Iraqi lawmakers wary of US security agreement

[Terri]

By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press
June 5, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Iraqi lawmakers told Congress on Wednesday that they have serious misgivings about a long-term security agreement being negotiated this year with President Bush, putting themselves squarely in line with Democrats who say hashing out a deal before Bush leaves office is bad timing.

Opposition in the U.S. and Iraqi legislative bodies underscores the political hurdles facing Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as they try to settle the terms under which U.S. troops can continue operating in Iraq after a United Nations authorization expires at the end of the year.

The deal, which both sides hope to finish by midsummer, would establish a security relationship between Iraq and the United States and provide a legal basis for the U.S. troop presence.

More (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/june/0605_iraq_security1. shtml)

[STEELMAN]

Iraqi lawmakers told Congress on Wednesday that they have serious misgivings about a long-term security agreement being negotiated this year with President Bush, putting themselves squarely in line with Democrats who say hashing out a deal before Bush leaves office is bad timing.
Do the Iraqis think they can get a better "deal" from the Democrats?

And of so what kind of deal?

We have invested a lot of blood and treasure in this situation and many don't seem to appreciate it or even say so. Very distrubing.

[MrJLDoug]

Do the Iraqis think they can get a better "deal" from the Democrats?


Steelman, I suspect that they don't want to commit their selves to a policy with The Republicans only to be left holding the bag when Barry Muslim Obama surrenders and pulls out the troops.
Unlike our :jackass: Liberal Congress, some people learned a lesson from Viet Nam.
No Nation will ever trust in our protection again. With the big tough talk Obama gave to the Jewish organization yesterday , how can they feel at ease with this Guys Gutless policy?

[STEELMAN]

Steelman, I suspect that they don't want to commit their selves to a policy with The Republicans only to be left holding the bag when Barry Muslim Obama surrenders and pulls out the troops.
Good point Mr JLdoug. I can see where the world would not trust us to stay the course based on our experience in Viet Nam and even in the Koren war.

But our president has been steadfast in trying to re-gain that trust by trying to convince the people the importance of "staying the course" even though it's been one tough task.

Victory has no time limits to go by and can only be achieved by the pursuit and complete destruction of the enemy.

We will not win the war by running away from it and hoping it will just fade away...not this one.

[schillerbjr]

I must agree with posts # 2- 4, well done!!

[KathrynSmith]

The way I under stand it, if an agreement is not reached and signed, we cannot stay there. Iraq is now a sovereign country. No agreement mandates a rapid withdrawal of our forces. The U.S. Congress and the Iraqi parliament are required to negotiate and reach an agreement. It is not an agreement that Bush, McCain or Obama (heaven forbid), can prepare and put forth. Any staying agreement must be put forth by the Iraqi government and agreed to by our government, no exceptions. The legal protection of our forces in a sovereign country makes it a necessity.

Since Iraq is a sovereign democratic government, she needs to start acting like one! I say that the Iraqi government needs to put it out to vote by referendum to the Iraqi citizens. Those elections should be monitored from the outside. If the majority of the people say, "Go!", we go! If the majority say stay for six months to a year, with reduced forces or current forces, than the Iraqi government needs prepare an agreement proposal that fits the will of the majority of its citizens and present it to the United States. However, if such an agreement put so many negative restrictions on our forces that it not palatable to our military leaders or puts our troops at risk of being sitting ducks, then the U.S. needs to refuse the proposal. If a new agreement is not negotiated that IS palatable to our military leaders, we need to bring our troops home.

We always said we would leave when told by the Iraqi government to go, or when condition on the ground (or way to restrictive conditions in a proposal), warranted withdrawal. We can do it fast if they want or we can do it slow, but no signed agreement mandates we must go, and go rapidly, come what may in Iraq once we leave. So, Barack can try to use his "McCain's 100 year" remark all he wants, but if he knew any real Commander and Chief knowledge he would realized how laughable, impossible and untrue that piece of baloney is as it pours from his mouth. To show Barack's presidential ignorance, McCain should beat him over the head with the staying-agreement rules every time he opens his mouth and says it during the general election campaign.

Status of Forces agreements (SOFA) (www.answers.com/topic/status-of-forces-agreement?cat=biz-fin)

[rangerrebew]

All such agreements must be approved by the politburo and since it is now a commiecrat politburo, I'd be gun shy about making a deal with communists. Some people remember their promises and commitments too.:pfft: