1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Iraq says U.S. agrees to pull troops by 2011

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by BrAinPaiNt, Aug 26, 2008.

  1. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt °¤~Cold Eternal~¤° Staff Member

    58,768 Messages
    1,692 Likes Received
    LINK



    By Ahmed Rasheed Mon Aug 25, 11:33 AM ET

    BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq and the United States have agreed that a planned security pact will require all U.S. troops to leave by the end of 2011, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday, while Washington said no final deal had been reached.

    "There is an agreement actually reached, reached between the two parties on a fixed date, which is the end of 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil," Maliki said in a speech to tribal leaders in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

    "Yes, there is major progress on the issue of the negotiations on the security deal," Maliki said.

    The Iraqi government had proposed in bilateral talks that U.S. troops end patrols of Iraqi towns and villages by the middle of next year, and that U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by 2011, under a pact that will govern their presence after 2008.

    In Washington, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said there had been a draft agreement but that it needed to "go through a number of levers in the Iraqi political system before we actually have an agreement from the Iraqi side."

    "Until we have a deal, we don't have a deal," he said.

    He declined to comment on the 2011 withdrawal date.

    The administration of President George W. Bush has sought to avoid fixed timetables, but Maliki's Shi'ite-led government has been increasingly assertive in seeking assurances surrounding the exit of the approximately 144,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a visit to Baghdad last week that a deal was close, but not yet final.

    The pact is needed to replace a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 which has formed the legal basis for the American troop presence ever since, but expires at the end of this year.

    Iraqi officials say a draft agreement was completed last week and must now be circulated to political leaders for approval before it can be submitted to parliament next month.

    SOVEREIGNTY

    Maliki said no agreement would be signed that did not respect Iraqi sovereignty, and said any deal would need to include a "specific date, not an open one" for withdrawal.

    "An open time limit is not acceptable in any security deal that governs the presence of the international forces," he said.

    Maliki also said no foreigners would be given full legal immunity. Washington is seeking to avoid allowing its soldiers to be tried in Iraqi courts.

    In many countries where the United States has bases, treaties allow the forces to be governed by U.S. military law rather than placed under local jurisdiction.

    "We will not accept to put the lives of our sons on the line by guaranteeing absolute immunity for anybody, whether Iraqis or foreigners," Maliki said. "The sanctity of Iraqi blood should be respected."

    Maliki also said an agreement had been reached that would prohibit U.S. military operations "without the approval of the Iraqi government and American forces."


    But he said negotiations on the security pact continued on other sensitive issues. "Unless these can be revised, it will be difficult for this treaty to be signed," he said.
  2. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    27,381 Messages
    470 Likes Received
    and the sacrafice of american blood should be respected as well.
  3. yeahyeah

    yeahyeah New Member

    502 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The Iraqis are simply trying to avoid a large permanent American presence in their country. I mean...we have military in Japan, Korea, Germany, England, Italy, Turkey. Our defense already eats the lion share of the budget. We dont need more bases or more expenditure.
    I think its fantastic that they want full sovereignty.
  4. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    27,381 Messages
    470 Likes Received
    i think so as well but *we* are giving them that right. i'm all for them respecting their own people, but don't make demands on people who put you in the position to make the changes you so desire.

    i hope they keep working with us and not get power hungry too early.
  5. yeahyeah

    yeahyeah New Member

    502 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    But thats my point...their demand is that they have none..just go...we got this..thanks for the hand.
    And I think thats what the sticking point is. We dont want to just..go. We dont just go from anywhere..my god WW2 ended in 1945 and the US Air Force is still responsible for the security of the nation of Japan the third largest economy in the world.
    Korea in '53 and we are still responsible for the safety of South Korea, the 8th largest economy in the world..eventhough the South Korean Air Force outnumbers our planes 20:1 and the Korean people want us out. And trust me..I was there '04-06 and we are persona non grata..the old folks like us but most people under 40 want us G-O-N-E. I cant say I blame them.
    We want our fingers in the pot and the Iraqis arent having it. I say more power to them. They are calling us on our rhetoric...I would love to be a fly on that wall.
  6. MilesAustinforMVP

    MilesAustinforMVP Benched

    782 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Its their own country. They really should be able to do what they please. Saying they are power hungry because they want to control the sovereignty of their own nation is completely ridiculous.

