Iraqi leader insists on deadline for troop pullout

[Friday on my mind]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_pact;_ylt=AlI5CfzLcP7MBWxYJKgH57NI2ocA


BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki dug in his heels Monday on the future of the U.S. military in Iraq, insisting that all foreign soldiers leave the country by a specific date in 2011 and rejecting legal immunity for American troops.

Despite the tough words, al-Maliki's aides insisted a compromise could be found on the two main stumbling blocks to an accord governing the U.S. military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

Last week, U.S. and Iraqi officials said the two sides agreed tentatively to a schedule that includes a broad pullout of combat troops by the end of 2011 with the possibility that a residual U.S. ***** might stay behind to continue training and advising Iraqi security services.

But al-Maliki's remarks indicated his government was not satisfied with that arrangement and wants all foreign troops gone by the end of 2011.

That cast doubt on whether an agreement is near and suggested al-Maliki is playing to a domestic audience frustrated by the war and eager for an end to the foreign military presence.

"There can be no treaty or agreement except on the basis of Iraq's full sovereignty," al-Maliki told a gathering of Shiite tribal sheiks. He said an accord must be based on the principle that "no foreign soldier remains in Iraq after a specific deadline, not an open time frame."

Al-Maliki said the U.S. and Iraq had already agreed on a full withdrawal of all foreign troops by the end of 2011 — an interpretation that the White House challenged. Until then, the U.S. would not conduct military operations "without the approval" of the Iraqi government, al-Maliki said.






This is truly amazing,the govt we helped to get installed says c'mon you need to leave soon and we are fighting that all the way.Is there really any doubt we went there intending to be there a long time? That was the plan from the very beginning IMO and it is all about the oil and having a new US military presence permanantly in the region.This is going to get worse and worse especially if John ( we might be there a 100 years) McCain gets elected.They will be saying leave ,he will say no and eventually the whole world will have to face up to what we are really up to here.They probably won't be able to do much about it ,but our good guy image will be further eroded.

 

[Facetious]

Ah ! great ! That'd be good for an additional thousand dead Marines.
I say that we leave when we recover (relatively speaking) the cost(s) of the "theatre", but we won't.
We've become so woosyfied as compared to the day when we had actual men negotiating the terms. Pussies !

Are you up for a black eye ? 'cause I sure as hell am not :helpme:

 

[Friday on my mind]

Ah ! great ! That'd be good for an additional thousand dead Marines.
I say that we leave when we recover (relatively speaking) the cost(s) of the "theatre", but we won't.
We've become so woosyfied as compared to the day when we had actual men negotiating the terms. Pussies !

Are you up for a black eye ? 'cause I sure as hell am not :helpme:

I just want to make sure I understand.Are you saying they should somehow give reparations or payments or something for the cost of the war? How realistic or fair would that be? It's not like we really invaded for solid reasons and we never went supposedly to conquer them and make them agree to pay.We were going to "Liberate" them wasn't it? And this is not WW2 where we fought sombody in a ****** tough war and then sat down for surrender terms.This was Goliath swatted David and then occupied his house.Now they are suppose to pay for the honor??:rofl:
And I would point out the people that lost to us in WW2 not only didn't pay ,we gave them plenty to rebuild,so I don't know how far back your going for the "days when "men" negotiated" the terms.

And if by "Black eye" you mean the kind of thing that happened with Vietnam and our not being able to claim that as a victory I'm not sure like nam we really have it in our power to control that.I guess we could just stay but the cost of that in money and image around the world plus I can't see the American people supporting being there decades, makes that unrealistic.So guess what ,10 years from now we will probably look back and say like nam this was another "black eye" on our history and that we should have never gotten ourselves involved with it in the 1st place.

 

[Jason z]

Thank God!! we need out! Fuck Bush!

 

[Evil Hobo]

He simply wants the US to pull out so the good ol' Iranian Ayatollahs with their suicidal brand of Islam based on pagan Zoroastarianism and worshipping Lucifer (to them it is a peacock LMAO), can march on right in!
That's exactly the tactics the Persians used thousands of years ago, first against the Babylonians, then the Greeks and finally those dumb Arabs.
They never have an open fight, but get dumb minions to do their dirty work for them - and to trick them, they pretend to be the same religion as them, adopting an extremist hardline view to make up for their true shortcomings. They twist whatever faith it is simply for their own advantage, and the expansion of their empire.

