Thread: Iraq : stay the course or leave?

Bringing democracy to a theocracy will never work...

Iraq now there is a debate equal to politics or religion
Where is all the oil going from there?
Who is getting the money?
You would think our efforts there lately would be self sustaining.

Best i understood ?? we made Sadam to help contain Iran.
We armed them and they battled iran for years on our behalf.
Then he went wild and had to be eleminated.
We messed around in iran years ago. Wasn"t that the mess that had them stop official political assasinations.
Anyway same as we made osama to battle the russians in afganistan on our behalf. then he went wild. It happens all the time.

So to answer your question.
We are stuck there till we can get a new puppet set up.
Iran is in bed with China and Russia. That is a big problem for us.
So best we can do is try and contain them for now.

They have big plans working.
US Military Bases in Iraq

If you think about it we need a ready force in that part of the world anyway.
Look back at all the troubles we have had over the years.
With our armed forces in that part of the world.
Most of that part of the world requires payments and considerations just to fly over.

Oh well thats my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by irwin

Well..yes, that's the rub, I quite agree, but if we scram will Iran make an overt power grab. They have done much already, but it's covert. Will it become blatant, like China durring the Vietnam containment attempt.

Somehow the country has become seriously unstable..Easy pickings for a sympathetic Islamic predator/manipulator/instigator.

Yes, leave,... of course. No, wait..we must stay and......no.no. you're right , of course we should leav.....

After we leave...The Civil War that will engulf IRAQ will occupy their time for the next 10 years or so...

Status of Forces Agreement

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told President Bush on April 9, 2008 that Iraqi security forces are capable of their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation allows. In May 2007, Bush said, "We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave."(Unless I, GWB, think we ought to stay...)
Bush said on April 11, 2008, that he is not ready to order further troop withdrawals from Iraq. The last of the surge troops are expected to return home in July. Any further withdrawals will be suspended for at least 45 days while General David Petraeus decides if they are possible.
Negotiations have begun between the Maliki government and the U.S. on the Status of Forces Agreement for U.S. forces in Iraq. The current U.N. authorization allowing coalition troops in Iraq expires at the end of 2008.(Interesting, that our officials seem to forget the mandates that they themselves asked for and received from the U.N....) The U.S. is pushing for an agreement that allows the continued presence of the U.S. military along with several supporting bases. The Maliki government is considering the agreement, but has required the U.S. to provide a timetable for the withdrawal of its military from Iraq.(Gee, do you think that Maliki believes a DEMOCRAT will be the next POTUS???...) Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has suggested to Maliki that the issue be either voted on by the Iraqi Parliament or through a referendum. As the negotiations have progressed, one issue has been resolved, civilian contractors will no longer receive immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

Status of Coalition forces in Iraq...some more data for you to digest...

American-led Coalition forces participating in the 2003 invasion of Iraq were initially subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their parent states. Since the handover of sovereign power to an Iraqi administration, Coalition forces in Iraq are nominally subject to Iraqi jurisdiction, and operate without any Status of Forces Agreement. In theory, Iraqi Courts have the right to try Coalition forces for any alleged offenses, though this right has never been exercised.
In an interview January 24, 2008, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicated that work on a SOFA had barely been started.
On June 13, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that negotiations with the United States on a long-term security pact were deadlocked because of concern the deal infringes Iraqi sovereignty. "We have reached an impasse because when we opened these negotiations we did not realize that the US demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty and this is something we can never accept," he said in Amman, Jordan. "We cannot allow US forces to have the right to jail Iraqis or assume, alone, the responsibility of fighting against terrorism," Maliki told Jordanian newspaper editors, according to a journalist present at the meeting. However, on June 15, 2008, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that US-Iraqi negotiations for a long-term security pact were not dead and that despite difficulties, a deal would be signed "by the end of July. . . these talks are ongoing. They're not dead," Zebari said of negotiations to decide the future of the US military presence in Iraq after the current UN mandate expires in December 2008.
On July 1, 2008, Zebari said he briefed members of the Iraqi Parliament that US contractors would no longer have immunity from Iraqi prosecution under negotiated terms of the long-term security pact. US State Department officials could not be immediately reached for comment, but Iraqi member of parliament Mahmoud Othman said he attended the meeting and that Iraqi representatives were very pleased with the immunity agreement.
On July 8, 2008, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani rejected the proposed agreement on the basis that it violates Iraqi sovereignty, following a meeting with Iraq National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie. Rubaie, clarifying remarks by Maliki on July 7 that Iraq would accept a memorandum of understanding in lieu of a SOFA, stated "We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops."(Until GWB and the DOD get off the pot and create a timetable, Think END OF THE YEAR...) Deputy speaker Khaled al-Attiyah also said on July 8 that the Iraqi parliament would insist on vetting any agreement with the U.S. and would likely veto the agreement if American troops were immune from Iraqi law: "Without doubt, if the two sides reach an agreement, this is between two countries, and according to the Iraqi constitution a national agreement must be agreed by parliament by a majority of two thirds."(The major problem is the current administration still thinks they will have bases in IRAQ and will operate BUSINESS AS USUAL in Iraq AFTER 01JAN09...WITHOUT having to provide Iraq or the U.N. any plan of withdrawal...)