If an argument for leaving is that "they" don't want us, then the "they" isn't the gov't, at least not based on this agreement.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out regarding Obama and our future deployment there. I assume the agreement simply authorizes our continued presence - it doesn't necessarily commit us there.

Despite all the campaign rhetoric about leaving I don't think he'll get us out. Lower troop levels, sure. Many are moving to Afghanistan already. But coming home? Time will tell.

Al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press that the agreement will be submitted to parliament later Sunday, but did not say when the 275-member legislature will vote on the document.

Much more detail in the NY Times:

The draft approved Sunday requires coalition forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities and towns by the summer of 2009 and from the country by the end of 2011.

An earlier version had language giving some flexibility to that deadline, with both sides discussing timetables and timelines for withdrawal, but the Iraqis managed to have the deadline set in stone, a significant negotiating victory.

And who thinks we will follow this?

Dumb as a box of rocks.

It would also grant Iraq limited legal jurisdiction over American soldiers and contractors who are now immune from trial before Iraqi courts. Some politicians have urged changes in that provision to clarify how the two governments would decide which cases the Iraqis could prosecute.

Sorry the above from October.

From today:

Under the agreement an executive and a technical committee will be established to investigate "violations" committed by US forces, Dabbagh said, without giving further details.

You know it's "Funny" the right wingers don't want US Soldiers tried at The Hague IE the world court but apparently see NO problem with a foreign Country trying Our soldiers. Ironic Don'tcha think.

Larry

Dabbagh said, without giving further details.

Short on details and members of the Iraqi cabinet.

Only 27 out of 37 for one of if not the most important 'Foreign Policy' documents for Iraq.

Very Fishy, it will be interesting to see if this ever goes to Parliament never mind passes before the new year.

You know it's "Funny" the right wingers don't want US Soldiers tried at The Hague IE the world court but apparently see NO problem with a foreign Country trying Our soldiers. Ironic Don'tcha think.

Not Funny at all it is:

D E S P E R A T I O N

You know it's "Funny" the right wingers don't want US Soldiers tried at The Hague IE the world court but apparently see NO problem with a foreign Country trying Our soldiers. Ironic Don'tcha think.

One Long Fucking Way from being greeted as Liberators with parades and flower throwing throngs.

*** Iraqi Cabinet OKs Security Pact with US ***

......but they still have'nt passed it through their parliament.......

.......20 bucks says that some "obstacle" to passing the law will come up........

**** You know it's "Funny" the right wingers don't want US Soldiers tried at The Hague IE the world court .....#7 | Posted by LarryMohr *****

.......that's cause they would be starting with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice...........

.......the whole cabal of war criminals who attacked Iraq on a pretext.......

Make that "false" pretext.

One Long Fucking Way from being greeted as Liberators with parades and flower throwing throngs.

I wonder if Loki/Bowa will retain their Rudithong booth and if they can get a refund on their tickets for the GWB Victory Parade in beautiful downtown Baghdad?

whetehr he meant it or not, Dubya threw a gift to his successor with this defeatocrat, date certain cut and run thingie.

Damn the Right Wingers on this site have remained silent on this subject for some strange reason. Wonder why.

Larry

I would hope that Obama would get us out of the cities even sooner. This downsizing of our military role would allow ALL military contractors to be out of Iraq at the start of the agreement. Our forces can and should take over their duties.

Congratulations to all those who supported the surge.

Isn't this what Obama campaigned on? Bush just beat him to it.

It seems that because Bush was able to do this some are compelled to throw stones. If Obama had done the same thing I am sure it would have marked the dawning of Peace in the Middle East and soon the world.

This is a good thing. This is what all of us want. Be happy, stop being so compulsive about Bush.

You know it's "Funny" the right wingers don't want US Soldiers tried at The Hague IE the world court but apparently see NO problem with a foreign Country trying Our soldiers. Ironic Don'tcha think.
#7 | Posted by LarryMohr

Nah... if they ever actually let one of our soldiers be tried in Iraq, and that's a big f'ing IF, they'll write it off as a kangaroo court, something we know alot about these days. Might even give us justification to do something stupid, but that goes from reasonable conjecture to wild speculation.

