Iraq says may agree to timetable for U.S. withdrawal

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
By Dean Yates and Ahmed Rasheed
Mon Jul 7, 10:54 AM ET



Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.

It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage.

The security deal under negotiation will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31.

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

"One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time."

Maliki was responding to questions from the ambassadors about the security negotiations with the United States. The exchange was shown on Iraqiya state television.

U.S. officials in Baghdad had no immediate comment. Last month Maliki caught Washington off guard when he said talks on the security deal were at a "dead end" after he complained Iraq's sovereignty was being infringed by U.S. demands.

Both sides later said progress was being made.

Maliki said the Iraqi and U.S. positions had gotten closer, but added "we cannot talk about reaching an agreement yet."

He said foreign forces would need Iraqi permission for many of their activities once the U.N. mandate ended.

"This means the phenomena of unilateral detention will be over, as well as unilateral operations and immunity," he said.

Maliki did not clarify who the immunity referred to.

Officials have said contractors working for the U.S. government would lose immunity from Iraqi law, but Washington is highly unlikely to let the same thing happen to U.S. solders.

MALIKI WOOS ARAB STATES

Maliki, dismissed as weak and ineffective for most of his tenure since taking over as prime minister in May 2006, has been increasingly assertive in recent months.

He has launched crackdowns on Shi'ite militias and also al Qaeda, with U.S. forces playing a mainly supporting role.

He has also called on Arab states to re-engage with Iraq.

Sunni Arab countries have long been reluctant to extend full legitimacy to the Iraqi government because of the U.S. presence, as well as Baghdad's close ties to non-Arab, Shi'ite Iran.

But Arab ties have begun to improve.

The United Arab Emirates has cancelled almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, officials said on Sunday. And Jordan's King Abdullah is expected to visit Baghdad this week, the first Arab leader to do so since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Maliki did not specifically refer to the 150,000 American troops in Iraq, but they comprise the vast bulk of foreign forces in the country.

He indicated the memorandum of understanding would be used instead of the formal Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) being negotiated. The MoU could be a stop-gap measure given some of the difficulties getting a full SOFA deal in place.

Iraqi officials had said they would submit any SOFA to parliament, where it might be subject to long and bitter debate.

Maliki has long come under pressure from the movement of powerful Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Sadr's movement quit Maliki's government last year when the prime minister refused to do so.

Luwaa Sumaisem, head of the Sadr bloc's political committee, welcomed Maliki's comments on possibly setting a timetable.

"This is a step in the right direction and we are ready to support him in this objective. We hope Maliki will show seriousness about it," Sumaisem said, without saying if the movement might then consider rejoining the government.

Washington and Baghdad are also negotiating a separate long-term agreement on political, economic and security ties.

After five years in Iraq, the Bush administration had set an end-July target for wrapping up the negotiations. Some Iraqi officials had questioned whether the deadline could be met.

(Additional reporting by Ahmed Rasheed and Tim Cocks in Baghdad and Lin Noueihed in Abu Dhabi, Editing by Stephen Weeks)
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
that's great if it happens but i won't hold my breath. they also can repay us in oil....but again i won't hold my breath..
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
214
63
"the bunker"
repay us?

Are you even kidding?

Repay us for WHAT?

are you serious?.....pains me to say this,but that could be the dumbest thing i`ve ever heard in this forum in a good while(spy and spongy excluded,of course)...


for throwing the yoke of saddam off the country....and giving them the opportunity to profit from their own natural resources...for all ethnicities to share in the oil wealth .......to run their own country...to have elections...

to not have one minority continue to run roughshod over the vast majority.....

i`m sure you think south africa`s liberation was a good idea...why not iraq?....

because it`s based on skin color and not ethnicity?.....

wake up,man...
 
Last edited:

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
Weasy, how much of what you posted above do you actually believe will come to pass (other than "the yoke of Saddam" thing)?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
i`m sure you think south africa`s liberation was a good idea...why not iraq?....

because it`s based on skin color and not ethnicity?.....

wake up,man...

Yeah, Kosar - wake up! Look at South Africa, for christ's sakes.:shrug: Iraqis OWE us big time, cuz ....well...look at South Africa!:mj17:
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
are you serious?.....pains me to say this,but that could be the dumbest thing i`ve ever heard in this forum in a good while(spy and spongy excluded,of course)...


for throwing the yoke of saddam off the country....and giving them the opportunity to profit from their own natural resources...for all ethnicities to share in the oil wealth .......to run their own country...to have elections...

to not have one minority continue to run roughshod over the vast majority.....

i`m sure you think south africa`s liberation was a good idea...why not iraq?....

because it`s based on skin color and not ethnicity?.....

wake up,man...

