quote:



Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

quote:



It is only now that Iraqis have woken up to the possibility that Iraq might be a signatory on a long-term security treaty with the US, as a price for regaining its full sovereignty. Iraqis must know its details and implications. How would such an alliance constrain Iraq's freedom in choosing its commercial, military and political partners? Will Iraq be obliged to openly or covertly support all of America's policies in the Middle East? These are issues of a vital nature that cannot be brushed aside with the Iraqi government's platitudes about "protecting Iraqi interests". A treaty of such singular significance to Iraq cannot be rammed through with less than a few weeks of debate. Otherwise, the proposed strategic alliance will most certainly be a divisive element in Iraqi politics. It will have the same disastrous effect as the treaty with Britain nearly eighty years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The accord would engage the United States, not Dubbya. He would wash his hands off it once his presidency was over, but both countries would continue paying for his politicking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The accord would engage the United States, not Dubbya. He would wash his hands off it once his presidency was over, but both countries would continue paying for his politicking.

Kittin, I dissagree.
Just like this "free trade" nonsense you can get rid of things like that with one stroke of the legislative pen!
Plus, if we keep going down this road we'll be Bankrupt long before Iraq is "stabilized" anyway.
So it's really out of our control anyway isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Ever heard of a contract, popeye? That's pretty much what we're talking about here. You can't just erase a contract because it's become inconvenient to you. You've signed it, you own it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611
We are not going bankrupt because of the war. We are going bankrupt because of things like NAFTA and because the government keeps sticking its nose where it doesn't belong like in social programs and entitlements..

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611
We are not going bankrupt because of the war. We are going bankrupt because of things like NAFTA and because the government keeps sticking its nose where it doesn't belong like in social programs and entitlements..

Bullshit. We spend at least $24 billion a year in Iraq just on our military this is above and beyond the DoD's annual budget. Last year our budget deficit was $162 billion. So getting the hell out of Iraq would save several hundred american lives and indeterminate but large number of Iraqi lives and reduce the budget deficit by 15%. This of course leaves ourt the unknown sums that will be required in the future to care for permanently disabled vets and other costs associated with dragging out this conflict. No matter how you add it up getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and getting out of Iraq are the basic first steps to returning to a balanced budget.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

-----

I am always intrigued by the requirement for legal immunity being sought. We obviously know that what we do in the world is majorly fucked up!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Interesting, the initial funding for this would have been included in the recent War Spending bill passed by Congress. That bill took care of all expenditures in Iraq and insure the US military presence in Iraq through July 2009, if I remember correctly.

For the record, in favor of funding; Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Voting in opposition, Senator McCain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Interesting, the initial funding for this would have been included in the recent War Spending bill passed by Congress. That bill took care of all expenditures in Iraq and insure the US military presence in Iraq through July 2009, if I remember correctly.

For the record, in favor of funding; Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Voting in opposition, Senator McCain.

McCain did not vote on the bill at all. And there was nothing in that bill for implementation of this plan.

Nice try though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So now I'm a socialist? Ever heard of ad hominen?

Simple fact, Iran isn't going to take control of Iraq if we leave. Al Sadr is the guy most likely to come out on top, biggest militia and most supporters, and he isn't a particular favorite of the Iranians.

Likely enough what would happen is Turkey would invade and cease the Kurdish oil producing region while the Sunni Shiite civil war would drag on for years.

With the US borrowing less the dollar strengthens on the international market which will bring the price of crude down. On top of that a DoJ willing to investigate trust activities will make those enriching themselves by monkeying with the oil prices back off and that should burst the oil bubble quite completely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So now I'm a socialist? Ever heard of ad hominen?

Simple fact, Iran isn't going to take control of Iraq if we leave. Al Sadr is the guy most likely to come out on top, biggest militia and most supporters, and he isn't a particular favorite of the Iranians.

Likely enough what would happen is Turkey would invade and cease the Kurdish oil producing region while the Sunni Shiite civil war would drag on for years.

With the US borrowing less the dollar strengthens on the international market which will bring the price of crude down. On top of that a DoJ willing to investigate trust activities will make those enriching themselves by monkeying with the oil prices back off and that should burst the oil bubble quite completely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Interesting, the initial funding for this would have been included in the recent War Spending bill passed by Congress. That bill took care of all expenditures in Iraq and insure the US military presence in Iraq through July 2009, if I remember correctly.

For the record, in favor of funding; Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Voting in opposition, Senator McCain.

McCain did not vote on the bill at all. And there was nothing in that bill for implementation of this plan.

Nice try though.

quote:

The argument I've always heard from the political party apologists is that the majority gained last November wasn't sufficient to accomplish the task of ending the war funding. How amazing it is that that number is easily obtained when generating pork to insure their reelection.

This is my favorite quote from the event

quote:

"I hope President Bush watches closely what happened here today," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "And I hope he heeds the call of a bipartisan, veto-proof majority of Congress and the thousands of veterans who know we owe our veterans the support they deserve."

Note the focus.

It's a good thing they approved better veteran disability care - they just funded a new batch.

From the pool of Presidential candidates; interestingly Senator McCain, the one who is not in favor of immediate withdrawn did not vote. Although he said that the pork spending was irresponsible he didn't cast a NO note. Coward!

The two running on a campaign of leaving Iraq as soon as , Senators Obama and Clinton, voted YES. - Hypocrites! However of course they focused on the veteran's benefits and the rest of the pork and not the core result of the vote - funding the Iraq war for almost another year; well into the next Presidency.