The ICC at the Hague has more legitimacy. We couldn't get away with that argument there.

The same fools who refuse to bail out the auto makers happily piss billions away in Iraq.

The same fools who refuse to bail out the auto makers happily piss billions away in Iraq.
#19 | Posted by danni

Without getting into a discussion on whether the bailout is a good thing (there's a more appropriate thread for it), that's an apples and oranges type of comparison.

" that's an apples and oranges type of comparison."

Baloney it is. It is a choice of what our priorities are and the economic security of millions of American families is at stake. We simply cannot afford more of the Iraq occupation and this agreement is a meaningless bunch of crap to make outgoing Bush not look as ridiculous as he should. The man should hang his head in shame.

I don't know about that, Danni.

We allow the big 3 to go bankrupt, somebody buys up the assets at a discount, and begins to make cars that make sense (hiring most of the employees back in the newly created co.'s), rather than bailing them out and allowing them to continue to operate in the fashion that got them there in the first place.

We allow the big 3 to go bankrupt, somebody buys up the assets at a discount, and begins to make cars that make sense (hiring most of the employees back in the newly created co.'s), rather than bailing them out and allowing them to continue to operate in the fashion that got them there in the first place.

I really have to laugh at this.

How many times does this get spouted showing just how ignorant people are to the big 3's problem and who caused it.

How many U.S. auto cars do you see in the rest of the world?????? Why????? Do you know anything about manufacturing/production?????

The ones who are causing the fall is our congress and they are doing it on purpose. One needs to figure out why this would be allowed.

Hagbard every other nation with an auto industry is bailing out their manufacturers due to the world wide credit crisis. That is what this bail out is about, no new investor would but the companies and try to sell cars now. We have been living in a pretend world of free trade and expecting out industries to survive un unlevel playing field, foreign auto makers are subsidized by government in health care, technology, tariffs, etc. It's in vogue right now to say let the market decide but it is just more right wing baloney when everyone knows that our industries are trying to compete against companies who are well supported by their respective governments.

We bail out the auto industry by giving the big three subsidies that move them to a more financial competitive base.

Give them the difference in money so they can produce the smaller cars that the rest of the world won't let into their markets. But sadly, the rest of the world has the ear of congress because that is where the money is coming into their pockets.

The ones who are causing the fall is our congress and they are doing it on purpose. One needs to figure out why this would be allowed.
#23 | Posted by moneywar

So what's the alternative? Allow Congress, the ones who caused the problem, to spend more of our money to prop up an industry that is not viable (regardless of the reason for the lack of viability)?

Would it cost more to move these families to parts of the country where they can get jobs or be retrained for new ones?

Would it cost more to move these families to parts of the country where they can get jobs or be retrained for new ones?

What jobs?

(regardless of the reason for the lack of viability)?

What kind of nonsense is that?
Why not figure out why they are unviable and make changes so they will be viable.
America needs to stob believing that we are incapable of competing.
We need national health care so that auto makers don't have to provide it, decent SS so that pensions aren't figured into the cost of autos.
Our auto companies have suffered under the idiotic free trade agreements and now the Republicans want to focus the blame on them.
If we can bail out big banks we can also bail out the companies that provide so many jobs.

"What kind of nonsense is that?"

Well, if congress is the reason for the lack of viability, like MW suggests (not fighting for access to foreign markets), then leaving it up to congress to fix the problem is... insane, isn't it?

"What jobs?"

Walmart, Mcdonalds, etc. That's the only kind of jobs Republicans want to create for Americans.
Raise taxes on the rich and make the only way to avoid paying them is to invest in American industries that create jobs.
We need to revies all aspects of REAGANFUCKINGOMICS and repeal every last speck of that tool of class warfare.

