[tomder55]

Our troops are NOT preventing a re-engagement of that war. Same thing in Germany... Troops left in Iraq, however, WOULD be preventing a war - a war that is going to happen WHENEVER we leave,

Exactly . Troops left in Germany were left there to prevent a war that would've happened when we left. That issue wasn't resolved until 1989 . Japan could've asked us to leave any time . We stuck around in a security arrangement with our allies the Japanese to secure them from the theat of communist neighbors. Why are we still in Korea ? The same reason.
Sorry , don't see the difference.

[smoothy]

Iraq was a dumb war instituted by the dumbest President ever to take office in america, so don't try to justify it. Wrap up your paranoia and do what George H W Bush did and leave the muslims to work it out for themselves.

The dumbest President ever to take office in the USA is currently in office (Barrak Obama) he's even too ashamed of his college transcripts to produce them... the second dumbest president was Jimmy Carter...

[smearcase]

What about the Iraqi demand that US troops would have no immunity from Iraqi law? That requirement had no impact on the decision to withdraw?

[tomder55]

They made a similar "demand " in 2008 . It was negotiable then and it was now .

Face it . The President had to have a least one of his campaign promises fulfilled .
Since the agreement expired gave a pull out date of 12/31/11 then it was easy for him . All he had to do was make a show of an attempt to renegotiate to keep the Generals happy ,and put Panetta into Sec Def .

[TUT317]

The dumbest President ever to take office in the USA is currently in office (Barrak Obama) he's even too ashamed of his college transcripts to produce them......the second dumbest president was Jimmy Carter....

Hi smoothy,

I think that is a misunderestimation.


Tut

[smearcase]

It was certainly portrayed a lot differently at the time, but I won't defend his negotiating skills which are pretty much non-existent. His opponents must like his negotiations pretty well. They all seem to have broad smiles when they leave the room.

[paraclete]

They made a simular "demand " in 2008 . It was negotiable then and it was now .

.

Tom do you realise how arrogant that statement is? Iraq is a soveriegn country invaded by the US. They have every right to ask america to remove their troops. The need for those troops has past and obviously the Iraqi government had reached a stage where the american presence is not tolerable. You might wonder why such wonderful people would be asked to leave? It's cultural, your culture is offensive to the Iraqi. This is something you fail to understand, your culture is offensive to many peoples in this world but no more so than to muslims.

[tomder55]

Domestic politics in Iraq required some kind of concession on the issue . The President of course made it publicly clear that troops remaining without immunity was unacceptable... and he is right on that count.
Still there was room for negotiations . For one thing ; as I stated earlier there will be troops left who will be under the State Dept control. By extension ;these troops will enjoy the immunity that we sought. The problem is that there are just not enough to do what is still needed there from us.
But who said that the force being left behind had to be the numbers we are leaving ?

Maliki was in favor of up to 20,000 US troops remaining but there were domestic political issues he had to deal with .Specifically it involved a separate deal he was working out with former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who was trying to tie the negotiations to other concessions from Maliki .

It would've been a small matter to take the size of the force out of the negotiations with the Parliament and have an agreement directly with the Iraqi Foreign Minister over the number of troops allowed to be assigned to the State Dept. especially if the force level was going to be in the 5-10,000 range.

For that matter it still would be doable if that was the President's goal . I for one do not believe the line in the news that this was a simple botched negotiation. This was in fact the stated goal of the President .

Clete ;you're not hearing me.. They wanted us to stay.The only reason troop immunity could've been negotiable was if there were ongoing negotiations in the 1st place to have US troops stay.

[paraclete]

Why should your troops be a law unto themselves Tom. The laws in that country are very different to the US. Immunity from prosecution is B/S

[tomder55]

Go tell that to every diplomatic attachment in every country in the world . There is no reason to have a Status of Force Agreement if terms like immunity are not part of the deal .

The SOFA is intended to clarify the terms under which the foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, purely military operational issues such as the locations of bases and access to facilities are covered by separate agreements. The SOFA is more concerned with the legal issues associated with military individuals and property. This may include issues like entry and exit into the country, tax liabilities, postal services, or employment terms for host-country nationals, but the most contentious issues are civil and criminal jurisdiction over bases and personnel. For civil matters, SOFAs provide for how civil damages caused by the forces will be determined and paid. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts will have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a servicemember against another servicemember or by a servicemember as part of his or her military duty, but the host nation retains jurisdiction over other crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement
Your troops in East Timor have such a deal ;as they should.

[paraclete]

We did not invade East Timor

[talaniman]

The hell with all the politics, the boys are glad to be back, so they can really see what they have risked their lives for.

Wonder if the wingers will call them lazy if they can't get a job? Ya think the "job creators" can at least do that?

One war over, one more to go, unless the righties get there way, and get us in IRAN, or some other conflict. But I can see why they rather fight whoever, because they are scared of everybody that doesn't like the pie they are cooking.

[paraclete]

Tal I think you are right there are some people who just can't make money without a war going on. You don't want to fight Iran, you don't want to fight NK. Those a fanatical people which means the only answer is to nuke them and we don't want to do that

[talaniman]

We don't have to nuke 'em, we can leave them alone. If they like repression, poverty, and subjugation, let 'em have it.

They want to throw rocks, we throw them two. Talk is cheap, so why get excited over the rhetoric. Starting a war over a robot toy is as insane as the guy next door not returning your ball.

Telling Iraq how they deal with their neighbors is even more insane. Now if they ask for help with some unruly neighbors, that's something else all together.

[tomder55]

Telling Iraq how they deal with their neighbors is even more insane. Now if they ask for help with some unruly neighbors, that's something else all together.
__________________

With the current Adm I expect that will be like the Czechs asking England and France for help against Germany 1938 .

All over Iraq the one thing they have in common is the belief that the US just abandoned them .

[talaniman]

Doesn't matter what the population may, or may not be thinking, it's the sovereign government that makes the call. They have their future in their own hands and that's what the whole thing was about wasn't it.

It's their call, and they made it, and the bureaucratic hawks, and politicians can live with it. They have no choice, and the rest is just talk.

Leave it to the right wing to think they can control everything all over the world.

[tomder55]

It is very clear that it was the President who sabotaged negotiations . It was not because the leaders of Iraq didn't want us there... they did .
Obama had no intention of extending the SOFA because this was one campaign promise that he was determined to honor ,regardless of the consequences.

We left a job undone there in 1990 ;and we had to go back. With this decision I predict we will be back again .

[talaniman]

They wanted us there under their terms, not ours, so best leave them to live with their decision, and if they invite us back, then we can reassess the situation.

Never know what happens next. Maybe they don't like Iran, or China, or whomever else they deal with in the future. I don't believe in losing sleep over what ifs, or ruining more of the lives of our youth on a stupid political position.

Let the Iraqis build their own country, at their own expense, at their own pace and peril. Let them make their own decisions and pay their own consequences. Its easier to balance a budget, heal a nation, without fighting someone else's battles.

[paraclete]

It's called isolationism Tal but a good policy you stay on your side of the fence and I'll stay on mine

[tomder55]

That way the rest of the world can be dominated in peace without our interference. That worked so well for us in 1914-17 ;and 1939-1942.