Bush's proposed treaty with Iraq

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Link

Supposedly, Bush and Cheney are pushing hard for this to be passed before the elections, so they can declare "victory", as well as handicap any future president *cough* Obama *cough* from being able to leave.

Some key points of this so-called treaty:

- 50 US bases throughout Iraq
- Total Immunity for all US military and contractors from Iraqi law
- Total control over all Iraqi airspace
- Ability to arrest/detain any Iraqi without consulting or interference from the Iraqi government
- Ability to conduct any/all military ops without consulting or approval form the Iraqi government.

Sounds like a colony of ours, not a sovereign nation to me.

On how Bush is still playing politics:
But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

And for the "no shit" obvious comment:

Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

Just another ploy by Bush and Cheney to screw everyone over
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
One rather obvioius problem is we do not have enough troops to keep this action up. Without an immediate increase in troop levels there is no way to maintain the current numbers of our fighting force in Iraq. Soldiers are not going to want to have back to back tours in a muslim country for the next 20-50 years.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I've heard they are desperate to get some closure here before the election and Iraqis feel it is rushed.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
One rather obvioius problem is we do not have enough troops to keep this action up. Without an immediate increase in troop levels there is no way to maintain the current numbers of our fighting force in Iraq. Soldiers are not going to want to have back to back tours in a muslim country for the next 20-50 years.

We are drawing down troops now. I don't think we are ultimately going to see much more troops based in Iraq than we currently have in Germany or South Korea when all is said and done.

A spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq on Wednesday said that a further withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is on the cards, reiterating his country's assertions that negotiations with Iraq on the long-term security agreement are moving forward.

"Four of the five brigades, which were added to the Multi-National Force (MNF) in Iraq in June 2007, have pulled out. In July 2008, the remaining brigade, along with two Marine battalions, will follow suit," General Kevin Bergner said during a Baghdad-based press conference today.

Bergner said that a further troop withdrawal will be possible after commanders submit their reports about the progress of the security situation to the top commander.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
- 50 US bases throughout Iraq
- Total Immunity for all US military and contractors from Iraqi law
- Total control over all Iraqi airspace
- Ability to arrest/detain any Iraqi without consulting or interference from the Iraqi government
- Ability to conduct any/all military ops without consulting or approval form the Iraqi government.

Sounds like a colony of ours, not a sovereign nation to me.

Yeah, the Iraqi people will love that. :roll:
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,905
2
76
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Link

Supposedly, Bush and Cheney are pushing hard for this to be passed before the elections, so they can declare "victory", as well as handicap any future president *cough* Obama *cough* from being able to leave.

Some key points of this so-called treaty:

- 50 US bases throughout Iraq
- Total Immunity for all US military and contractors from Iraqi law
- Total control over all Iraqi airspace
- Ability to arrest/detain any Iraqi without consulting or interference from the Iraqi government
- Ability to conduct any/all military ops without consulting or approval form the Iraqi government.

Sounds like a colony of ours, not a sovereign nation to me.

what? where's the clause for my cheap Iraqi oil??? Isn't that why we went there in the first place? for oil? I want my Cheap Iraqi oil!
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,072
1,476
126
If a treaty like this goes into place, there will be NO security in Iraq. The attacks will increase significatly and I wouldn't be surprised if we get hit with another home soil attack.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
What a terrible idea. I am by no means a Bush a supporter, but if someone said to me a week ago that we was going to present this treaty to Iraq I would never have believed it thinking that even Bush is smarter than that. I didn't think there was anything else Bush could do which would drop my jaw even further than it already has but he managed to do it.
 

SlingXShot

Senior member
Jan 7, 2004
248
0
0
Obama would be so much against this.. it goes everything what he stands for. And what US stands for, freedom.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,476
4,549
136
Typical Bush & Co. incompetence. Not one mention about us getting to keep all the oil.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
We forget, GWB can draft a treaty, but it has zero force unless the US Senate ratifies it. And anyone who thinks the do nothing Iraqi government is going to buy it, they are probably nuttier than fruitcakes.

But its vintage GWB, he is still trying to make his tax cuts for the very rich permanent with equal success. Almost everyone will be very happy come 1/20/2009, when the grand sweep of history fickle finger of fate, pushes the flush lever on the toilet of the GWB Presidency, and with a swirl and maybe a final glug, GWB&co will go down the toilet taking a bunch of other turds with it.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But its vintage GWB, he is still trying to make his tax cuts for the very rich permanent with equal success. Almost everyone will be very happy come 1/20/2009, when the grand sweep of history fickle finger of fate, pushes the flush lever on the toilet of the GWB Presidency, and with a swirl and maybe a final glug, GWB&co will go down the toilet taking a bunch of other turds with it.

*wipes away a single tear*

That was beautiful...
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But its vintage GWB, he is still trying to make his tax cuts for the very rich permanent with equal success. Almost everyone will be very happy come 1/20/2009, when the grand sweep of history fickle finger of fate, pushes the flush lever on the toilet of the GWB Presidency, and with a swirl and maybe a final glug, GWB&co will go down the toilet taking a bunch of other turds with it.

*wipes away a single tear*

That was beautiful...

Yes that was outstanding!
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,533
6,968
136
Originally posted by: Lemon law
We forget, GWB can draft a treaty, but it has zero force unless the US Senate ratifies it. And anyone who thinks the do nothing Iraqi government is going to buy it, they are probably nuttier than fruitcakes.

But its vintage GWB, he is still trying to make his tax cuts for the very rich permanent with equal success. Almost everyone will be very happy come 1/20/2009, when the grand sweep of history fickle finger of fate, pushes the flush lever on the toilet of the GWB Presidency, and with a swirl and maybe a final glug, GWB&co will go down the toilet taking a bunch of other turds with it.

so it is written, so let it be done. amen.

 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,676
2,429
126
This is hardly a secret, it has been publically discussed for months. And GWB is not seeking a treaty-as mentioned above that would need Senate approval, of which there is zero chance. Instead GWB is trying to inflate the concept of an executive agreement, which basically is a document signed by the President and the other country, usually spelling out relatively minor, routine matters-when and where ships can dock, etc. These agreements are not binding upon succeeding presidents but have been usually followed.

Frankly, the Iraqis better not put much faith in any such agreement GWB signs with them. It won't be worth the paper it's written on.

I don't think he would be doing McCain much help by entering into such an agreement, it would probably cause a voter backlash.

This is similar to the Presidential findings GWB has been so fond of, where he totally contradicts legislation in the guise of interpreting it.