    Its not even like they asked us to invade. We did that at our own choosing. It is a little absurd to force an invasion upon them and act like they owe us something when they did not ask for it.
  7. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    73,834 Messages
    963 Likes Received
    Well you notice they are not asking us to leave today either.
  8. MilesAustinforMVP

    MilesAustinforMVP Benched

    782 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Maybe they did. I don't think either of us know what went on during the negotiations between the Iraqi government and the U.S. government.
  9. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    27,381 Messages
    470 Likes Received
    i do not disagree that in the end it is their country and yes, should be allowed to do as they please. however, it's their own country to do with as they please because of our efforts.

    i don't want them to forget that, that's all. if we had not gone in saddam would still be killing people left and right and the far liberals here would have found something else to hate bush for.

    it's even more absurd to spit in the face of those who fought to give them that freedom, dude. they DO owe us. i'm not saying we have to collect. i'm not saying we demand 20% of their oil from now on - i'm saying we DO deserve respect for what we've done to allow them to tell us to leave.

    and do you HONESTLY thing in a saddam led country they could have come to us asking for help anyway?

    the lengths some people will go to so they can keep their hate alive amazes me.
  10. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    27,381 Messages
    470 Likes Received
    so if neither of us know how come we're evil and need to go?

    you allow for yourself what you don't give.
  11. MilesAustinforMVP

    MilesAustinforMVP Benched

    782 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    You are misrepresenting what I said. I merely said we should honor the requests of the Iraqi government.
  12. MilesAustinforMVP

    MilesAustinforMVP Benched

    782 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Its debatable whether they are much better off. Maybe at some future date they will be. And I hope that is the case and our efforts in Iraq breed success.

    However, at the present time that isn't the case. There is more strife in Iraq than there was under Sadaam. More civilians are being killed than under Sadaam. And women have far less rights than under Sadaam. So I think there are some inconsistencies with the premises of your argument.
  13. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    27,381 Messages
    470 Likes Received
    no it is not debatable. if they're even close to asking us to leave then they're in control of their country. i'm not saying it's an easy life *today* but the potential for them is FAR GREATER today than yesterday.

    for some it's like all change should be easy, painless and instantly better. whatever happened to working for your success?

    prove to me more civilians are being killed. i hear this a lot and never see any proof.
  14. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    73,834 Messages
    963 Likes Received
    We know based on all parties we are looking at somewhere around 2011. We know the US is still being asked to take on some patrols of neighborhoods in certain areas of the country so I think it is pretty easy to say they are not asking us to leave today. Al-Maliki is walking a fine line of what will provide the best security to his country and appeasing followers of Al Sadar. I think the only ones trying to make us out to be the bad guy here is you and a few others.
  15. MilesAustinforMVP

    MilesAustinforMVP Benched

    782 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I don't think the U.S. is the bad guy. I think the Bush administration is and the Republicans who support them. Big difference.
  16. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    33,165 Messages
    900 Likes Received

    I think that what we will eventually see is the business of running there own government and country handed over to an elected Government. However, as I have said many times before, we are not building temporary bases in Iraq. We are building fortified bases of opperations, much like the ones we built in Korea and West Germany. I do not believe our intent is to leave that country. I believe our intent is to continue to keep troops in Iraq and simply disengage in the day to day stuff. No matter who is elected, I don't see us leaving Iraq any time soon.
  17. MilesAustinforMVP

    MilesAustinforMVP Benched

    782 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I don't think keeping a permanent base in the heart of the Muslim world against the wishes of its own government is going to exactly improve U.S./Muslim relations. No matter how much fighting or patrolling is going on. But that is just me.
  18. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    27,381 Messages
    470 Likes Received
    well what our long term intent is i don't know. we speculate but in the end i don't think we even know but likely have 3-4 gameplans ready in the wings. i do agree we've fought to give them their country and if in the end that backfires, that's on us, not them.

    we can't give them freedom and then dictate the terms they get it. that's no "gift" at all.

    but i strongly disagree they're not better off. life may be harder but the road ahead is brighter than it's ever been.
  19. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    73,834 Messages
    963 Likes Received
    The ones who got rid of Saddam the man who if he was still in charge these people would still be in exile? I think the US wants to work with Iraq but we also want to make sure that when we leave we will not have to return. Myself I think Iraq has a great chance for a very bright future one that would not be happening had Saddam remained in power
  20. yeahyeah

    yeahyeah New Member

    502 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I Agree with that...Muslims have a much different outlook on non muslim forces in their country. This is a very conservative section of the Muslim world.

Share This Page