Status of Forces Agreement
Wednesday, June 11th, 2008 - 9:33am
Looks like Bush's stealth treaty is likely to fail in the Iraqi congress.
Quote:
"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Pushing an SOF agreement at this stage can only endanger the process we're trying to create. Bizarre approach by the Bush administration unless it's viewed as Bush trying to hamstring a successor in dealing with the situation.
Iraq is a sovereign nation.
Just so long as it does as it's told.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
Considering this is clearly the objective, how bizarre is it really? This is also the primary motivation behind Bush's drive for a military strike on Iran.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
I still have trouble believing anyone could be that evil.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
Willem Dafoe once was asked why he always played "evil" men. He replied that the men he portrays aren't evil. Rather, they are righteous men who believe that their cause is just and that that belief causes them to do evil.
And remember, the Japanese aren't commercially whaling. They're conducting "research". Like "researching how delicious this whale is". - Paleocon
He only says that because it sounds better than "I look like Skeletor if he had skin"
Certis beat me to it. - Elysium
Also, as Matt Damon's Mr. Ripley said, "Well, whatever you do, however terrible, however hurtful, it all makes sense, doesn't it, in your head? You never meet anybody that thinks they're a bad person."
I still have a hard time seeing how, besides in the minds of his lacky lawyers, Bush could seriously think any future administration would be bound by what amounts to a unilaterally negotiated "fake" treaty that's really nothing but an executive order. He doesn't have the legal authority under the constitution to make unilateral binding treaty's, and neither congress or the next president are required by law to honor any "agreement" he comes up with.
So what's the rational, or has that just gone out the window at this point?
The measure of a man is how truly his actions reflect his own truth - not how well his actions fall into line with what makes others comfortable.
Nobody wants to be the person to come in and "undo" changes of the last president. Even if it's the right thing to do, it uses up a lot of political capital and creates bad blood right when you need bipartisan support the most.
If your party has a supermajority though... It's a different story, but it's tough to act on a national stage and just flat out say you're fixing recent mistakes that were obviously being made. It's great for us to say this stuff, but for a national leader to embarrass another national leader like that is bad news.
There's also the logistics of reversing such decisions. Anyone know more about Reagan's fiscal policy, and why it's lasted so long? All I know is that in terms of policies that lasted beyond their terms, he's considered one of the most successful. Mainly becuase no one wants to be the politician that reins in spending and has to tell people they're getting pay cuts/fired.
The primary reason why it is so difficult to reverse presidential decisions is because the savvy ones tend to build infrastructures around those decisions that make their abolition nearly impossible. FDR, for instance, probably could have handled the business of Social Security without creating the SSA, but doing so made it impossible to reverse.
I suspect that the building of 100 or so permanent bases in Iraq, the signing of several billion dollars worth of long term contracts, and the entering into international agreements is the creation of Bush's Iraq War infrastructure. It is impossible, for instance, for the next president to back out of a SOFA without a loss of national credibility. It would be even tougher for the next president to end a war underway with Iran once we've murdered tens of thousands of civilians.
And as difficult as it may be to believe that this could be the sole motivation behind such a policy, remember that Bush is fully invested in this "transformation of the Middle East" and honestly believes that his historical legacy will exonerate him.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
yeah but at a certain point you have to realize your policies sucked ass, like say when your restaurant has lost $2 Million this year alone, and you need to move onto a better way of doing things.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
Froomkin at the Post makes the observation that this latest miscalculation by Bush plays very badly for McCain who seems to have bet his entire presidential campaign on the whole perma-base idea. Now with the Iraqis pushing back and telling him to go screw himself, it puts the issue on the front burner of the news cycle.
With 45% of Americans advocating a complete military pullout within 12 months and 66% asking for that same pullout in 24 months, the very last thing McCain needs or wants is a public discussion of his continuation of Bush's failed policies.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
So 111% of Americans advocate a withdrawal before 2010? Wow... That's a lot!
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
The 45% that want out within 12 months would fall within the 66% that want out within 24 months.