Stop fapping your dicks for a second and read history, and you'll realise they did exactly the same for the ancient Babylonians with Cyrus The Great Coward, then the Hellensic civilisation, then the Arabs at Sassanid times, and now again to Maliki's Iraqis. History repeats when we don't learn from it. They are trying to take control over the whole middle-East, and all it's (delicious) oil resources.

If the US does pull out, we can kiss any further Western influence in the Middle-East goodbye. Iraq will be ruled by Persian Ayatollahs, next Lebanon - and they even got influence in Bahrain. Ahmadinejad once jokingly said he considers it another Iranian province! Not soon after Saudi will fall - thanks to their ****** Shiekhs who'll bend over backwards for a bunch of hairy Iranian goat/human whores - then you can all kiss available oil for the masses goodbye.

We must keep a presence in Iraq for as long as it takes - as sad as it may be - those people will never become truely independant - either under our influence, or the Iranian's. I'm sure they'll much rather live in a relatively free society than have women ****** into Ninja costumes, and cinema ******. Also Israel, or the US must strike first - they are already accuiring brand new weapons technologies from Russia - and after they control Iraqi oil, they'll just get even more better weapons. It must be done before it's too late.

I understand most people are against yet another war, but this is exactly part of the same war. It is Iran responsible for all the insurgent's weapons and training - as well as personnel. Currently just over half Iraqi foriegn fighters are Iranian in origin - and many think it's much more, as they are being offered housing and cover by brainwashed scumbags there. They are also supporting the Al Qaeda. They are a different branch of Islam, so sneaky Iran uses something else it has in common with them, to fool them they are their friends - race. The Pashto race in Afghanistan is of the Iranic branch of the Indo-European ******.

Lets stay in Iraq and at least get our **** back.

 

[BlueBalls]

The sest thing for all concerned, the US and Iraq would be for all outside troops to leave ASAP, but that wont happen, we havent had nearly enough oil yet and now that the were all in a recession that nice expensive oil is going to come in handy.

No, the only time the US will want to leave is when they say so, which will probably be decades from now, more soldiers will be ******, more muslims will be radicalised and more of the innocent people in Iraq will be the victims of terrorist attacks and will continue to live in terrible conditions whilst their socity and country crumbles as its being sucked dry by those who destroyed it.

 

[004]

we will see :spin:

 

[LBP 76]

The sest thing for all concerned, the US and Iraq would be for all outside troops to leave ASAP, but that wont happen, we havent had nearly enough oil yet and now that the were all in a recession that nice expensive oil is going to come in handy.

No, the only time the US will want to leave is when they say so, which will probably be decades from now, more soldiers will be ******, more muslims will be radicalised and more of the innocent people in Iraq will be the victims of terrorist attacks and will continue to live in terrible conditions whilst their socity and country crumbles as its being sucked dry by those who destroyed it.

A great post right after a near completely ridiculous one right above it. Heartening.

 

[Synthmesc_Droog]

C'mon, it wasn't that ridiculous. All points raised and all conjecture is valid.

Yes, IMO the US needs to pull out her ******. But she wont. For all the aforementioned reasons and then some.

 

[DOA82]

Time for departure = Whens the oils gone?

Then they'll disapear over night like a bad rash!

 

[LBP 76]

C'mon, it wasn't that ridiculous. All points raised and all conjecture is valid.

Yes, IMO the US needs to pull out her ******. But she wont. For all the aforementioned reasons and then some.

So Evil Hobo is suggesting that America stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary when it is VERY obvious that the Iraqi people want America out. So the point of all the deaths, destruction and misery was to bring democracy to Iraq (supposedly). But now this guy says, 'democracy is great, but only as long as it suits America's interests'. That extreme neo con view is disgusting. The Iraqi people are human beings that have the right to their own country, not playthings for America to occupy whenever it suits them. This is the same **** the Soviets used to do that appalled the free world SO much.
The Iraqi people have been through enough. Leave them be for fuck's sake.

And Evil Hobo used selective historical 'facts' to make his point. I'll give him another one: The Crusades.

 

[Evil Hobo]

So Evil Hobo is suggesting that America stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary when it is VERY obvious that the Iraqi people want America out. So the point of all the deaths, destruction and misery was to bring democracy to Iraq (supposedly). But now this guy says, 'democracy is great, but only as long as it suits America's interests'. That extreme neo con view is disgusting. The Iraqi people are human beings that have the right to their own country, not playthings for America to occupy whenever it suits them. This is the same **** the Soviets used to do that appalled the free world SO much.
The Iraqi people have been through enough. Leave them be for fuck's sake.

