conditions on the ground iraq

[ashtray]

obama administration say they will keep iraq under chapter 7 ..because of instability on the ground

i thought the troops withdraw form iraq depends on conditions on the ground in iraq

if its bad enough to keep them under chapter 7 ..why would obama be withdrawing

are they going to lift chapter 7 before we completely withdraw ?..

or will obama withdraw with bad conditions on the ground

Iraqi white party feels the Obama Administration wants to keep Iraq under Chapter VII

Saturday, 27 August 2011

Spokeswoman said the Iraqi bloc white high Nassif The list of negative attitudes toward the United States led by Iraq to keep Iraq under Chapter VII, has become known to everyone that this administration’s continuation of what Obama has done the previous U.S. administrations before and after 2003. “

She said Nassif, in a statement received news agency public opinion (and babysit) a copy of it on Saturday that “the attitude of the United States bad about the suffering of Iraq, which deserves to be We to it of wonder about the reasons for its suspicious more countries from the European Union as a state that occupies Iraq and is responsible for what its violations of the sanctity of public lands and waters and airspace. “

Nassif, and demanded the international community and the U.S. administration’s position is clear from the external challenges faced by Iraq and the excesses of the Turkish Kuwait.

Nassif explained that “the Iraqi popular discontent has focused on the United States rather than a focus on countries that violate the sovereignty of Iraq, because the Iraqi citizen is well aware that these countries did not dare to attack on their country not for the U.S. blessing.”

http://bit.ly/q9ogoS

The current agreement, signed by the U.S. and Iraq in 2008, requires the removal of all U.S. military forces by December 31, 2011

Both Panetta and White House press secretary Jay Carney said no final decision has yet been made on how many troops, if any, will remain beyond the December 31 deadline.

how can they talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time ? i would think a signed agreement is a final decision.. but in 2008 bush was president that was bushs agreement not obamas .. obama is president now .. see how cool that is to get new presidents all the time .. they can just say .. i didnt say that .. that was him .. i think thats why they pretend they dont like each other .. (repubs and dems that is ).. for foriegn policys .. how they an change ..can the change the geneva convention to?.. hey that was that guy who signed that .. im me .. i didnt sign it .

It could also be viewed as a broken promise by the U.S. President. .. signed agreements .. obamas campaign speech to all americans .. to end the iraq war

if they are planning an end of year withdraw .. you would think the full govt would be seated .. chapter 7 lifted ..world tradable currency in place .. a standing govt and defense ministry in place for national security must be in place. or i dont think we will be abiding by the geneva convention if we left iraq . you cannot destroy a countrys military and kill off their govt and leave .. if you do the world community would rebuild at our expense. we could be sanctioned by un ..war crimes could be handed down to whom ever pulls out prematurely ...

now im not saying this will go down .. but it could.. if weleft and their full govt wasnt seated .. and after we left they broke out in civil war .. and their country suffered millions of casualties and billions in destruction .. that finger would be pointed directly at the united states .. we are a signatory of the geneva convention .. again signing these agreements do have meaning ..

before we leave iraq we best be very sure we cross our T`s and dot our I`s..... ya dont just leave because you campaigned on it ... obama claims to be a constitutional law professor .. i hope he is at least a student on the geneva convention,,, and as one president who toured apologizing for americas behavior .. i hope he will abide by its signiture on that geneva convention .. we have to stay untill they have a full and complete govt .and the ability to provide for their own national security ... or be liable

i think this is why they are intentionally delaying this defense ministry .. and pushing for withdraw according to obamas agreement for all troops to be out by december 31 2011 ... and then what file war crimes .. some clown could do it .. you know make a scene ..

or they are planning for everything to be inplace by years end .... we got 4 months to wait and see ..

who wants to make a predicament..

completion ?

or continuance of status quo?

january 1 2012

Edited September 10, 2011 by ashtray

[tyron]

All this insane posturing! I know why they do it, but really those poor Iraqis. What an insane world this is. I am living in paradise and these poor innocent people are in hell through no fault of theirs.

