Iraq to seek parliamentary approval for long-term U.S. pact

[cal04]

Source: Reuters

Iraq will seek parliamentary approval for a strategic agreement being negotiated with the United States even though it expects heated debate over the deal, Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said.

U.S. and Iraqi officials began talks last month on a strategic framework agreement that defines long-term bilateral ties and a separate "status of forces" deal outlining rules and protections governing U.S. military activity in Iraq.

The issue has become highly charged in Washington, with members of Congress saying it could tie the hands of the next administration by locking the United States into a long-term military presence in Iraq and arguing Congress should give its consent.

Zebari, speaking to Reuters on Sunday, said the first round of negotiations had been completed.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080414/pl_nm/iraq_usa_agreement_dc

[LynnTheDem]

1. Let's ask the citizens of Iraq for their opinion on that...

Not that their opinion matters to bushCartel and/or the bushCartel puppet government of Iraq.

[Diclotican]

2. cal04

cal04

What happend to that US WOULD NOT BE IN IRAQ, IF THE IRAQI PEPOLE WANTED US FORCES OUT OF IRAQ?.. What happen to Mr Povells promise, that Iraq was not beeing occupied and that Iraq should be a nation who was based by the american armed forces..

To me, it look more and more like US are on a imperial adventure in Iraq. And if wanted, a imperial adventure into other nations in the area.

To me, it looks like US want Iraq to be their new colony....

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[maddezmom]

3. some backround from Fri: U.S., Iraq Negotiating Security Agreements

U.S., Iraq Negotiating Security Agreements

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 11, 2008; Page A04

The Bush administration is negotiating two accords with the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to replace the U.N. mandate for a multinational military presence there that expires at the end of this year.

The first is a "status of forces agreement," or SOFA, defining and protecting the legal status of U.S. military personnel and property in Iraq. Negotiated and signed under executive authority, it is a binding commitment but does not require congressional approval.

Among aspects unique to the proposed SOFA, Senate Democrats said, are that it would allow U.S. forces to unilaterally initiate military operations and to detain Iraqis, and would immunize civilian U.S. contractors from prosecution in Iraq.

The second agreement is a long-term "strategic framework" the administration has said will establish "cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and security fields." A "statement of principles" that Bush and Maliki signed in December said the framework, which they plan to sign by July 31 to take effect Jan. 1, included "security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace."

Congressional Democrats have said that the agreement, as outlined by the administration, constitutes a defense treaty commitment requiring Senate ratification. The administration has said it is "nonbinding," will not include language on specific troop numbers or authorize permanent bases, and does not commit the United States to defend Iraq. It also asserts that the agreement is within Bush's executive authority.

more:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004073.html?nav=rss_politics/congress

[pegleg]

4. Doing this against the will of the American people should be

considered treason, especially since the UN mandate ends this year. If there is no Democratic challenge to this, I am done with the party.

[sutz12]

5. So the Iraqi parliament gets a vote and the US Senate doesn't.

Welcome to neo-con bizzarro world.

:shrug: