/* */

PDA

View Full Version : US to ask for permission to continue fighting in Iraq



MTAFFI
01-25-2008, 05:48 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...5uUh4QdKys0NUE

U.S. Plans to Ask for Right to Fight in Iraq, Official Says Ken Fireman
Fri Jan 25, 12:23 AM ET

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. will ask the Iraqi government for the right to conduct combat operations and detain prisoners and secure legal protections for American troops in an agreement that defines a long-term relationship between the two countries, a U.S. defense official said.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said those provisions will top the list of U.S. demands in talks with Iraqi officials for an accord which will extend beyond the presidency of George W. Bush.

U.S. officials say that these demands -- reported by the New York Times yesterday on its Web site -- flow logically from the fact that Iraq is still a combat zone, the defense official said. If U.S. forces operating there didn't have the legal authority to engage in combat and detain prisoners when necessary, there would be little point in their being in Iraq, the official said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday he expected that the agreement wouldn't authorize permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or attempt to set force levels for American troops.

``The way to think about the framework agreement is an approach to normalizing the relationship between the United States and Iraq,'' Gates said at a Pentagon news conference.

Gates also said the process of negotiating the agreement was in a preliminary phase and that U.S. officials had only just begun to discuss it among themselves.

UN Resolution

The so-called framework agreement would replace the current legal authorization for U.S. forces in Iraq, which is a United Nations Security Council resolution that expires later this year.

U.S. and Iraqi leaders jointly declared on Nov. 26 their intention to conclude a permanent agreement and set forth broad principles for its provisions. Among those is a U.S. commitment to protect Iraq from external and internal threats to its security.

Some Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates have objected that such an agreement may burden the next U.S. leader with unwanted commitments. They have demanded that any agreement be submitted to Congress for approval.

``Where have we ever entered an agreement to defend a foreign country from external and internal attack that was not a treaty'' requiring congressional approval, said Representative William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, at a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing yesterday on the issue.

`Strong Commitment'

``This could very well implicate our military forces in a full-blown civil war in Iraq,'' said Delahunt. ``If a commitment of this magnitude does not rise to the level of treaty, then it is difficult to imagine what could.''

Gates said that while there was ``a strong commitment inside the administration to consult very closely with the Congress'' on the agreement, ``without any idea of what the form of an agreement is going to be right now, I think it's premature to talk about congressional agreement or executive agreement.''

At the hearing, Ken Katzman, an analyst for the Congressional Research Service, said some U.S. demands for the agreement may meet Iraqi resistance.

In particular, he said some Iraqi observers have said the Iraqis may seek limits on the U.S. ability to conduct air strikes and on the types of American aircraft that could be stationed in Iraq. U.S. officials would probably resist such demands, he said.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Keltoi
01-25-2008, 09:10 PM
Sort of an inevitable transformation of the U.S. role in Iraq. I seriously doubt the Iraqis will want to limit U.S. firepower to any great degree, but in order to show Iraqis that the government is in control, they may limit the area in which U.S. planes can operate.
Reply

sudais1
01-28-2008, 04:58 AM
since when does the United States ask "permission" of anybody. The whole war is Illegal by UN law. How do you get "permission" to extend acts that are considered " illegal"?
Reply

ahsan28
01-28-2008, 05:33 AM
Return to Fallujah


Independent. Uk
Monday, 28 January 2008


Three years after the devastating US assault, our correspondent enters besieged Iraqi city left without clean water, electricity and medicine.



Article

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ah-774846.html
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
snakelegs
01-28-2008, 05:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by sudais1
since when does the United States ask "permission" of anybody. The whole war is Illegal by UN law. How do you get "permission" to extend acts that are considered " illegal"?
maybe if it's your own puppet government?
Reply

Keltoi
01-28-2008, 12:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
maybe if it's your own puppet government?
A puppet government the Iraqi people came out and voted for?
Reply

MTAFFI
01-28-2008, 02:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sudais1
since when does the United States ask "permission" of anybody. The whole war is Illegal by UN law. How do you get "permission" to extend acts that are considered " illegal"?
i highlighted a section in there for you regarding the UN Resolution that makes the US occupation of Iraq perfectly legal... not that I agree with it, but I feel compelled to make sure people have their facts correct
Reply

krypton6
01-28-2008, 02:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
A puppet government the Iraqi people came out and voted for?
In Iraq, kurds were not interested in voting since they did not see themselves as Iraqi's.
Hundreds of sunni's were kidnapped and killed during the elections, that made sunnis very afraid and because of that very few sunnis actually voted.

So quite frankly, the iraqis didnt vote for the government, the shiits did and even there it was very corrupted.

The shias brought thousands of shias from Iran, and changed their backgrounds so that they would not be detected by the sunni counters. Right after the elections the iranian shias moved back to Iraq, and the estimated adult shia porpulation in Iraq is based on the elections, and during those elections as I just mentioned, Iran were involved so that the shia porpulation would look greater and bigger.

Conclusion: Shias elected the government, Iraq as a whole did not.
Reply

Keltoi
01-28-2008, 03:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by krypton6
In Iraq, kurds were not interested in voting since they did not see themselves as Iraqi's.
Hundreds of sunni's were kidnapped and killed during the elections, that made sunnis very afraid and because of that very few sunnis actually voted.

So quite frankly, the iraqis didnt vote for the government, the shiits did and even there it was very corrupted.

The shias brought thousands of shias from Iran, and changed their backgrounds so that they would not be detected by the sunni counters. Right after the elections the iranian shias moved back to Iraq, and the estimated adult shia porpulation in Iraq is based on the elections, and during those elections as I just mentioned, Iran were involved so that the shia porpulation would look greater and bigger.

Conclusion: Shias elected the government, Iraq as a whole did not.
Just assuming all that is true, that doesn't make the Iraqi government a "puppet" of the U.S. The U.S. doesn't particularly like Maliki or the ruling government there. As for the Shia, yes they are a majority, and it has been documented that many Sunni voters stayed home out of fear. However, being the first real election in Iraq in a long time, it could have been alot worse.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-28-2008, 03:31 PM
Permission DENIED!

Next....
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-28-2008, 03:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
I highlighted a section in there for you regarding the UN Resolution that makes the US occupation of Iraq perfectly legal... not that I agree with it, but I feel compelled to make sure people have their facts correct
Link please?

USA went before the UN made any decision on it! They defied international law, to show the might of the USA! - IT'S A ROGUE NATION, A TERRORIST STATE, 'AN AXIS OF EVIL'...See where I'm heading...
Reply

Keltoi
01-28-2008, 03:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Link please?

USA went before the UN made any decision on it! They defied international law, to show the might of the USA! - IT'S A ROGUE NATION, A TERRORIST STATE, 'AN AXIS OF EVIL'...See where I'm heading...
The U.N. passed a resolution which stated Iraq would face "severe consequences" if it did not abide by past resolutions. I believe it was Resolution 1441. Saddam did not abide by past resolutions, or the cease-fire agreement, and suffered severe consequences as a result. Resolution 1441 was more than enough "legal" authority.
Reply

truemuslim
01-28-2008, 03:51 PM
okey lol this is like going up to someone and asking them...'Hey, i have been killing tons of people...and so i dont seem bad i am going to ask your permission if i can put this yummy lookin knife in ur heart?' ??????? of course the story will end like this 'NO, you may NOT stick that knife in my heart i wanna live u kno...' 'okey you said i cant and i asked for ur permission..and now DIE! MUAHAHAHAH it was a yes or yes question u kno..'

?

okey bye :w:
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-28-2008, 03:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The U.N. passed a resolution which stated Iraq would face "severe consequences" if it did not abide by past resolutions. I believe it was Resolution 1441. Saddam did not abide by past resolutions, or the cease-fire agreement, and suffered severe consequences as a result. Resolution 1441 was more than enough "legal" authority.
I'm talking about the right to actually INVADE! Blairy said it would need to be passed, but dubya said I'll not wait. :Evil:
Reply

MTAFFI
01-28-2008, 05:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
I'm talking about the right to actually INVADE! Blairy said it would need to be passed, but dubya said I'll not wait. :Evil:
i guess the real question would be, who are going to be the prosecutors? I mean there isnt a really a world court, and if a nation or a nations leader decides to attack another country, right or wrong, that is his decision to make and it isnt really "illegal" persay. Illogical, yes, deceitful, yes, illegal....I am not really sure about that, but hey who am I to say? LOL
Reply

ummsara1108
01-28-2008, 06:04 PM
This whole war is a crock
Reply

Keltoi
01-28-2008, 07:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
I'm talking about the right to actually INVADE! Blairy said it would need to be passed, but dubya said I'll not wait. :Evil:
I think both Blair and Bush knew that in the end it would be the U.S. and the U.K. supplying the money, troops, equipment, etc for any invasion of Iraq. The U.N. doesn't have an army, it has no way of backing up any resolution it passes...the only bite is the U.S. and the U.K....and what other smaller countries wish to participate militarily.
Reply

krypton6
01-28-2008, 10:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Just assuming all that is true, that doesn't make the Iraqi government a "puppet" of the U.S. The U.S. doesn't particularly like Maliki or the ruling government there. As for the Shia, yes they are a majority, and it has been documented that many Sunni voters stayed home out of fear. However, being the first real election in Iraq in a long time, it could have been alot worse.
Yes yes, I'm not saying that the current iraqi government is yet another puppet of america. The shias dont like americans, believe it or not! They just see this as their chance to turn Iraq into a shia regime much like Iran.

But you seriusly cannot call this a real election after knowing what kind of election it in fact was.

I just wanted to point out that the current government was in fact not elected by Iraq as a whole, but instead only by the shias.

Its also from here that people claim Iraq to be more shia than sunni, when in fact adding kurds to sunnis will make a nearly 57% sunni porpulation, vs 40% shia and 3% assyrian and others.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
01-28-2008, 10:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I think both Blair and Bush knew that in the end it would be the U.S. and the U.K. supplying the money, troops, equipment, etc for any invasion of Iraq. The U.N. doesn't have an army, it has no way of backing up any resolution it passes...the only bite is the U.S. and the U.K....and what other smaller countries wish to participate militarily.
WELL THAT'S ALL RIGHT THEN ISN'T IT! ^o)

They lied, and fabricated documents. I can't wait until they are dealt a bullet to the head!
Reply

Cognescenti
01-28-2008, 11:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by krypton6
Yes yes, I'm not saying that the current iraqi government is yet another puppet of america. The shias dont like americans, believe it or not! They just see this as their chance to turn Iraq into a shia regime much like Iran.

But you seriusly cannot call this a real election after knowing what kind of election it in fact was.

I just wanted to point out that the current government was in fact not elected by Iraq as a whole, but instead only by the shias.

Its also from here that people claim Iraq to be more shia than sunni, when in fact adding kurds to sunnis will make a nearly 57% sunni porpulation, vs 40% shia and 3% assyrian and others.
Nobody knows exactly what the numbers are. It is the middle of a war and the Hussein regime had an incentive to boost figures on the number of Sunnis because they were oppressing the Shia(understatement of the year).

Besides, if you think the Kurds are going to side with Arab Sunnis after Saddam's extermination program you are seriously deluded.
Reply

krypton6
01-29-2008, 11:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
It is the middle of a war and the Hussein regime had an incentive to boost figures on the number of Sunnis because they were oppressing the Shia(understatement of the year).

Besides, if you think the Kurds are going to side with Arab Sunnis after Saddam's extermination program you are seriously deluded.
Well in fact Saddam opressed shias just as much as he opressed sunnis and kurds.

Shias hate Saddam because he executed many shia leaders after having bin nearly assasinated by many of them in many occasaions. They hate him because he forbidded a shia ritual of which he found very disturbing, which you cant really blaim him for. We are talking about the hitting ritual where streets are filled with blood, Saddam did not allow that to happend and that made millions of shias angry at him.

But it is incorrect to say that he opressed shias more than sunni's and kurds.
He opressed them all just as much, executed them all just as much and tortured them all just as much, Saddam treated everybody equally even his own family!

Regarding kurds they have the full right to not want to have anything to do with Iraq. Kurds want their own country, they are kurds and they have a history going many thousand years back. They want their own country, Saddam gave them their own lands and he recognized kurds, he gave them more rights than what any other leader of any nation has ever given kurds.
But he wouldnt give Iraq to them, now after Saddam the kurds suddenly got this new opputunity to create a kurdish nation. I respect that but it is wrong of them to just fully give up on arabs and never talk to them again, now when america moves out of Iraq, the kurds will be left alone fighting arabs from south and turks from north. Nor should they ever have just given their souls to america as if america is going to give them the land that they so much want. They betrayed the arabs in order to strenghten their own nation, the iraqi sunnis will hid hard back on them when america is gone. The kurds will save their own lives by supporting the sunni iraqi's, but they dont look at what's on their way they only look at what they have now and want now, a bit childish and stupid sadely.


But lemme repeat for the last time that Saddam did not opress shias more than kurds and sunni's, he opressed them all equally.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
02-01-2008, 07:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by krypton6
But you seriusly cannot call this a real election after knowing what kind of election it in fact was.
I saw that too, a break down of Shia vs Sunni vs others - which is why I didn't like the idea of a democracy in Iraq. In America it works because no one really cares about religion - it's not a major factor. But in a country where there is no separation of church and state (none worth mentioning), and there are so many religious disputes, it's an enormous factor! And of course the Shia would win the election because democracy is just like that - it's a game of numbers... and the Shia had all the numbers they needed. The so-called "election" wasn't even needed.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-27-2014, 12:35 AM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-07-2011, 11:52 AM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-25-2009, 02:43 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 05:54 AM
  5. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 04-03-2007, 12:16 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!