- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
This was on the first page of P&N, yet you started a new thread. Why?
Senior Anandtech moderator
Common Courtesy
============================================
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Iraqi PM says security talks with US deadlocked
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared Friday that talks with the U.S. on a new security agreement were deadlocked, as Sunni and Shiite preachers spoke out against the deal that would enable American troops to remain in Iraq after year's end.
Al-Maliki said negotiations will continue, but his tough talk reflects Iraqi determination to win greater control of U.S. military operations after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
His comments, made during a visit to Amman, Jordan, echo those of other leading Iraqi politicians, who have complained that U.S. proposals would give the Americans too much power over political, economic and military affairs and infringe on Iraqi sovereignty.
"The first drafts presented left us at a dead end and deadlock," al-Maliki said. "So, we abandoned these first drafts. The negotiations will continue with new ideas until the sides reach a formula that preserves Iraq's sovereignty."
The agreement would establish a long-term security relationship between the United States and Iraq and provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires.
Failure to strike a deal would be a major setback for President Bush ahead of the November presidential election and at a time when Democrats are calling for an end to the unpopular war.
U.S. negotiators offered new proposals this week in hopes of assuaging Iraqi anger and finalizing the deal by the July target date.
But some Iraqi lawmakers familiar with the negotiations say the American proposals still fall short of Iraqi demands. Al-Maliki promised that the agreement would be submitted to Iraq's parliament for final approval.
"Any agreement that infringes on Iraq's sovereignty and its components will be dismissed and will not be acceptable," al-Maliki said. "Iraqi politicians are aware of the importance of sovereignty."
Let me get this straight. Bush has said over and over again that Iraq is now a soveriegn nation. So why are there "negotiations"? Seems to me, if the Iraqis are "asking" for our help then they can set the terms. We can either choose to help them or not.
Wasn't this one of the biggest "benchmarks" in the surge plan?
It also seems the Iraqis are using the upcoming US elections as leverage. I think they are understanding how democracy works, American democracy,at least.
Clearly the Bushies will do anything to get an agreement before the election. I wonder how much they will bend?
Senior Anandtech moderator
Common Courtesy
============================================
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Iraqi PM says security talks with US deadlocked
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared Friday that talks with the U.S. on a new security agreement were deadlocked, as Sunni and Shiite preachers spoke out against the deal that would enable American troops to remain in Iraq after year's end.
Al-Maliki said negotiations will continue, but his tough talk reflects Iraqi determination to win greater control of U.S. military operations after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
His comments, made during a visit to Amman, Jordan, echo those of other leading Iraqi politicians, who have complained that U.S. proposals would give the Americans too much power over political, economic and military affairs and infringe on Iraqi sovereignty.
"The first drafts presented left us at a dead end and deadlock," al-Maliki said. "So, we abandoned these first drafts. The negotiations will continue with new ideas until the sides reach a formula that preserves Iraq's sovereignty."
The agreement would establish a long-term security relationship between the United States and Iraq and provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires.
Failure to strike a deal would be a major setback for President Bush ahead of the November presidential election and at a time when Democrats are calling for an end to the unpopular war.
U.S. negotiators offered new proposals this week in hopes of assuaging Iraqi anger and finalizing the deal by the July target date.
But some Iraqi lawmakers familiar with the negotiations say the American proposals still fall short of Iraqi demands. Al-Maliki promised that the agreement would be submitted to Iraq's parliament for final approval.
"Any agreement that infringes on Iraq's sovereignty and its components will be dismissed and will not be acceptable," al-Maliki said. "Iraqi politicians are aware of the importance of sovereignty."
Let me get this straight. Bush has said over and over again that Iraq is now a soveriegn nation. So why are there "negotiations"? Seems to me, if the Iraqis are "asking" for our help then they can set the terms. We can either choose to help them or not.
Wasn't this one of the biggest "benchmarks" in the surge plan?
It also seems the Iraqis are using the upcoming US elections as leverage. I think they are understanding how democracy works, American democracy,at least.
Clearly the Bushies will do anything to get an agreement before the election. I wonder how much they will bend?
Facebook
Twitter