No this would be the dumbest thing ever said. You still don't get that we went over there for oil do ya? You are the last remaining idiot on the face of this planet who actually thinks we were over there fighting for their freedom. My Goodness
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
214
63
"the bunker"
he wasn`t one of the most oppressive rulers?....not only was he oppressing the large majority of the iraqi people,but he was siphoning off oil money and the aid that was meant for the iraqi people....and using it to line the pockets of himself and his family....

he and his sons were monsters...

actually,much more brutal than white south africa....not even close...

nobody gets the analogy of the minority oppressing a majority?...

does it have to be "color" with liberals?...

the minority sunnis were oppressing the majority(the shiites and the kurds and other groups)....

it was o.k. to bomb bosnia back into the stone age?...right?.....

QUOTE=The Sponge;2062343]No this would be the dumbest thing ever said. You still don't get that we went over there for oil do ya? [/QUOTE]



oh..i forgot...it`s only o.k. to fight for the oppressed when our own national interests AREN`T involved......

sorry...i forgot the rules...
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
saddam_rummy.jpg


yeah GW...we went in for humanitarian reasons. It was because Bush cares about human rights. It would be absurd for me to make an argument here. Pointless. I know you do hate to read, but you really should read about the history of the US and Saddam. It is sadly comical that you think we invaded and are now occupying Iraq out of moral concern. Tragically naive, but hey, just keep "supporting the troops" and acquiescing every right and freedom that our forefathers died for. It is possible, just maybe, that you really don't understand wtf is happening and that your favorite patriots are actually war profiteering traitors that could give a shit less about the US. It is possible that they are snowing you with blind "patriotism" while bankrupting the US in the interest of multi-nationals that could give a shit less about the US. Haliburton takes billions and billions, wastes it on non-bid contracts, moves to Dubai, and yet you still wave the flag for them. It really is sad.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
actually,much more brutal than white south africa....not even close...
.

Because you have personal experiences in South Africa, I'm sure. Just like when you saw them taking down the English flags outside of the 'Bulldog and Rose' in Leeds or wherever for fear of Muslims, you also experienced the gentle leadership of Apartheid.

I doubt Stephen Beko would make that statement. Yeah, Saddam was probably worse than White South Africa.:shrug: I suppose. Probably general agreement there ...but what the hell is the point? What's the comparison? What's with you and this sudden South Africa kick?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
are you serious?.....pains me to say this,but that could be the dumbest thing i`ve ever heard in this forum in a good while(spy and spongy excluded,of course)...


for throwing the yoke of saddam off the country....and giving them the opportunity to profit from their own natural resources...for all ethnicities to share in the oil wealth .......to run their own country...to have elections...

to not have one minority continue to run roughshod over the vast majority.....

i`m sure you think south africa`s liberation was a good idea...why not iraq?....

because it`s based on skin color and not ethnicity?.....

wake up,man...

It 'pains' you, huh?

Once we leave, we'll see exactly how much better off that country is. Or probably better put, we'll see what the next dictator brings to the table, because that's the only possible way that country will ever be stable without our 'help.'

We've killed tens of thousands of civilians. There is no disputing that, other than those claiming 100k and more.

These are real people with real families. It seems that people like you go back and forth about whether you care about said people depending on the debate.

You started caring about these folks when W told you to in the lead up to the ,uh, war.

It's weird how things change.

Think about it, if possible.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,492
255
83
Victory Lane
It 'pains' you, huh?

Once we leave, we'll see exactly how much better off that country is. Or probably better put, we'll see what the next dictator brings to the table, because that's the only possible way that country will ever be stable without our 'help.'
..............................................................

Lets face facts. Al Sadr will be back in the saddle in two shakes of a little lambs tail. After he leaves Iran and parades through downtown Bahgdad with his henchmen, cuts off a few goverment leaders heads. Then what.

All for naught. All the deaths, all the money , all the freedom down the tubes.

I got news for you fellows. We are not leaving. And I dont give a chit who is elected President.

We NEED that oil .

We will maintain military and respond when necessary to keep Iraq free.

Iraq and the US are doing what Iran is doing with their nuke progam. Stalling. Al Sadr is sitting over in Iran thinking , OK just until December. Then Dec comes and the US and Iraq make a permenant agreement , before Bush is out of office of course.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,492
255
83
Victory Lane
Muqtada is far from impressive in person. His unpolished speech and youth (it has been widely speculated that he is younger than his putative age of about 32) have led American officials to consistently underestimate him. But Muqtada has drawn on his impeccable family pedigree and his fiery anti-Americanism to build vast popular support -- and he has proved much more clever than his enemies expected.

I first met Muqtada in May 2003 in his barani, or office, in a Najaf alley, across a shop where his and his father's sermons were sold on CD and one could buy watches with the Sadr family members depicted on the face. Unlike other clerics in Najaf, who speak classical Arabic, Muqtada speaks in a strong colloquial slang. He seemed cocky. He disparaged Shiite exile leaders who had been based in Iran and had not suffered with the Iraqis, singling out the SCIRI for particular disdain. Muqtada expressed only contempt for the Americans who had so recently rid his people of Saddam, and resentment of Iran, which had done nothing to help Iraq's Shiites. "I am not afraid," he said, "I wish to be a martyr and I don't fear death." I was struck by how awkward Muqtada looked and how ill-experienced he was for a man so popular that throughout Shiite neighborhoods he was known only by his first name, a tribute no other Iraqi leader received. I wondered, as I do to this day, if there was some other brain behind his operation. His young, unctuous associates seemed too smug, as if they already knew Iraq was theirs.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,492
255
83
Victory Lane
Muqtada al-Sadr derives his power from his family connections. He is the scion of the revolutionary Sadr family, one of the most illustrious religious names in Iraq. His great-uncle, Muhammad Bakr Sadr, was the most important Shiite theologian of the 20th century, writing about economics, politics and philosophy as well. Bakr Sadr led the Dawa Party, an underground movement whose members were decimated by the Baath Party. In 1980, after Bakr Sadr declared Baath Party membership forbidden, he was arrested with his sister, forced to watch her raped and executed, and then executed himself by having nails driven into his head. He became known as the First Martyr.

Bakr Sadr's nephew (and Muqtada's father), Ayatollah Muhamad Sadiq Sadr, envisioned himself as the wali al am, or general leader, of the clergy, a position above all others, including the top clerics in Iran. He aspired to lead world Shiism and head an Islamic government in Iraq. In 1998, when Saddam Hussein relaxed restrictions on the Friday khutba, or sermon, Sadiq Sadr began preaching at the Kufa mosque outside Najaf. His 47 very influential sermons reached all Iraqi Shiites. He was particularly obsessed with the coming of the Mahdi, or Shiite messiah, the 12th leader of the Shiite community who disappeared into an occult realm and whose return is eagerly awaited by Shiites.

Muhamad Sadiq Sadr may have looked like an avuncular Santa Claus, but he regularly damned as infidels those who disagreed with him, and hung up lists of the damned in his office. (Many on the lists were accused of homosexuality.) Sadr outraged the Shiite establishment in Najaf's hawza, or seminary, by denouncing the other leading ayatollahs who were not of Iraqi origin. Saddam's regime promoted Sadr as a homegrown alternative to non-Iraqi clerics, especially those originating from Iran. In 1999 Muhamad Sadiq Sadr became the Second Martyr after he and two of his sons were killed when their car was riddled with bullets. Although Shiites blamed it on the regime, it is likely that rival clerics in the hawza were responsible for the assassination.

Muqtada moved quickly to establish his power base after Saddam fell. Posters of the First and Second Sadr martyrs appeared throughout Iraq's Shiite areas, symbolizing the new order. The downtrodden masses of Iraq, the Shiite "mustad'afeen," as the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iraq had called them, were in power for the first time since the 7th century, when the Sunnis had begun ruling over them. Muqtada's father, the Second Martyr, had built an impressive network of mosques and social services around the country, controlled by his former students, and Muqtada capitalized on this network, dispatching young clerics around the country to seize mosques, hospitals, clinics, and looted goods, and to provide security and social services. His men soon gained control of the Baghdad slums known as Saddam City, where up to 3 million Shiites lived. Built in the '50s to house Shiite migrants from the south, it was originally called Madinat Athawra, or Revolution City, and was a bastion of the Iraq Communist Party. Signs and graffiti proclaimed Saddam City's new name: Sadr City. (Part of the reason for Muqtada's support for a centralized Iraq may be because he has so much support in Baghdad.)

There was a nearly messianic euphoria among Iraq's Shiites, many of whom viewed the Mahdi's arrival as imminent. Among Muqtada Sadr's followers it was common to hear the view that the U.S. Army had come to kill the Mahdi, but that the Mahdi would kill all the Americans -- and all the Jews too, for good measure.

The Shiite leadership followed the Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who counseled the faithful to bide their time and not resist the American occupation. But Muqtada remained defiant. Rejected for a post in the Iraqi Governing Council established by American proconsul Paul Bremer, he seized the role of spoiler, condemning the occupation and the IGC and establishing his Mahdi army, allegedly to protect Shiites. Muqtada became a rallying point for Iraqi nationalism. In August 2003, when an American helicopter tried to remove a Shiite flag in Sadr City, enraged followers of Muqtada rioted, convinced that America was the enemy of Iraq and Islam.

