http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA and SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 10 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

In Washington, the State Department declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations and said officials in Washington were not yet entirely sure what al-Maliki had said.

"This falls in the category of ongoing negotiations, and I'm not going to talk about every single development, every single development in the negotiations," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating.

The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

"The goal is to end the presence (of foreign troops)," al-Maliki said.

Some type of agreement is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end. But many Iraqi lawmakers had criticized the government's attempt to negotiate a formal status of forces agreement, worried that U.S. demands would threaten the country's sovereignty.

U.S. officials have said little publicly about the negotiations. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not comment directly on the specifics when asked about it on a trip to Baghdad.

"We'd all like to see U.S. troops get out of here at some point in time," Mullen said. "However, from a military perspective I need the laws and the regulations and the agreements from the government of Iraq in order to continue operations beyond the 31st of December of this year."

With the latest moves, Iraq's government appeared to be trying to blunt opposition in parliament to any deal.

Al-Maliki also could be trying to avoid parliament altogether. He has promised in the past to submit a formal agreement with the U.S. to the legislative body.

But his spokesman indicated Monday that the government might feel no need to get approval from parliament for a shorter-term interim deal.

"It is up to the Cabinet whether to approve it or sign on it, without going back to the parliament," said spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.

Legal experts said the form of the deal was less significant than its substance.

"You could theoretically include everything in a memorandum of understanding that you could in a formal status of forces agreement," said Michael Matheson, an expert on international law at George Washington University Law School.

The Bush administration has said it doesn't need congressional approval even for a full status of forces agreement — a position criticized by some U.S. lawmakers.

The contentious issues have been U.S. authority to carry out military operations in Iraq and arrest the country's citizens, along with legal immunity for private contractors and control of Iraqi air space.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said last week after a visit to Washington that the U.S. had agreed to drop immunity for private contractors and give up control of Iraqi air space if Iraq guaranteed it could protect the country's skies.

But those concessions, never confirmed by the U.S. side, were apparently not enough to cement a formal agreement, leading Iraq instead to pursue the memorandum.

Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

Despite the gains, frequent attacks continue.

A roadside bomb killed four people and injured three others Monday close to the Iranian border near Khanaqin, 90 miles northeast of Baghdad, said border guard Capt. Sarchel Abdul-Karim.

Another bomb near a dress shop in Baqouba killed one woman Monday and wounded 14 other people, police said. Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, and the surrounding Diyala province remain one of the country's most violent regions.

Also Monday, gunmen killed a member of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party in Tal Afar, 260 miles northwest of Baghdad, said police, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Since this is and always has been a war for oil, those who started it (the Bush administration) obviously want an extensive, on-going US military presence in Iraq to secure the oil. Bush could have secured the oil by cuddling up to Saddham when he was firmly in charge of the country, but wouldn't or couldn't. Had he managed it, there'd be a lot less pain on both sides of the world.

I wonder if the Iraqi government is now trying to exert some measure of control over a dangerous inevitability. US withdrawl looks likely as the election approaches, and the Iraqi government would probably like to have a timetable in hand that they had some imput to, instead of having an Obama administration simply impose one on them.

---

"Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living, that's something else." (Han Solo)

Looking at a map you can see a nice surrounding of Iran with us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel on standby stage left. We put Saddam in power, supplied him with weapons and chemicals, gave him targets and directions to get there, and then like Noriega we turned on him and put our bases in.

If this were a world domination real time game simulation I'd say, "Nice work." But since this is reality and real people are being slaughtered, I say, "Boo."


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

IMO, Looks like political posturing designed to bolster the image of the government there amongst the Iraqi public. Not a bad move to strengthen the sovereignty of the country and allow a supported withdrawal of foreign troops, without giving the impression of 'leaving them in the lurch'.

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

IMO, Looks like political posturing designed to bolster the image of the government there amongst the Iraqi public. Not a bad move to strengthen the sovereignty of the country and allow a supported withdrawal of foreign troops, without giving the impression of 'leaving them in the lurch'.

Deja vu anyone?

Iraqi PM urges speedy withdrawal of US troops
Staff and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday July 27, 2005
Article history

The Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, today called for the speedy withdrawal of US troops from the country.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Looking at a map you can see a nice surrounding of Iran with us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel on standby stage left. We put Saddam in power, supplied him with weapons and chemicals, gave him targets and directions to get there, and then like Noriega we turned on him and put our bases in.

If this were a world domination real time game simulation I'd say, "Nice work." But since this is reality and real people are being slaughtered, I say, "Boo."


.

What do you say about those who died in the WTC towers ??
The Cole ?/
Kobar Towers?
Pearl Harbor
The Death Camps of the Nazi's ?

Bill

Looking at a map you can see a nice surrounding of Iran with us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel on standby stage left. We put Saddam in power, supplied him with weapons and chemicals, gave him targets and directions to get there, and then like Noriega we turned on him and put our bases in.

If this were a world domination real time game simulation I'd say, "Nice work." But since this is reality and real people are being slaughtered, I say, "Boo."


.

What do you say about those who died in the WTC towers ??
The Cole ?/
Kobar Towers?
Pearl Harbor
The Death Camps of the Nazi's ?

Bill

i was in impression that they were from saudi arabs( those pilots), and couple from egypt, and one from morocco or something like that, iraq is not saudi arabs even it is in same hemisphere or something

Aristo wrote:

i was in impression that they were from saudi arabs( those pilots), and couple from egypt, and one from morocco or something like that, iraq is not saudi arabs even it is in same hemisphere or something[/quote]

My reply:

Yes we should have finished up in Afghanistan and now we should be finishing up in the Pakistani tribal regions.

My Point was that there are always people trying to kill us. I believe that we would prefer to live in peace and enjoy our abundance but history tells us that conflicts will ensue--those that are strong will establish a civilization and culture that lasts for many centuries.

Free the Iraqi nation from foreign armies?

Start with the Iranians, Kurds, Al Quaeda. I am sure most Americans want us out as soon as possible.
How long have we been in Germany, Japan, Korea--will Iraq prosper as well if we let it go to hell. We may have had a thin premise and justification for being there but we are there now.

What do you all think ??

Regards,

Bill

We may have had a thin premise and justification for being there but we are there now.

60 Minutes

Freedom down the toilet


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Start with the Iranians, Kurds, Al Quaeda. I am sure most Americans want us out as soon as possible.
How long have we been in Germany, Japan, Korea--will Iraq prosper as well if we let it go to hell. We may have had a thin premise and justification for being there but we are there now.

What do you all think ??

Regards,

Bill[/quote]



usa never wanted to leave germany during cold war, where they would have put
missiles which were pointing soviet union, and it is still the reason, and same goes to japan, it is close to russia, army base there cause of that.

Let's see...With the nukes we have in silos here and what we have at sea, we can probably nuke anybody on the planet about six times over. So why, exactly, do we still have bases in Japan and Germany? Are the Germans seriously worried about a Russian invasion? Korea is perhaps a slightly different matter, since we're still technically at war with N. Korea.

Given our massive recent failures in the art of war---Vietnam, and now Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan--there seems to be something important that we don't quite understand: Burying our enemies in top secrect toilet paper from the Pentagon and the White House isn't an effective battle plan.

Flush twice--it's a long way to Washington!

---

"Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living, that's something else." (Han Solo)

Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Let's see...With the nukes we have in silos here and what we have at sea, we can probably nuke anybody on the planet about six times over. So why, exactly, do we still have bases in Japan and Germany? Are the Germans seriously worried about a Russian invasion? Korea is perhaps a slightly different matter, since we're still technically at war with N. Korea.

Given our massive recent failures in the art of war---Vietnam, and now Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan--there seems to be something important that we don't quite understand: Burying our enemies in top secrect toilet paper from the Pentagon and the White House isn't an effective battle plan.

Flush twice--it's a long way to Washington!

faster counter attack or attack in first place, plus soviet would try to hit germans missiles, less damage in usa, of course they would try new york washington etc too but
now usa would like to put so called defence system in poland, still closer

My Point was that there are always people trying to kill us.

Ever stop and think and ask yourself why that is? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Let's see...With the nukes we have in silos here and what we have at sea, we can probably nuke anybody on the planet about six times over. So why, exactly, do we still have bases in Japan and Germany? Are the Germans seriously worried about a Russian invasion? Korea is perhaps a slightly different matter, since we're still technically at war with N. Korea.

Given our massive recent failures in the art of war---Vietnam, and now Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan--there seems to be something important that we don't quite understand: Burying our enemies in top secrect toilet paper from the Pentagon and the White House isn't an effective battle plan.

Flush twice--it's a long way to Washington!

faster counter attack or attack in first place, plus soviet would try to hit germans missiles, less damage in usa, of course they would try new york washington etc too but
now usa would like to put so called defence system in poland, still closer

I imagine that the Finns are breathing easier now as it concerns the Russians. Germany , Japan and South Korea are prosperous, modern, clean and orderly.

Not looking for gratitude --you all are cetainly welcome.

My Point was that there are always people trying to kill us.

Ever stop and think and ask yourself why that is? ;)

T'was ever thus , my son. I was referring to the royal US. Greeks, Persians, Romans, Goths, Huns, Normans, Vikings, Jews, Christians, Crusaders, Jihadists, Moors, Turks , Armenians, Irish ... and on and on. What is your idea on why this has always been so--Religion, Protection, Fear, Buffer States, Territory, Resources, Empire Building, Divinely inspired conquest, Genocide ??

Do you think it's in human nature to take something that you want and don't have? Do you think that civilization has advanced to a benevolent outlook all around the world? Should we return America and Canada back to the Native Americans ?? Where would we all go ??

Do you think it's in human nature to take something that you want and don't have?

You mean like OIL? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

WR wrote:

"I imagine that the Finns are breathing easier now as it concerns the Russians. Germany , Japan and South Korea are prosperous, modern, clean and orderly...Not looking for gratitude --you all are cetainly welcome."

Bill, I think we agree that Europe, Japan and S. Korea are all much better off than they were, say, 60 years ago. And I agree that America gets a good deal of the credit for that, especially for the enlightened way we dealt with our former enemies right after WW II. But much of that "enlightenment" stemmed from the Cold War, too. It wasn't really a "love thy neighbor" thing; more of a battle for hearts and minds. And we won that particular battle.

But somewhere along the line we lost our ethical balance. I think we were on firm footing at the end of WWII, but we lost that within 15 years. If people are still writing books and studying history in 2100, I bet someone will write a difinitive history of this era. I regret I won't get to read it.

---

"Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living, that's something else." (Han Solo)

Perhaps John Forbes Nash Jr.'s "FUB" formulas and Rand Corp's game theories can explain more recent mentalities. Greed is a constant.

Strong language warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nash Equilibrium

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium (named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy (i.e., by changing unilaterally). If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium. In other words, to be a Nash equilibrium, each player must answer negatively to the question: "Knowing the strategies of the other players, and treating the strategies of the other players as set in stone, can I benefit by changing my strategy?"

Stated simply, Amy and Bill are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Bill's decision, and Bill is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision. Likewise, many players are in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that they can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved; in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium (eg. competing businessmen forming a cartel in order to increase their profits).

.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Nash equilibrium

The devil and I seem to have reached a 'nash equilibrium'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .