Iraq approves military pact with US

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The US-Iraq military pact that allows US forces to stay until the end of 2011 has won final Iraqi government approval.

Iraq's three-member presidential council signed off on the pact on
Thursday, removing the last legal barrier so that the agreement can take effect January 1.

Approval by the presidential council came one week after parliament approved the agreement, which was hammered out during months of tough negotiations that at times seemed on the point of collapse.

But the pact, which commits Washington to withdraw its forces by December 31, 2011, is still subject to approval by Iraqi voters in a referendum by the end of July next year.

If voters reject the deal, Iraq will ask the US for a new round of talks.


I love how al-Jazeera is spinning this, "allowing them to stay." Shit, just a year ago they were reporting how the US won't leave for at least another decade.

I just want to state this one for the record, so there's no misunderstanding:

If the US colonizes Iraq and stays there forever, it will be because the Iraqi people want them there. And if the Iraqi people choose to keep our troops there, we should go back to what we've done and take a dump on their vote. Seriously, we spent tens of billions in Iraq last year while they had an $80 billion surplus.

Though I think it'd be ironic, with all the "every Iraqi wants the US out now!" junk.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/12/200812525058794785.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Correction - the Iraqi quisling government is allowing the US military to stay. No surprise there.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

In other news, Puppet allows Ventriloquist to keep hand up ass.

[Bud Struggle]

Who said the USA lost in Iraq? ;)

We won, they can have their country and as long as they are good they won't be spanked. :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

We won, they can have their country and as long as they are good they won't be spanked.

You mean as long as they obay us, and play by our rules.

The US has no problem with countries being bad, as long as we are getting our cut and they are obedient. History should tell you that.

[JimmyJazz]

The US has no problem with countries being bad, as long as we are getting our cut and they are obedient. History should tell you that.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/REMASEU1PSKFG/ref=cm_lm_pthnk_view?ie=UTF8&lm%5Fbb=

[Dean]

I love how al-Jazeera is spinning this, "allowing them to stay." Shit, just a year ago they were reporting how the US won't leave for at least another decade.

Yes, aljazeera is spinning it to seem like the Iraqi peopel have some semblance of autonomy. The fact is that the U.S., along with the appointed puppets in the Iraqi gov't, are forcing a military presence on the Iraqi people that was never necessary or desired.

It is absolutely sickening that you would try to "blame the victim" as it were. The Iraqi people are overwhelmingly opposed to a continued military presence, not only due to the direct acts of suppression, but also due to the economic, political and social instability that has coem with the occupation. I know right-wing ex-military who admit that the U.S. presence is anything but positive. Why can't you?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yes, aljazeera is spinning it to seem like the Iraqi peopel have some semblance of autonomy. The fact is that the U.S., along with the appointed puppets in the Iraqi gov't, are forcing a military presence on the Iraqi people that was never necessary or desired.

It is absolutely sickening that you would try to "blame the victim" as it were. The Iraqi people are overwhelmingly opposed to a continued military presence, not only due to the direct acts of suppression, but also due to the economic, political and social instability that has coem with the occupation. I know right-wing ex-military who admit that the U.S. presence is anything but positive. Why can't you?

First, I didn't support the invasion. My best friend is over in that country at the moment, and I can tell you he's not happy to be in that god-forsaken oven.

But my point is that if the US military has a prescence in Iraq come January 1, 2012, it will be because the Iraqi people rejected the pullout offer we're now giving them. Which, I think, would be slightly ironic.



Correction - the Iraqi quisling government is allowing the US military to stay. No surprise there.


Yeah, as if the US needs the Iraqi's permission to stay.

This is concerning the pullout of each and every US soldier, in case you missed that.

Just pointing out that the whole "colonization of Iraq" argument turned out to be a load of bullshit.



You mean as long as they obay us, and play by our rules.

The US has no problem with countries being bad, as long as we are getting our cut and they are obedient. History should tell you that.


The US will never attack again Iraq without Iraq attacking us first. At least, not until all of us are dead and buried.



In other news, Puppet allows Ventriloquist to keep hand up ass.


Correction, Ventriloquist has decided that Puppet can turn the "resistance" (islamic fuckheads) into asphalt on their own, but puppet has yet to ecide if their up to the task.

Our little baby has finally grown up.....:crying:



Who said the USA lost in Iraq? ;)

We won, they can have their country and as long as they are good they won't be spanked. :rolleyes:


You know, at first I was against the war because I though it was about us taking over their oil fields.

Now that it's clear that's not the case, I'm a little disappointed.

[butterfly]

If you think the occupation of Iraq has ever been a liberating force, you're highly misguided.
The people of Iraq have no influence on the decisions made by the puppet government in place.
Dean sums it up well.

[Dean]

First, I didn't support the invasion. My best friend is over in that country at the moment, and I can tell you he's not happy to be in that god-forsaken oven.

But my point is that if the US military has a prescence in Iraq come January 1, 2012, it will be because the Iraqi people rejected the pullout offer we're now giving them. Which, I think, would be slightly ironic.

Actually, you're right. I guess the Japanese people also "wanted the atomic bomb dropped on them" because they rejected a total surrender. It all makes sense now - rejecting a lopsided proposal certainly is just asking to have your nation occupied and abused!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Actually, you're right. I guess the Japanese people also "wanted the atomic bomb dropped on them" because they rejected a total surrender. It all makes sense now - rejecting a lopsided proposal certainly is just asking to have your nation occupied and abused!

:confused: I don't get your analogy.

The Iraqi people will be voting on whether or not we should leave.

As for bringing Japan to its knees, I have no revisionist thoughts. I'm glad that we were able to end the war without having to invade the big islands.

And the Japanese should understand our motives as well. Otherwise, today their language "would only be spoken in Hell." We would probably have gone in with the Russians/Chinese, and any survivors (though if Okinawa were any indicator, there would have been very few) would have been raped, then murdered or enslaved.

Not that I think war is sweet, it's just that the vast majority of Japanese civilians would have been butchered by the peoples they had warred against, fall-of-troy style. That is, if they hadn't been incenerated by the hundreds of millions of tons of explosives we'd have dropped first. And that's a fact.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If you think the occupation of Iraq has ever been a liberating force, you're highly misguided.
The people of Iraq have no influence on the decisions made by the puppet government in place.
Dean sums it up well.

Being a lefty, I take it you assume their is no freedom unless the glorious revolution has happened or whatever. But please don't make it sound like we were overthrew the benevelont leader of the Iraqi people.

As for the whole "puppet" government thing, you can call it whatever you want. It's the government the Iraqi people chose.

[JimmyJazz]

But my point is that if the US military has a prescence in Iraq come January 1, 2012, it will be because the Iraqi people rejected the pullout offer we're now giving them.

Yes, just the way that when the U.S. invaded on March 20, 2003 it was because the American people rejected peaceful solutions. Because governments always represent their people.

[danyboy27]

well, right now the military operation of the us army will have to be approved by the iraqi governement.

its nuts, plain and simple.

never NEVER put the military decision in the hand of politician, and never put political decision in the hand of the military, this is a sacred concept.

[Plagueround]

As for bringing Japan to its knees, I have no revisionist thoughts. I'm glad that we were able to end the war without having to invade the big islands.

"I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."- SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER; Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"In my opinion the use of this barbarous weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."- President Truman’s Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy

Revisionism indeed.

[scarletghoul]

in addition
" Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - US Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department

[RebelDog]

First, I didn't support the invasion. My best friend is over in that country at the moment, and I can tell you he's not happy to be in that god-forsaken oven.

But my point is that if the US military has a prescence in Iraq come January 1, 2012, it will be because the Iraqi people rejected the pullout offer we're now giving them. Which, I think, would be slightly ironic.

Something like 95% of Iraqis want the US to leave now, so why don't they go if they are at all interested in what the Iraqis think? The occupying forces should leave now and what is expedient for the US should be of no more concern to Iraqis, or us, than what was expedient for the Wehrmacht fleeing France in 1944.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yes, just the way that when the U.S. invaded on March 20, 2003 it was because the American people rejected peaceful solutions. Because governments always represent their people.

I was in middle school at the time, and I vividly remeber being the only person I knew who was against the war. I wasn't even in Texas then, either.



Something like 95% of Iraqis want the US to leave now, so why don't they go if they are at all interested in what the Iraqis think? The occupying forces should leave now and what is expedient for the US should be of no more concern to Iraqis, or us, than what was expedient for the Wehrmacht fleeing France in 1944.


It's not 2006 anymore, so stop acting as though "we lost." The only way we lost was when you assume that Bush was lying about our permanet intentions in Iraq, and that all the Leftist rags were right in saying this was a colonization attempt. Which was obviously false. (this is from a strategic standpoint only, of course it's horrible that thousands of lives have been lost. No need to debate that.)

Or do you have a link to a valid polling group?

If what you say is true, then 95% of Iraqis should approve of the pullout offer.


"I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."- SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER; Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"In my opinion the use of this barbarous weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."- President Truman’s Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy

This is negated by the fact that despite the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese Military Command (which had been the de-facto rulers of Japan for years) considered this of no importance and continued war operations. The Emperor himself had to intervene and force the surrender.

Secondly, when were these quotes given? At the time of their usage, I don't believe that there was any knowledge about what the radiation effects of the bombs would be. If we had known, then I would agree that it would have been very cruel to use such a weapon on a civilian populace (to say the least).

Third, that Eisenhower quote is a little ridiculous, considering the fact that we killed hundreds of thousands of more Germans than the two atomic bombings combined using convetional weapons. And when I say conventional weapons, I mean incendianary bombs which burned entire cities alive.

Lastly, I don't give a fuck* what some general sitting in DC thought about it, as opposed to the Marines who would actually have to take the islands.

"Sorry mam, we regret to inform you that your son has died. We possess a super-weapon which could have ended the war months ago, but we decided not to do in favor having him going in on the beach. Feel proud, because of his sacrifice we gained a whole 4 feet."

*Not that I disrespect Eisenhower, nor do I think that opposition to the atomic bombings is an irrational or "wrong" position to hold.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

in addition
" Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - US Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department

It's possible. In fact, everything we're arguing about is just speculation.

But keep in mind that:


"The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon) battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Decisive)). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender)."

Also, we hadn't even begun the major bombing campaings that would have ensued (having to shift thousands of bombers to Okinawa from Europe), and a big reason some people think Japan would have surrendered without an invasion is because every population grouping of 10,000 or more would have looked like Tokyo did after "humane" conventional bombs were used:

http://www.japanfocus.org/images/463-1.jpg

[RGacky3]

You're a despicable chauvanist....

I"d have to say that what you quoted Tomk of saying is dispicable and chauvanistic, and they wonder why the world hates the US.


Just pointing out that the whole "colonization of Iraq" argument turned out to be a load of bullshit.

Nower days you don't need actual troops in the country to control it.


And the Japanese should understand our motives as well. Otherwise, today their language "would only be spoken in Hell." We would probably have gone in with the Russians/Chinese, and any survivors (though if Okinawa were any indicator, there would have been very few) would have been raped, then murdered or enslaved.


That is akin to saying, "We should understand Al Quedas Motive for the 9-11 bombing" Hell Al Quedas motives were much more justifyable than the atomic bombs.

And you saying that makes you a big asshole, think about what your saying. Sure we killed a lot of innocent people, but we could have kileld a lot more and we did'nt.


As for the whole "puppet" government thing, you can call it whatever you want. It's the government the Iraqi people chose.

Really? Like the Sha, like the Suadi princes, like the central American juntas, like the Colombian and Mexican psudo republics, like Pinoche and so on and so forth.


Lastly, I don't give a fuck* what some general sitting in DC thought about it, as opposed to the Marines who would actually have to take the islands.

Seriously, that argument can be applied to every single terrorist act ever, you can justify anything, use that reasoning on other terrorist acts, think about it.

"Sorry about your children Ms Japanese lady, we did'nt want to loose any Soldiers, but we still wanted to show the wrold what we had and how big our balls were."

Your reasoning is really really sick, and to see that just apply it to other terrorist acts.

[Bud Struggle]

I"d have to say that what you quoted Tomk of saying is dispicable and chauvanistic, and they wonder why the world hates the US.

Maybe, but I was trying to be a bit "arch" in my comment--sorry if I missed the target.

[Sam_b]

I may be wrong, but didn't Al-Sadr say that the ceasfire would end if this proposal went through?

[RGacky3]

Maybe, but I was trying to be a bit "arch" in my comment--sorry if I missed the target.

well, how do you think Americans would react if others made comments like that about Americans, you know how they would react.

[Bud Struggle]

well, how do you think Americans would react if others made comments like that about Americans, you know how they would react.

Well, you're an American--not an Iraqi. I suggest the Iraqi's speak for themselves.

[RGacky3]

Well, you're an American--not an Iraqi. I suggest the Iraqi's speak for themselves.

What you said is exactly the same as me saying "as long as America behaves Al Quaida will leave them alone, all they gotta do is not be bad children."

[Sendo]

again with the condescending racism, reactionaries. The sand niggers still need our guiding light, or do they?

1 Saddam was a CIA goon sent in to destroy a (relatively) left and democratic government in Iraq.
2 Saddam funded and supplied with weapons
3 When Saddam became a nationalist he was no longer a posterboy (free hospitals EGADS!!)
4 Saddam invades Kuwait to get a cut of the oil market..OPEC was fucking him on the quotas and market prices. Saddam becomes evil. Iraq becomes invaded, quarter million die, billions of gallons of oil burn up.
5 Sanctions kill half a million innocents
6 US topples Saddam, spontaneous elections spring up, grassroots governments get set up
7 Emperor Paul Bremer declares elections illegitimate. Establishes complex puppet government and enshrines ethnic and sectarian apartheid in law
8 Iraqis overwhelmingly oppose our occupation, but massive unemployment sends many Sunni to join puppet police forces to feed families.

The war's about getting access to oil, markets, and labor. Nothing else at all.

But even if you're a racist who doesn't care what Iraqis think, a democrat would at least respect the wishes of most Americans.

[RGacky3]

again with the condescending racism, reactionaries. The sand niggers still need our guiding light, or do they?


Its not racism, they'd talk the same way about eastern europena countries, latin American countries, South-east Asian countries, its not racism its nationalist chauvanism. Stop putting racism in places its not.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

again with the condescending racism, reactionaries. The sand niggers still need our guiding light, or do they?

I don't care if they do, we're leaving.


1 Saddam was a CIA goon sent in to destroy a (relatively) left and democratic government in Iraq.

:laugh::lol::laugh::lol:

Saddam overthrew his uncles baathist regime.


2 Saddam funded and supplied with weapons

No, we sold him weapons.

While we sold Iran intelligence of were those weapons were, so they could destroy them and therefore Saddam would need to buy more weapons.

Word on the street is that the Iran-Iraq betting pool being run out of the Reagan White House was big business.



3 When Saddam became a nationalist he was no longer a posterboy (free hospitals EGADS!!)


:confused: Do you have a link supporting this?



4 Saddam invades Kuwait to get a cut of the oil market..OPEC was fucking him on the quotas and market prices. Saddam becomes evil. Iraq becomes invaded, quarter million die, billions of gallons of oil burn up.


Moral of the story: If you're a dictator, consider other dictators who supply the US with oil off-limits for annexation.

Every nation of OPEC fucks each other over, selling over the set quotas in order to expand market share. Plus, all the members pretty much hate each other.


5 Sanctions kill half a million innocents

...



6 US topples Saddam, spontaneous elections spring up, grassroots governments get set up
7 Emperor Paul Bremer declares elections illegitimate. Establishes complex puppet government and enshrines ethnic and sectarian apartheid in law


Ummmm....No.

6 US topples Saddam, Iraq divides along sectarian lines, all central authority is lost.
7 Sunni "resistance" blow up Shiite markets, shrines, and mosques with the intention of begining a civil war and making Iraq untenable for US. Shiites often respond by killing as many Sunnis as it takes to fill up craters left by bomb blasts.

After this, it became obvious that central power had to be restored, especially after the Sunni terrorist fucktards blew up the Samarra mosque, which most people on here will blame on the US for not protecting from those retards.

And to an extent, I agree. We should have crushd all resistance Hafez al-Assad style.


8 Iraqis overwhelmingly oppose our occupation, but massive unemployment sends many Sunni to join puppet police forces to feed families.

Are you sure they didn't realize that the future the resistance was offering was absolute shit?

Woo-hoo let's break society up along the Assyria-Bablylon line and make sure we're in the dark ages forever! Yay for freedom!

With that said, the Iraqi government needs o continue paying the Sons of Iraq to make sure they don't leave the mostly Shiite government and start the war over.


The war's about getting access to oil, markets, and labor. Nothing else at all.

Unfortunately not.

We haven't gotten any oil or labor out of this, and when you say 'market' the only thing I think you could be refering to are the billions of $'s worth of construction projects, security forces, and beauracracy we're funding.


But even if you're a racist who doesn't care what Iraqis think, a democrat would at least respect the wishes of most Americans.

Which is why I'm glad that this agreement will bring all US forces home.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I may be wrong, but didn't Al-Sadr say that the ceasfire would end if this proposal went through?

Maybe, but I don't see why.

[Sendo]

Its not racism, they'd talk the same way about eastern European countries, Latin American countries, South-east Asian countries, its not racism its nationalist chauvinism. Stop putting racism in places its not.

what the hell is the difference?

There was anti-Celtic racism fueling English occupation of Ireland (they're potato-munching drunkards who need guidance....). There's also been anti-Slav racism, too. Today we have anti-Arab racism everywhere, especially in Hollywood. We have anti-Chinese racism ("brainwashed hordes"), etc.

And don't say, "But Slavs are the same race as Nordic Europeans!"

Duh, everyone is part of the human race, every sub-"race" is artificial. To say "I'm nationalist" is to say "I'm a racist in denial". Of course there are nationalists with friends and allies with different physical features, too--Uncle Toms abound. Selling out your country makes you okay in the eyes of any racist. Look at how Zionist Jews were treated in Europe (the ones who said "we have no right to be in Europe, give us a chunk of land somewhere and I'll move my people there")

[RGacky3]

what the hell is the difference?

One is discrimination based on citizenship of a country, the other is based on race (phisical characteristics, like skin color and the such), also the nationalism that TomK is spitting out, is pretty much just the assumption that the US government is somehow superior and desearves to order around other governments, it has nothing to do with race.

Both are bad, and I'm against both, but I'm also against falsly pinning labels on people because it makes them look worse.

There are racists yes, there are racists who think America should have control over other o****ries for racist reasons yes, does that mean taht all of the people that believe America should have control over other countries are racist? Not at all.