From the start, Muqtada has supported the Sunni-led Iraqi insurgency, with the exception of the foreign Arab-dominated Zarqawi movement that finds Shiites anathema. As the insurgency spread, Muqtada established a close working relationship with radical Sunni movements, especially the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), a neo-Baathist movement of Sunni clerics. The AMS controlled one of Iraq's most important indigenous resistance groups, the 1920 Revolution Battalions, named for the rebellion against the British occupation, and AMS scholars routinely sermonized in support of the resistance. Muqtada's clerics held joint prayer sessions with them, and in the fateful spring of 2004, when Fallujah rose up against the Americans, followed by an uprising of Shiites in the south, Shiite followers of Muqtada helped their Sunni brethren and benefited from aid and arms sent at the behest of the AMS.

Muqtada fought the Americans once more in the summer of 2004. Though American forces swore to arrest or kill him, Muqtada survived and even indirectly fielded candidates in the January 2005 elections. They won seats in both the national and provincial governments and even had two ministers in the Cabinet.

These battles were invaluable in establishing Muqtada's militant and patriotic credibility, particularly among Sunnis. Muqtada's followers boast that "the two intifadas" they have fought against the Americans prove that they are true Iraqi nationalists who refuse to accept occupation, unlike the two other leading Shiite movements, SCIRI and Dawa. In addition, Muqtada's movement has drawn many former Baathists into its ranks, as well as Shiites who served in Saddam's dreaded security and intelligence services. And he has been a fierce critic of Iran, warning of Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs. All these factors make Muqtada acceptable to Sunnis who fear and hate the rest of the Shiite establishment.
...........................................................

what a mess
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
..............................................................

Lets face facts. Al Sadr will be back in the saddle in two shakes of a little lambs tail. After he leaves Iran and parades through downtown Bahgdad with his henchmen, cuts off a few goverment leaders heads. Then what.

All for naught. All the deaths, all the money , all the freedom down the tubes.

I got news for you fellows. We are not leaving. And I dont give a chit who is elected President.

We NEED that oil .

We will maintain military and respond when necessary to keep Iraq free.

Iraq and the US are doing what Iran is doing with their nuke progam. Stalling. Al Sadr is sitting over in Iran thinking , OK just until December. Then Dec comes and the US and Iraq make a permenant agreement , before Bush is out of office of course.

I agree with most of that.

Al-Sadr and Iran will almost certainly eventually emerge the 'victors' in this mess. They, Iran, maybe by proxy, will run that country when we leave. That's really not even open for debate.

I disagree that we need Iraq's oil. We really don't. Never did and I really have never signed on to that theory that we invaded for that.

But our actions and/or potential actions by Israel against Iran that would of course draw us in would probably take our gas from 4 dollars to 6.

As most of remember, it was around 1.15- 1.20/gallon before we occupied Iraq in 3/03.

Even though all of our intel agencies say that Iran does not have a weapons program, and hasn't since 2003 we're having this conversation AGAIN.

I MEAN, HOW F*CKING STUPID ARE WE?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
We have hope November is closer. We need to get the war mongers out. And sad to say Mc Cain does not look any differant then Bush. I just shout everytime Liberman gets close to Mc Cain and wispers in his ear. Don't listen. But it looks like were to late. Remember Libya was the next big thing a few years back. We found a way with out putting world in WW III.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,492
255
83
Victory Lane
I disagree that we need Iraq's oil. We really don't. Never did and I really have never signed on to that theory that we invaded for that.

But our actions and/or potential actions by Israel against Iran that would of course draw us in would probably take our gas from 4 dollars to 6.

.........................................................

I disagree with your disagreement.

When you stop and realize how easy it would be to totally disrupt our way of life in the US. We rely on oill. Shut that down from several sources and we are screwed.

Remember the gas lines ?

Rationing ?

Oil is so important that we will put ourselves in position to take it if we have to.

We are going to be guarding the Iraq oil fields for a long time.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
214
63
"the bunker"
when the iraqi`s are ready to handle the situation....and it`s obvious that they`re prepared,i`m all for beating feet as quickly as possible...

and honestly...barring something dramatic happening(i.e.immediate withdrawal by a dem president and congress or a small nuclear detonation),i think this could happen within the next year or two....i think we could draw down considerably...

i`m wondering if obama really will ignore the generals on the ground and just make an arbitrary decision to appease the extreme left of the democratic party throwing iraq into chaos....

i`m beginning to think not....
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top