So in all the hubbub over Mumbai a very interesting and important development has appeared to have gone unnoticed: the Iraqis stuck a clause into the motion to pass the US withdrawal agreement that means a referendum on early withdrawal will be put to the people of Iraq in mid 2009! How will Iraq vote?
It depends on which groupe of people in Irap you're looking at, obviously all the exstremist nutters will vote to get them out asap, whereas those who are happy for them to be in the country, doing there best to defend will want them to stay for as long as possible.
The oil barons, I'm pretty sure, will also be happy for the US to stay and guard.
The oil barons, I'm pretty sure, will also be happy for the US to stay and guard.
They'd probably prefer them to stay at the minute.
It's a bit of a sweeping generalisation to assume that only extremist nutters want Iraq to become truly sovereign again.SirSchloppy wrote:
It depends on which groupe of people in Irap you're looking at, obviously all the exstremist nutters will vote to get them out asap, whereas those who are happy for them to be in the country, doing there best to defend will want them to stay for as long as possible.
The oil barons, I'm pretty sure, will also be happy for the US to stay and guard.
Aren't generalizations and pigeon-holing generally the methods used to rough-guess votes? With no quantifiable statistics, it's pretty much the only thing to go on .Braddock wrote:
It's a bit of a sweeping generalisation to assume that only extremist nutters want Iraq to become truly sovereign again.SirSchloppy wrote:
It depends on which groupe of people in Irap you're looking at, obviously all the exstremist nutters will vote to get them out asap, whereas those who are happy for them to be in the country, doing there best to defend will want them to stay for as long as possible.
The oil barons, I'm pretty sure, will also be happy for the US to stay and guard.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Well, the Afghanistan, Palestinian and Indians would probably all want them out of Iraq and fighting AQ in the Afghan hills imo. Same with the US troops who are fighting there.
they will vote for more threads talking about irak
I'm sure every house in Iraq has high speed broadband since the Americans 'saved' them... they probably lie around all day posting on forums in a middle class malaise.usmarine wrote:
they will vote for more threads talking about irak
lulz. bwap! bwap!Braddock wrote:
since the Americans 'saved' them...
usmarine wrote:
lulz. bwap! bwap!Braddock wrote:
since the Americans 'saved' them...
Withdrawal dates are already in the agreement. Looks like we're getting out, folks. (which is great news IMO)CameronPoe wrote:
So in all the hubbub over Mumbai a very interesting and important development has appeared to have gone unnoticed: the Iraqis stuck a clause into the motion to pass the US withdrawal agreement that means a referendum on early withdrawal will be put to the people of Iraq in mid 2009! How will Iraq vote?
Seems the referendum will just be on whether to continue the current agreement, or to decide if troops will leave earlier.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast … index.htmlThe proposal, reached after months of negotiations between Iraqi and U.S. representatives, sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns. The date for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq would be December 31, 2011.
The agreement -- which stresses respect for Iraqi sovereignty -- "requests the temporary assistance" of U.S. forces, but severely restricts their role.
It says that all military operations are to be carried out with the agreement of Iraq and must be "fully coordinated" with Iraqis. A Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee would oversee military operations.
Iraq has the "primary right to exercise jurisdiction" over U.S. forces "for grave premeditated felonies," the agreement says. Suspects would be held by U.S. forces but must be available to Iraqi authorities for investigation or trial. Iraq also would have the "primary right to exercise jurisdiction" over U.S. contractors and their employees.
Also, it says, "Iraqi land, sea and air shouldn't be used as a launching or transit point for attacks against other countries."
Parliament also passed another U.S.-Iraqi bilateral pact called the strategic framework agreement, along with the reform legislation.
Lawmakers also OK'd a referendum on the progress of the security agreement to be held by the end of July.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker and Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military official in Iraq, issued a statement welcoming the passage of the security pact and the strategic framework agreement -- which covers a wide range of bilateral cooperation efforts. The two congratulated the lawmakers and said they look forward to the security pact's ratification by the presidency council.
"Taken together, these two agreements formalize a strong and equal partnership between the United States and Iraq," their statement said. "They provide the means to secure the significant security gains we have achieved together and to deter future aggression.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7752580.stm
Last edited by Vax (2008-11-27 18:14:43)
at least the parrot is gingerish.Braddock wrote:
http://www.breakers.com/media/parrot.jpgusmarine wrote:
lulz. bwap! bwap!Braddock wrote:
since the Americans 'saved' them...
Doesn't Barrak want us to get out faster? I mean during the election he was talking about a 12-16 month timetable from the day he takes office?
Are we obligated to stay longer if we make this agreement? Shouldn't Iraq wait til Obama takes office?
Are we obligated to stay longer if we make this agreement? Shouldn't Iraq wait til Obama takes office?
I honestly don't see us paying attention to the vote... either way I don't care except for the whole respecting a soveriegn nation thing
exactly as US requires them to, obviously.CameronPoe wrote:
How will Iraq vote?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
I'm sort of against this very set date because now it gives a chance for other terrorist groups (not implying that US presence is a terrorist group ) to prepare to fight in Iraq. 10% of the world's oil supply in this tiny region, it's pretty key no?
Regardless, if Obama pulls this off by this date or before it'll really be beneficial for him in a 2012 campaign. I can see the Obama line to the Republican runner now: "We fixed your mess in Iraq." Simple as.
Regardless, if Obama pulls this off by this date or before it'll really be beneficial for him in a 2012 campaign. I can see the Obama line to the Republican runner now: "We fixed your mess in Iraq." Simple as.
Good, let the Iraqi people decide the fate of the Iraqi people.
Certainly an accord, long and hard fought, is long overdue. The only way it has been achieved, regretably, is with great sacrifice, the blood and deaths of many.
Unlike a bad law is better than no law, this will promote progress. I too have reservations of a timeline (read: ambush in waiting) but it is the only way to alay fears of permanent US occupation, never an intent irrespective of the opinion of some.
I believe al Sadr and his zealot comrades have been and will remain the major stumbling block. I believe he has no interests for the greater good but rather securing his future potential top religious position. Demonics (ever look at his eyes?) in that position is not in the best interest of Islam nor the rest of the world.
Purportedly in Iran for religious advancement, (I think it's far more likely that he's a target) his best advancement would be in areas of tolerance. There is nothing wrong with understanding 5th century religion but to force that era onto the 21st century as the only true belief is grossly inappropriate.
Should he return to Iraq and continue to promote strife rather than resolution, nothing would be better than to encounter a most unfortunate accident.
Unlike a bad law is better than no law, this will promote progress. I too have reservations of a timeline (read: ambush in waiting) but it is the only way to alay fears of permanent US occupation, never an intent irrespective of the opinion of some.
I believe al Sadr and his zealot comrades have been and will remain the major stumbling block. I believe he has no interests for the greater good but rather securing his future potential top religious position. Demonics (ever look at his eyes?) in that position is not in the best interest of Islam nor the rest of the world.
Purportedly in Iran for religious advancement, (I think it's far more likely that he's a target) his best advancement would be in areas of tolerance. There is nothing wrong with understanding 5th century religion but to force that era onto the 21st century as the only true belief is grossly inappropriate.
Should he return to Iraq and continue to promote strife rather than resolution, nothing would be better than to encounter a most unfortunate accident.
So who is it we are going after next ?
FranceBell wrote:
So who is it we are going after next ?
Malloy must go