And Evil Hobo used selective historical 'facts' to make his point. I'll give him another one: The Crusades.

Bro, despite the Americans starting the ****, they are not at all the biggest contributer to the chaos now. That is done now but sectarian groups. Maliki's openly sectarian, staunchily pro-Iran government is made by a coalition of hardline Shia groups. Each faction has their own armed wing - who do the less democratic things to keep them in power.

They are using a clever mix of the US War On ****** scare-mongering tactics - against Sunni Al Qaeda - which they use to antagonise all that section of Iraqi demographics, and oppress due to their generally Secular Arabist ideologies which is an opposition to religious Shia ideology. Also, they use the Quagmire effect - while everyone is blowing everyone up, their militia assassinations and ********* of percieved threats to Maliki's unrivaled power goes unnoticed.

Just the other day, the Iraqi Awakening - anti-Al Qaeda ex-insurgents helping the US - were outlawed and arrested. The Awakening was a great idea - the US's way to limit sectarian **** - by getting Sunni Arabs themselves to realise Al Qaeda is also their problem, and fight them themselves, rather than getting Shia government ****** to do it, making it seem like an open Shia-Sunni war. It also balances the power in *************** - which is predominantly Shia due to extreme government sectarianism against Sunnis and Christian (who some ignorant hardliners like Sadr even view as being one and the same despite Sunni is a branch of Islam just like Shia - as hinted in a Nov 07 sermon).

Now those people are unemployed and been pathetically labeled Al Qaeda despite fighting against them. Maliki will further antagonise them, shifting focus from the much more powerfull and prevalent government-sponsered militias which help keep him in power - and the chaos will screen more of his militia's crimes against all opposition.

So you can see the leaders of Iraq are just as bad - if not worse than Saddam. Also Iran's training, funding and arming their militias and parties, so to repay them, they'll allow Iranian influence to roll right in just like Cyrus's time. Iraqis will continue to suffer under Persian rule (Arabs and Persians long time enemies), and any opposition will be easily crushed while everyone against the government is oppressed horribly.

Us leaving will just play into their hands. Iran has already demonstrated it's ruthlessness and sheer power in Iraq - kicking the US army out by just using light weapons and mortars at the best in the insurgency. Imagine what they'll be able and willing to do after all that oil money gets them much better weapons from Russia?

And now it's Iranians who are benefitting the most from their oil - Maliki announced a Basrah-Tehran pipeline a few months ago - despite it not being necessary as there are much closer refineries in Najaf. It's just to kiss his master's hairy asses. Also a friend's uncle works inspecting ships in the Gulf region. He managed to get some ship records which he emailed me, and most tankers getting oil for virtually free out of the corruption are unmarked/unflagged - not American, but going to international gangs taking them to all sorts of countries. The money is going to the government whose spending them on their private militia armies anyway - and never finding it's way to benefit Iraqis.

And please don't lecture me about Iraqis being human being man, of course they are - and more than proved that with still being able to retain some humanity despite everything happening there - and I care about them more than anything as I have relatives still living there.

I just realise that despite not at all being good for anyone - the US presence is somewhat countering a much worse Iranian one, which will fuck up Iraq even more. We must bite the bullet and choose the lesser of two evils - and that is the US.

Iran already got a massive presence in Iraq, and virtually total control over their government. Us leaving will just get them spooging in their goat-skin pants!

And I am not at all neo-con, I'm living in the UK and am left-wing.

Thank you very much for your concern about the Iraqi people man - I can't respect you enough for your open-mindedness and compassion, but I just wanted you to realise the West leaving will be worse for Iraqis than them staying.

Take care man, and I hope that explained. :hatsoff:

 

[LBP 76]

Well, if you are going to be civil, how can we argue...lol. I applaud the tone of your response. I expected a **** filled, rambling ******. You did the opposite. I apologise for assuming otherwise.

I don't doubt that Iran has designs on Iraq. And that the present Iraqi leader is pro Iranian. And that Iraq may end up absorbing Iraq one day.
But that is for the future. Right now is my concern, and what is the right thing to do.
The Iraqi people want U.S. troops to leave. So they should leave. Period.
What goes on inside Iraq is Iraqi's business, not America's. The West's involvement in Iraq has caused massive death and suffering. We have no business there unless they ask for it or they directly threaten us. They have done neither. They just want their country back so they can get on with their lives.

Enough. It's time to leave.

 

[hedonis]

The West's involvement in Iraq has caused massive death and suffering.

