Iraqi Cabinet approves security pact with US

[GregD]

Source: AP

Iraq's Cabinet on Sunday approved a security pact with the United States that will allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three years after their U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year, the government said.

>>>>>>>>>

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said all but one of the 28 Cabinet ministers present in Sunday's meeting, in addition to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, voted in favor of the pact by a show of hands.

The Cabinet has 37 members and it was not immediately clear why some ministers stayed away. Several of them were believed to be traveling abroad.
Al-Dabbagh said the agreement will be submitted to parliament later Sunday, but did not say when the 275-member legislature will vote on the document.

Read more: Iraqi Cabinet approves security pact with US

---

Ughh. As Letterman suggested, can't we just get started a little early?

[LynnTheDem]

1. Al Sadr has his troops ready, after he calls an end to his ceasefire.

Another "surge" coming soon.

[GregD]

2. Check out this bit in there

Followers of Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr protested Sunday's vote.

"This agreement hands Iraq over (to the United States) on a golden platter and for an indefinite period," said Ahmed al-Massoudi, spokesman for the 30-seat Sadrist bloc in parliament.

[ohio2007]

3. When the Iraqi's head to the polls, we will see how much influence the ex pat living in Iran has

in retaining the 30 seats that he holds in Parliament. Wonder if he will order his 30 members to boycott the upcoming Parliament vote, whenever they decide to sit down and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004331470_apiraqisolatingthesadrists.html?syndication=rss



Does he think his power base is increasing while living in an increasing unstable Iran ?


http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4AF1E620081116?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

[acmavm]

8. Amazing that after the continual failure of the occupation that these fools

would extend it for three more years into the future.

What's crazy is that even though THIS country is apparently full of idiots who think we're really doing something positive with the continued occupation, that these bastards would try to bluff the rest of the world into thinking that we can still accomplish something there. (I know, I know, the only thing we ever intended was to invade and take over the oil fields. The bush** cabal thought they could just walk in and take over. They still refuse to give up their grandiose schemes, they just keep repackaging it as each 'new' tactic fails.)Well it is now obvious that the occupation is a failure. And they're still shoveling the same propaganda down the world's throats.

What allies do we have left? What justification do we have, isn't Saddam gone? What can we accomplish over there with our continued occupation? Do they think the Iraqis will all of a sudden jump on the bandwagon and start throwing flowers and singing songs of praise for America and the occupation of their land? Why would they assume President Obama will go along with their plans?

Or do they think that they've worn out the resistance and they can take over all the oil fields now with no resistance? That we've murdered enough of the male population that it'll be easy sailing from here on out? To our eternal shame we've carried out a program of genocide against the Iraqi people.

Whatever the new plan is what we first need to do is to send over every last person of servicable age in the bush**, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice, etc., families. Even the playing field a bit. Put the lives a few kids of the 'aristocracy' on the line. See how they like it. Suit up Mary and Liz Cheney first of all. Give them defective body armor, put 'em in a tank, and turn 'em loose.

[ShortnFiery]

11. This is going to be interesting ...

interesting = :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[dipsydoodle]

4. You forgot to include a link

Apart form that here's a BBC one : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7731971.stm

It makes it clear that this has yet to be voted on and :

* placing US forces in Iraq under the authority of the Iraqi government
* US forces to leave the streets of Iraq's towns and villages by the middle of 2009
* US forces to hand over their bases to Iraq during the course of 2009
* US forces to lose the authority to raid Iraqi homes without an order from an Iraqi judge and permission of the government.

The June 2009 exit from towns and villages covers Mr Obama's promised to draw down in 6 months form taking office.

[dmosh42]

5. I would think this needs a congressional vote....

and why would we want our troops under Iraqi laws and control? More "Bush" bullshit!

[dipsydoodle]

6. It's like it

or lump it because if there is no agreement by December you lose the right to be there at all - period.

[GregD]

7. Sorry, here's the link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq

The posting form requests it so I forgot to add it to the text as well.

[still_one]

9. So through the current administration, THEY negotiated 3 more years. What a bunch of bullshit

It wasn't that long ago where they were saying they wanted us out within a year, so there is no doubt in my mind that this was forced upon them, but worse than that, the bush administration is committing our troops to be there for another three years.

This is insanity, and I suspect there objective is what it has always been, to control the Iraqi oil

Hopefully, Obama will get us out sooner

That was his promise

[dipsydoodle]

10. See #4 above

The US has got to hand its bases over to the Iraqi's during 2009 - the USA may not want be there when that's happened.

You, not you literally, started this crock of shit - now deal with it.

[still_one]

12. Thanks /nt