[ashtray]

i went over there in 2008 to work .. kinda wanted to take a view of whats going on over there .

i couldnt believe anyone would fight over that land .. its a huge desert with terrible climate .... i know about the oil wealth now days .. but 5 thoudsand years ago .. why fight over that ? 130 degrees .. i guess the land along the river would be what they fought over .... we are very fortunate to of been born in this land of abundance .. we dont know how bad things are in other parts of the world .. .. we are definatly fortunate

[tyron]

i went over there in 2008 to work .. kinda wanted to take a view of whats going on over there .

i couldnt believe anyone would fight over that land .. its a huge desert with terrible climate .... i know about the oil wealth now days .. but 5 thoudsand years ago .. why fight over that ? 130 degrees .. i guess the land along the river would be what they fought over .... we are very fortunate to of been born in this land of abundance .. we dont know how bad things are in other parts of the world .. .. we are definatly fortunate

Ash you like me will never understand. That's THEIR land. That's their inheritance, and their home, and their mother. They kick the dust with their feet in disgust, and then try to acquire more.

[Butifldrm]

ashtray, I've been reading the State Department's briefing on Iraq, they are very interesting. From what I am reading, it will be up to the GOI, to ask us to stay in a greater capacity than training. The biggest problem in the financial sector right now is inflation and the fact that the finacial sector is moving at a much greater pace than the Government. The State Department, make no mention of this.

It seem that the US will stay on in some capacity after December 2011. I've highlighted some interesting statement.

September 6th

QUESTION: On Iraq?

MS. NULAND: On Iraq. Yeah.

QUESTION: The third president, Masoud Barzani, has told the U.S. forces to stay in Iraq, and warning of a civil war if the American forces withdraw. What can you tell them?

MS. NULAND: I think our public position, our private position, hasn’t changed, that our plan is to withdraw by the end of the year. Were the Iraqi Government to come forward and make a request for some continued security assistance, we would be prepared to look at it.

QUESTION: Do you consider this call as a request from an Iraqi leader?

MS. NULAND: Well, we have heard many different views from individual Iraqi leaders, but they have a government, and we need to hear a united view from the government.

QUESTION: There was an article, a very lengthy article, by Ayad Allawi last week basically calling for that, so that’s the head of a major political Iraqi bloc. Now you have the Kurds calling for that. There are talks of some sort of behind the scene agreements between the Pentagon and the Iraqi Ministry of Defense for a rotation. And so, did you know of that?

MS. NULAND: I mean, it’s clear that a lot of Iraqis are thinking about this and talking about it. But obviously, we couldn’t get into a discussion on the basis of informal comments by individual Iraqis.

QUESTION: I guess the question is: Is the United States flexible enough to accept such a request when it happens?

MS. NULAND: Again, you’re taking me into hypotheticals as to when this might happen. Our view hasn’t changed, that if they have something that they would like us to do, we’re prepared to look at it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Is there any --

MS. NULAND: Oh, sorry. Still on Iraq?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is there any possibility to make a deal with north Iraq regarding the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq instead of waiting for a request from the Iraqi Government?

MS. NULAND: I think we have for many years operated on the basis of a single policy with regard to a unitary Iraq. I don’t see that changing.

September 7th

QUESTION: Can I ask about Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Are we finished with Syria? Yeah? Okay.

QUESTION: On Iraq, the comments made by Secretary of State – of Defense (inaudible) about the possibility of extending the stay of 5,000 or 6,000 troops in Iraq for training purposes.

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, let me say that the U.S. is going to meet its commitment under the U.S. security Iraq – U.S.-Iraq security agreement to withdraw forces by the end of the year. That said, Iraq’s political leaders have now indicated publicly – and obviously, to us – that Iraqis are interested in an ongoing training relationship with the United States post-2011. And as you know, we very much want to have an enduring partnership with the Iraqi Government and people, and a relationship with the Iraqi security forces would be an important part of that.

So we are currently in negotiations with the Iraqi Government about what that post-2011 relationship might look like. Those discussions are ongoing, and you can understand that I won’t comment on the details.

QUESTION: -- U.S. and Iraq. There was a report today on really a very abysmal corruption situation in Iraq with huge amounts of cash trading (inaudible). Do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND: I don’t. I’ll take that one as well.

September 9th

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes, ma’am. U.S. ambassador to Iraq Mr. Jim Jeffrey dismissed as false news reports that the Administration has settled on 3,000 troop figure. Do you agree with that? That is false?

MS. NULAND: I think we spoke about this yesterday, that no decisions have been made on levels. What we have agreed to do is to open a negotiation. The first thing we’ve got to do is decide when the Iraqis say that they’d like training support, we have a very broad menu of training support, what the mission might be. And it’s – but it’s premature to talk about numbers till we agree on the mission.

QUESTION: Okay. Also, Mr. Jeffrey, according to AP, Lara Jakes, took a swipe at policy advisors in Washington and said, I think – quote – “I think Washington, when it wakes up, will have really great guidance and insight as to what’s going on here,” but being sarcastic. Do you agree that perhaps Washington’s asleep at the wheel here?

MS. NULAND: You have to know Jim Jeffrey and his sense of humor. It was an absolutely literal statement, that he is seven hours ahead of us in the time zone. I think he was speaking in Baghdad when we were actually literally sleeping at 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning. So what he was saying was quite literal, that whatever question was asked of him he’d prefer it be asked in Washington, when we were physically awake. So don’t read too much into this.

QUESTION: So it was just time zone difference and --

MS. NULAND: Absolutely.

QUESTION: -- not – he’s not being frustrated by the --

MS. NULAND: This was not a broader comment of any kind.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Is there any frustration in this building with the information that seems to be out of the Pentagon regarding the future of U.S. – future U.S. presence in Iraq?

MS. NULAND: We are working and Jim Jeffrey is working in lockstep with his military counterpart on these issues. I think we are gratified that we are actually in talks now, and these are being conducted, obviously, under Ambassador Jeffrey’s leadership but with General Austin right there at his side. So we’re doing this together.

QUESTION: Again, a great answer, but not the answer to the question I asked.

MS. NULAND: One team, one fight.

QUESTION: Really? There’s no frustration in this building at all?

MS. NULAND: There is not.

QUESTION: Really? Not even over the fact that a senior military official was quoted in the lead Times story as saying that the plan was for – to have about 3,000? I mean, I think I would find that frustrating if I were involved in a negotiation.MS. NULAND: I think we’ve made clear that that was not an authorized statement and didn’t reflect where we are.

QUESTION: Exactly. Is there any frustration in this building that there is information coming out of the Pentagon that could affect the negotiations – unauthorized information coming out?

MS. NULAND: I think we are in a good place together in terms of our negotiating process in Baghdad, and we are going to work together on this issue.

QUESTION: Yes. I’m asking a follow-up on this --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- this morning event at AEI. The former vice president said that was a big, big mistake for the United States to be – to cut and run from Iraq. Isn’t that just cutting and running from Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think it constitutes cutting and running when we had a massive surge of U.S. forces at the end of the Bush Administration, supported by the Obama Administration, which essentially led to a great improvement in the security situation such that we are able to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis and draw down. And we’re certainly not cutting and running on the civilian side, where our civilian surge is greatly enhanced and we’ve opened consulates around the country.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2011/09/index.htm

[dog53]

As bad as i dislike Obama . It may not be to bad of an idea to keep them in chapter 7. Adam has stated that he no longer thinks that chapter 7 is nesacerry to RV. HCL yes but not chapter 7. What if we lifted it and the first thing they want to do is war with Iran. Then we are all screwed.

[wicked93gs]

i went over there in 2008 to work .. kinda wanted to take a view of whats going on over there .

i couldnt believe anyone would fight over that land .. its a huge desert with terrible climate .... i know about the oil wealth now days .. but 5 thoudsand years ago .. why fight over that ? 130 degrees .. i guess the land along the river would be what they fought over .... we are very fortunate to of been born in this land of abundance .. we dont know how bad things are in other parts of the world .. .. we are definatly fortunate

what you see now is desert...it wasnt always that way...5000 years ago it was very fertile land....lush with vegetation...evidently there was an "event" around 2300 BC that changed the climate in that part of the world....a meteorite or something...check out the dry riverbeds in that part of the world...topographical maps with dry riverbeds show how completely different it used to be....how else to you think that part of the world is referred to as the cradle of civilization?

[DAME1]

I thought chapter 7 and the sanctions were under the authority of the UN and had to be removed by the UN not the US?????