US: Iraq Forever Plan Will Be Finalized In July

[babylonsister]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/06/us_iraq_security_pact_can_be_f.php

US: Iraq security pact can be finalized in July

Staff
AP News

Jun 10, 2008 07:05 EST

The State Department's top Iraq adviser says he believes a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement will be finalized by the end of July.

The pact would establish a long-term security relationship between Iraq and the United States. It also would provide a legal basis for keeping American troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

The State Department's top Iraq adviser, David Satterfield, says he believes the agreement "can be achieved, and by the end of July deadline." He spoke to reporters in Baghdad.

There have been reports in Iraq and in Washington that talks over the agreement were stalled, and that it would not be finished before President Bush leaves office.

Source: AP News

[leftchick]

1. "Khamenei Tells al-Maliki not to sign Security Pact"

he must not read the news...



Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Monday with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

http://juancole.com/

According to Farsnews writing in Persian, Khamenei to al-Maliki that the most important and fundamental problem for Iraq at present is the presence of Occupation forces. He affirmed, "We are certain that the people of Iraq, through their intrinsic unity and effort, will cross over these difficult conditions and arrive at a place befitting them. The dream of the Americans most certainly will never be realized." He emphasized that the Islamic Republic of Iran consider helping the government and people of Iraq a religious duty. He expressed the hope that al-Maliki's visit to Iran and the agreements he signed there would strengthen relations between the two countries.

Al-Maliki expressed his conviction that Iraqis were attaining a consensus and beginning to speak with a single voice. Khamenei expressed his concern that the Americans would interfere illegitimately and "impudently" in Iraqi affairs and disrupt this building consensus. He compared the current role of the US with the one the British used to play in promoting divide and rule policies even in independent Iraq after 1932. He also expressed his worry that the US would worm itself into every aspect of Iraq's affairs.

Al-Hayat writes Tuesday morning in Arabic that Khamenei said advised al-Maliki not to sign any such security agreement.

[leftchick]

2. "more abominable than the occupation,"

<snip>

the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.

"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help."

Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but also wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces' conduct in Iraq.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html

[sharesunited]

3. Trying to bypass the Senate over treaty ratification.

Another article of impeachment.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. How can it be "forever" unless McCain wins in November?

:scared:

Treaties, agreements, etc. AFAIK can always be modified or even completely done away with (unilaterally as Bush himself has proved). I'm not saying, of course, that Obama (if elected) should necessarily follow Bush's lead when it comes to determining whether or not to continue our obligations to treaties and other agreements that we have previously entered into with other countries and/or the international community but there's NO WAY IMHO that Obama is going to let himself be "tied down" by this obscene arrangement if he genuinely wants to get us out of Iraq (which I believe he does even if it doesn't end up happening immediately or all at once) and I can't imagine that the Iraqis, even if they accept this arrangement now (an extremely dubious proposition at best), will forcefully demand that it continue if we decide that we want to change or drop it completely later on down the road.

"Iraq forever"? McCain could not be further out of touch with public opinion on this issue even if he tried.

[leftchick]

5. K&R!

why are more not talking about this??

[Disturbed]

6. The Iraqis would be fools to sign off on this BS.

I don't think it will happen.

[leftchick]

9. in general I agree

BUT, (and this is a big but) Maliki is a DEAD MAN with out US support. This is truly one fucking sticky wicket all the way around.

[Arctic Dave]

10. If by Iraq, you mean a handful of people who will become

extremely rich when it passes. Look at US imperialism, there always seems to be a few people in any country who will sell out their country to the US for wealth and power.

[Wizard777]

7. Iraq: When hell freezes over.

[conspirator]

8. They want to create the United States Of The Middle East where they control all the oil:

Saudi Arabia
Kwait
Qatar
UAE

and

now Iraq

Look in the ME map, they are annexing countries like in a risk game.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

11. if they don't sign, we'll just have to invade them.

[spanone]

12. they're gonna ram it through to piss off iran imho