Yes... the west. Unlike the massive death and suffering caused by, say....

Saddam Hussein? That lovable ol' teddy bear of a chap caused millions of deaths during his reign. The west has a long way to go to catch up with him.

H

 

[Evil Hobo]

Well, if you are going to be civil, how can we argue...lol. I applaud the tone of your response. I expected a **** filled, rambling ******. You did the opposite. I apologise for assuming otherwise.

I don't doubt that Iran has designs on Iraq. And that the present Iraqi leader is pro Iranian. And that Iraq may end up absorbing Iraq one day.
But that is for the future. Right now is my concern, and what is the right thing to do.
The Iraqi people want U.S. troops to leave. So they should leave. Period.
What goes on inside Iraq is Iraqi's business, not America's. The West's involvement in Iraq has caused massive death and suffering. We have no business there unless they ask for it or they directly threaten us. They have done neither. They just want their country back so they can get on with their lives.

Enough. It's time to leave.

Lol no need to appologise man, my first post was a bit of an anrgy rant, so I don't blame you.

The fact is - as far as I know, in the most recent surveys, I think like just over half want them to still have some power, as no-one trusts Maliki and Iran - even the Shia.
Also, as I see it, it will be quite irresponsible of us to leave right now, after stripping the country of all it's defences, and unwittingly allowing a traiterous leader with no reagrds of his people's interests to stay in power.
In a way, we'll be leaving it worse than before. It might not be too wise sharing too much stuff on a pron forum - but I remember as a ***** in Iraq, the worse thing you fear of a car is being run over - no one knew what a carbomb was. **** was fucked due to saddam's bad leadership and UN sanctions which hit normal people the hardest - but as long as you don't say anything bad about him or disagree with his policies, you can live in realtive safety. What have they got now, especially if Iran get's it's way?

I'll try and be realistic. I think the best way is to actually split it up like Yugoslavia - as much as I **** seeing my country split up. We should hold one more - but extremly closely observed elections, and let each new country decide it's fate. That way, at least there will be less ******* - which is my first priority. People are being relocated because of their race/religion anyway, so why no facilitate it ourselves so at least they'll have better protection?
And then, even if there is fights within those new countries, for example in Sunni region, pro-West Arabists (generally secular) like Iraqi Awakening tribes Vs. Foriegn Al Qaeda ****** - the bloodhsed wont be anywhere near as bad. Any fighting between those new countries will be treated as international aggression, and whoever's willing can take part.

Not an ideal solution, but it will mean US troops can leave, and Radicals/Anti-US ****** everywhere wont start using Iraq as an example to show how democracy is a failure, and radicalise more people into being anti-West/American via their propoganda - whether it be Iran, the Taliban or Venezuala. Plus, that tatic did work somewhat in Yugoslavia, as a few years after splitting up - they aren't butchering eac other like before.

******** and death breeds ****, and **** breeds more ******** and **** - it's avicious circle that'll continue and become like Liberia if we don't stop it. And I'm sure the West will give the richest oil land to the friendliest factions. :1orglaugh

Take care mate, and thanks for considering my view. :glugglug:

 

[Friday on my mind]

Yes... the west. Unlike the massive death and suffering caused by, say....

Saddam Hussein? That lovable ol' teddy bear of a chap caused millions of deaths during his reign. The west has a long way to go to catch up with him.

H

I don't know millions is accurate.Not that Saddam was not fairly ruthless but millions sounds high from what I know.If you have something that says that many I would like to see it.But whether he was involved in wars and repression that ****** however many doesn't really have much to do with what we have done and brought about IMO. No matter how bad Saddam was and he was bad I'm sure I think the death count and turmoil in Iraq has never been higher or worse then it has been during the years since the US went in compared to any other period in recent history of their country.Think the majority of Iraqis would say what US did was no favor for them and they have not been better off for it.

Lol no need to appologise man, my first post was a bit of an anrgy rant, so I don't blame you.

The fact is - as far as I know, in the most recent surveys, I think like just over half want them to still have some power, as no-one trusts Maliki and Iran - even the Shia.
Also, as I see it, it will be quite irresponsible of us to leave right now, after stripping the country of all it's defences, and unwittingly allowing a traiterous leader with no reagrds of his people's interests to stay in power.
In a way, we'll be leaving it worse than before. It might not be too wise sharing too much stuff on a pron forum - but I remember as a ***** in Iraq, the worse thing you fear of a car is being run over - no one knew what a carbomb was. **** was fucked due to saddam's bad leadership and UN sanctions which hit normal people the hardest - but as long as you don't say anything bad about him or disagree with his policies, you can live in realtive safety. What have they got now, especially if Iran get's it's way?

I'll try and be realistic. I think the best way is to actually split it up like Yugoslavia - as much as I **** seeing my country split up. We should hold one more - but extremly closely observed elections, and let each new country decide it's fate. That way, at least there will be less ******* - which is my first priority. People are being relocated because of their race/religion anyway, so why no facilitate it ourselves so at least they'll have better protection?
And then, even if there is fights within those new countries, for example in Sunni region, pro-West Arabists (generally secular) like Iraqi Awakening tribes Vs. Foriegn Al Qaeda ****** - the bloodhsed wont be anywhere near as bad. Any fighting between those new countries will be treated as international aggression, and whoever's willing can take part.

Not an ideal solution, but it will mean US troops can leave, and Radicals/Anti-US ****** everywhere wont start using Iraq as an example to show how democracy is a failure, and radicalise more people into being anti-West/American via their propoganda - whether it be Iran, the Taliban or Venezuala. Plus, that tatic did work somewhat in Yugoslavia, as a few years after splitting up - they aren't butchering eac other like before.

******** and death breeds ****, and **** breeds more ******** and **** - it's avicious circle that'll continue and become like Liberia if we don't stop it. And I'm sure the West will give the richest oil land to the friendliest factions. :1orglaugh

Take care mate, and thanks for considering my view. :glugglug:

Isn't at least one of the problems with letting Iraq break up into seperate countries things like the issue of the Kurds,who already are enjoying a lot of autonomy and self rule.Now the Kurds are looking to be joined with portions of other countries to form a greater "Kurdistan" which will/already is causing problems with Turkey and the other suurounding countries with Kurdish population?

 

[Evil Hobo]

Isn't at least one of the problems with letting Iraq break up into seperate countries things like the issue of the Kurds,who already are enjoying a lot of autonomy and self rule.Now the Kurds are looking to be joined with portions of other countries to form a greater "Kurdistan" which will/already is causing problems with Turkey and the other suurounding countries with Kurdish population?

True man, I never said that will be problem-free. But at least much less people are dying, and the Kurds got what they want, and are managing themselves quite well and democratically. It's their dreams, and Turkey bombing them is their problem - no need for all of Iraq to get involved, and what's the point of us Arabs oppressing their will and creating more hatred?

I am certain the Shia region will be absorbed, or semi-absorbed by Iran within months - but at least there wont be any Sunnis, so no more "fighting Al Qaeda" excuses to take away focus of militias oppressing and ******* percieved political and social threats to the government's rule.

The Sunni region will have two choices - whether the indiginous Arab tribes take control - who will probably make it an Arab Monarchy, and their general political persausion is generally Arabism, which is generally Secular, and pro-West like with Jordan - who like the Awakening council will turn to the West as protectors as long as they respect their Arab customs.
The other - darker - possibility is it becoming a Wahabi state, thanks to the recent influx of Jihadist fighters from abroad and the conversion of some locals into that radical sect. But those people demographically remain a minority, but if they win, we can expect a Taliban ruled Afganistan at worst, and even then, 50 people aren't ****** daily, and countless outhers unaccounted for.

And that, at least, will stop the factions fighting. If the ever sort out their differences, and reconcile (as silly as that may sound now), there's always the option to reconstitute into one country again.

BTW, I also really respect an appreciate your compassion and sympathy with the Iraqi people mate. :hatsoff:
Like you, my intentions are also to stop the ******* of anymore Iraqi civilians and Coalition soldiers.
Take care.

 

[Member2019]

Okay, this is bullshit ...

No matter how bad Saddam was and he was bad I'm sure I think the death count and turmoil in Iraq has never been higher or worse then it has been during the years since the US went in compared to any other period in recent history of their country.

One thing I tire of is people being "selective" in their statistics.

They compare any death in Iraq since 2003 as the US' fault, but ignore countless deaths under the Baath'ist regime.
Not just executions, but actual deaths as a result of the Baath'ist regime.

People even like to spin the 1991 Iraq War on the US, when in fact, it was their rule that caused it.
Not to mention their war with Iran, no matter how people try to say the US was behind it.
Not to mention countless other deaths as a result of humanitarian issues over decades.

But yet these "statistics" get "lost" somehow with regards to the Baath'ists, but if a single Iraqi dies because of lack of facilities, that's on the US.
Sigh ... "objectivity redefined."