Chumpy wrote:
Malor wrote:
Yup. Lobster hasn't had "sets" yet. He'll get to that next semester.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Give him a break, he's an ocean cockroach for Gods sake.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
Then he should be a learning machine.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Yeah, the only schools I have access to are full of fish! *rimshot* Thank you, thank you.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
Hey, the lobsters are gonna do really well when the Singularity comes...
Extremism in the defense of liberty *is* a vice. It has been since the first Crown Loyalist was tarred, feathered and set afire, and it's no better now. It corrupts first the individual, then ultimately the institution it defends.
Great book .... melted my brain.
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." Twain
Actually I'd be happy if they just came in and restored some of the basic principles of the constitution that Bush and Cheney seemingly don't care about.
Exactly what I want. I'd be thrilled if someone got to ask that question at one of the upcoming debates.
Fixed. If anyone thinks that this was not all about the oil and can say it with a straight face they need to be shot.
Playing WoW as: Vilius (70 NE Druid)
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.” John K Galbraith
EDIT: Nevermind, wrong book.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats
I'm sporting my class IIIa vest then.
I'm not buying the whole "all about oil" argument for a number of reasons. Number one on the list is that the numbers just don't add up.
The grand total price tag of the value of the oil coming out of Iraq prior to this latest adventure was $20-40 billion. As others have already pointed out, we've spent that pretty well every month we've been there so far without any let up in sight. If this was about oil, we would have done a whole lot better simply buying it on the open market irrespective of whatever extortionary prices Saddam may have come up with.
Secondly, it didn't solve or even positively affect our oil position. All it did was take Iraqi oil off the open market. Since oil is a completely fungible commodity, it had the net effect of a forced embargo of Iraqi oil. That, along with other market fundamentals, is partially to blame for the runup of global oil prices overall.
I will, however, say that there is a possible argument to be made that the war was about oil services. That is, the destruction of Iraqi oil infrastructure and control over the country through guaranteed extortionary contracts would allow Bush and Cheney to funnel huge amounts of US government dollars to oil services companies like Halliburton. This would be something akin to nuking New York so that his cronies could get the rebuilding contracts. That, however, is a pretty seriously cynical way of looking at things. If it turns out to be true and thousands of Americans died (and a TRILLION dollars were wasted) for the sake of pork barrel projects to Cheney's former employer, the lot of them truly do deserve to be dangling by lamp posts.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
The difficulty with the oil-grab argument is that we've never moved to force the Kuwaitis, Saudis, etc. to get in bed with us regarding their oil reserves. It's been clear who is in the drivers seat in those relationships. And if Cheney and crew really wanted the oil, they could have dealt more easily and gotten better terms out of Saddam than with any democracy that would replace it. Same goes with the current folks in Iran.
I see the true motivation for the Iraq War as the republicans desire to prove to America that the democrats couldn't be trusted on international policy and defense. It was all to prove a political point, which although it sounds trivial, has been at the heart of most of what has gone on in American foreign policy and government for the past 60 or more years.
Well, as I've pointed out above, it isn't the ONLY difficulty in that argument. Though I agree that getting better terms out of Saddam was easier than it was out of our nominal allies ("allies" who harbored the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11, btw). In point of fact, much of the prosperity of the Clinton years was due to the downward price pressure on oil resultant from Bush 41's implementation of the Oil For Food program forced on Saddam -- the very program Bush 43 and his numbskull cronies decried as unworkable or appeasing.
Invading Iraq was, in many ways, killing the golden goose by setting fire to the entire farm.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
What? We opened up their fields and created the markets! The fact that they later discovered they were in the driver's seat doesn't nullify the close relationships that extend to the present day.
Extremism in the defense of liberty *is* a vice. It has been since the first Crown Loyalist was tarred, feathered and set afire, and it's no better now. It corrupts first the individual, then ultimately the institution it defends.
I'm surprised that no one has made a groaning reference to Bush needing help moving a SOFA on his way out of the White House.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
And this was compelled by the U.S.? I'm not up on all of the history of the U.S. oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but the relationship seemed like it was one of partnership and exchange rather than compulsion.