Te big 3 will be bailed out, make no mistake. They will get the same bailout the banks are getting.

Which is: "Here is a pile of money, don't spend it all in one place. Huh? It's all gone? Really? Well shooooot! Guess you can have some more."

Something needs to be done for sure. But this nonsense of propping industries up so the well connected can get their money out first needs to go.
Upper management need to be cleaned out and replaced. Union leadership as well. Then we start with a clean slate and get things working again.

If we are truly at the mercy of a global economy, doesn't that mean that we'll all have to get used to a globally determined standard of living?

With the price of the stock so low we could just buy up all the stock and then sell it to the employees. Let them then fire the management and the boards of directors, replace them with more competent people and renegotiate their own contracts but now from an ownership perspective.

You first Hag, you first.

"If we are truly at the mercy of a global economy, doesn't that mean that we'll all have to get used to a globally determined standard of living?"

That is why we have practiced protectionism throughout our history until RR. We need to protect our industries just like all the other countries protect theirs.

Actually Danni that is a great idea. But in that case it would be better the let the go bankrupt first.

If we are truly at the mercy of a global economy, doesn't that mean that we'll all have to get used to a globally determined standard of living?

#32 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

lol

free cellphones & computer games for everyone?

Raise taxes on the rich and make the only way to avoid paying them is to invest in American industries that create jobs.

I can appreciate the argument against trickle down economics that tax cuts on the rich does not work like it is espoused in theory. However, raising taxes on the rich, IMO, isn't going to create them either.

The tax codes are way too complicated to simply raise taxes in certain brackets and hope that wealthy people just create jobs out of thin air because of a tax penalty on declaring more income.

It isn't that simple.

That is why we have practiced protectionism throughout our history until RR. We need to protect our industries just like all the other countries protect theirs.

#35 | Posted by danni

I don't know what we can do to stop the train now that its left the station. Money can leave at a moments notice. It doesn't have any nationalistic sentiment for staying in one place (the invisible hand was always nationalism), depending on the ability of a government to allow it to grow.

With the price of the stock so low we could just buy up all the stock and then sell it to the employees. .

#33 | Posted by danni

here's Sears in action ~ apparently...:>)

Christmas shopping has already started

I know I needed this reminder since Sears isn't always my first choice. Amazing when you think of how long the war has lasted and they haven't withdrawn from their commitment. Could we each buy at least one thing at Sears this year?

How does Sears treat its employees who are called up for military duty ? By law, they are required to hold their jobs open and available, but nothing more. Usually, people take a big pay cut and lose benefits as a result of being called up.

Sears is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and maintaining all benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all called up reservist employees for up to two years.

I submit that Sears is an exemplary corporate citizen and should be recognized for its contribution. I suggest we all shop at Sears, an d be sure to find a manager to tell them why we are there so the company gets the positive reinforcement it well deserves.

Pass it on.

Decided to check this before I sent it forward. So I sent the following e-mail to the Sears Customer Service Department:

I received this e-mail and I would like to know if it is true. If it is, the Internet may have just become one very good source of advertisement for your company. I know I would go out of my way to buy products from Sears instead of another store for a like item, even if it's cheaper at that store.

This is their answer to my e-mail:

Dear Customer:

Thank you for contacting Sears.The information is factual. We appreciate your positive feedback.
Sears regards service to our country as one of greatest sacrifices our young men and women can make. We are happy to do our part to lessen the burden they bear at this time.

free cellphones & computer games for everyone?
#37 | Posted by Bani

Not with our obsolete infrastructure.

That is why we have practiced protectionism throughout our history until RR. We need to protect our industries just like all the other countries protect theirs.

#35 | Posted by danni

You would have start somewhere else Danni.

First, if you want real protectionism then you would have to not allow any more international students into our universities. How many more international students get educated here in the US now and then go back to their home country compared to 25 years ago???

*** Make that "false" pretext.

.....#13 | Posted by LetUsPrey ******

.......all pretextes are false.......

I think I'll be doing some shopping with SEars.