to defend the security pact opponents view the security deal as a surrender to US interests.

The Iraqi Cabinet has approved the agreement, meaning it stands a good chance of passage in the 275-seat parliament where the government's parties dominate.

I guess the Sadr crowd wants the USA military out sooner than agreed. That would be OK with me if they were to represent a majority of the Iraqi people. I don't think they do.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 11:07 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

ican, looks like all the anti-war / anti-Bush people have been proven wrong. Will they ever admit it? Even Obama said the surge had succeeded beyond what anybody expected. Does that include the people that thought it would succeed, otherwise why would they have instituted the policy? And why did anyone in Congress vote for the war if they never thought it would succeed? Does Obama think that just because it succeeded more then he ever dreamed, does he think that everyone thought like he did? Does he have a monopoly on thought?


Um. Exactly how have we been 'proven wrong?' The war was a strategic mistake that it's taken years to clamber out of the blood. We found no WMD and harmed AQ in no serious way. We have spent more than half a trillion dollars on the war and hundreds of thousands are dead.

Which part are you 'right' about, again?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Nov, 2008 11:36 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Congress voted for the war. We are seeing hope of ultimate success. Why not be happy, cyclops. Give Bush credit. Did you want us to lose?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 09:33:07