McCain/Obama Iraq plans - rejected campaign issue

Discussion in 'Congress' started by BlackAsCoal, Oct 23, 2008.

  1. BlackAsCoal
    Offline

    BlackAsCoal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,203
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,884
    Both John McCain and Barack Obama have campaigned on leaving considerable US forces in Iraq for a considerable amount of time. With McCain, might be 100 years.

    But the Iraqis have their own plans and they want US forces out of their country. They recognize they have the power to not only force foreign military out, but also to force the US into agreeing to US military and contractor personnel being prosecuted by Iraqi courts for serious crimes .. and if an agreement isn't signed by the end of this year, US troops may be confined to their barracks.

    Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle

    The final draft of the US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement on the US military presence represents an even more crushing defeat for the policy of the George W. Bush administration than previously thought, the final text reveals.

    The final draft, dated Oct. 13, not only imposes unambiguous deadlines for withdrawal of US combat troops by 2011 but makes it extremely unlikely that a US non-combat presence will be allowed to remain in Iraq for training and support purposes beyond the 2011 deadline for withdrawal of all US combat forces.

    Furthermore, Shiite opposition to the pact as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty makes the prospects for passage of even this agreement by the Iraqi parliament doubtful. Pro-government Shiite parties, the top Shiite clerical body in the country, and a powerful movement led by nationalist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that recently mobilized hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in protest against the pact, are all calling for its defeat.

    At an Iraqi cabinet meeting Tuesday, ministers raised objections to the final draft, and a government spokesman said that the agreement would not submit it to the parliament in its current form. But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told three news agencies Tuesday that the door was "pretty far closed" on further negotiations.

    In the absence of an agreement approved by the Iraqi parliament, US troops in Iraq will probably be confined to their bases once the United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31.

    The clearest sign of the dramatically reduced US negotiating power in the final draft is the willingness of the United States to give up extraterritorial jurisdiction over US contractors and their employees and over US troops in the case of "major and intentional crimes" that occur outside bases and while off duty. The United States has never allowed a foreign country to have jurisdiction over its troops in any previous status of forces agreement.
    Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a US Debacle - by Gareth Porter

    This means ..

    McCain's 100 year wet dream was never a reality and anyone who'd been paying attention knew the Iraqis were never going to allow it. It was however, a useful political tool for democrats.

    Obama's plans to leave as many as 80,000 troops in Iraq has also been booted out the door. Unbeknowst to many of his followers, Obama tried to get the Iraqis to delay an agreement on removing US troops until after the elections. Did he, like Reagan, violate the Logan Act?

    He may have been better served by sticking to his original position on Iraq instead of his usual waffling.

    The Iranian influence in Iraq will continue to grow and both Obama and McCain have increased the bluster against Iran.

    It will be interesting to see if the rhetoric from either of them changes to reflect these new realities "on the ground"
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2008
  2. Caligirl
    Offline

    Caligirl Oh yes it is too!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,567
    Thanks Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +240

    Obama disputed that he tried to negotiate that with the iraqis.

    The middle east is screwed up. I am reading about the iranian revolution and iran/iraq war right now. You can't even figure out who the bad guys are and who the good guys are, there are so many factions trying to gain control. And the US has been right in there with them, and we don't even know if our actions in the ME over the past 45 years, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately 'good guy' or 'bad guy.'
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    oh I think we'll find out pretty quickly when they decide to blackmail us with oil.
     
  4. Caligirl
    Offline

    Caligirl Oh yes it is too!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,567
    Thanks Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +240
    Was propping up Saddam in response to the resurgence of the Iranian ayatollahs a good idea or a bad idea? Iran was chanting death to America long before Saddam.....

    Oh and.... we could just get off oil as Obama suggests. ;)
     
  5. BlackAsCoal
    Offline

    BlackAsCoal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,203
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,884
    Yes, he did deny it .. however ..

    Asked by NBC's Lee Cowan if a timetable for the status of forces agreement was discussed, Obama said, "Well he, the foreign minister, had presented a letter requesting an extension of the UN resolution until the end of this year. So that’s a six-month extension.

    "Obviously we can't have U.S. forces operating on the ground in iraq without some sort of agreemnt, either a further extension of the U.N. resolution or some sort of Status of Forces agreement, some strategic framework agreement. As I said before, my concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration.

    "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made, but I think the only way to assure that is to make sure that there is strong bipartisan support, that Congress is involved, that the American people know the outlines of this agreement, and my concern is that if the Bush administration negotiates, as it currently has, and given that we're entering into the heat of political season that we're probably better off not trying to complete a hard and fast agreement before the next administration takes office, but I think obviously these conversations have to continue. As I said my No. 1 priority is making sure that we don’t have a situation in which us troops on the ground are somehow vulnerable to, are made more vulnerable, because there is a lack of a clear mandate."
    Obama to visit Iraq, Afghanistan - First Read - msnbc.com

    I agree with you .. but our presence there has not always been welcome. WE overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and installed a brutal dictator, the Shah of Iran, with his barbaric secret police force, SAVAK. .. and we did it for profit .. and oil.

    What we're doing and plan to do in Afghanistan and Pakistan proves that we just don't learn. We're bouncing from one debacle to the next, converting more people all over the world to the ever-growing religion of anti-americanism.
     
  6. BlackAsCoal
    Offline

    BlackAsCoal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,203
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,884
    Propping up Saddam was just US foreign policy doing business as usual. Saddam was supposed to be our buffer against Iran .. who were shouting "Death to America" because we overthrew their elected gobernment and installed "our guy" .. which is business as usual.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Bottom line is everything done over there is to protect oil supplies and Jews. Nothing seems to be very successful. America has benefitted from cheap oil for a long time. Now we're going to pay for it. You bet we need alternative energy. It's on the way as we speak but it's not a simple as putting electric cars on the road . Our whole infrastructure is built around it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. BlackAsCoal
    Offline

    BlackAsCoal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,203
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Ratings:
    +1,884
    ... and they will .. but wouldn't you blackmail anyone who invaded your country and mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of your people?
     
  9. Caligirl
    Offline

    Caligirl Oh yes it is too!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,567
    Thanks Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +240
    Yep, and Obama is more serious about getting us off oil altogether. Good not only for ME issues but also for environmental issues. (And jobs.)
     
  10. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    If I could afford it. China and India wouldnt be really happy about losing their berst customers tho.
     

Share This Page