The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Panda

That's exactly the way it appears to be panning out. The Yanks are not the only ones who can switch sides and change strategy in their own national interests.

I believe the original Neocon plan Iraq was to oust Saddam and set up a pseudo democratic puppet government, de-nationalize the oil industry, break from OPEC, and occupy the country indefinitely to ensure control. It doesn't seem to working out as planned though.

bkkandrew

^^Very interesting. What a shambolic stratagist. No wonder he couldn't even chew a Pretzel properly!

Texpat

Ahhh the expert TD foreign policy analysts telling us how it all panned out.

How refreshing to have such a clear view on the inner workings of the relationship between a fledgling government and a world superpower (I know you simply abhor that term).

Thanks for the insightful wisdom and clever analysis. You guys are the greatest.

Panda

Any heads up apart from winning the war against terror there Tex? Wrong country I guess. Bush missed that one too.

Yea, it was all about regime change so the ex-US friend and allie wouldn't attack the world with WMDs and go on killing his own people hey? Now, after 5 years it looks like the US got the regime change that they really didn't want. With the farce of WMDs exposed and a million dead, now the Iraqi government wants the US out. Hardly what I would call a victory.

Texpat

Ah what the heck, make it two million while you're at it.

You coming with me to the ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue? I don't suppose they'll have one in London or Sydney.

AntRobertson

What a complete and utter waste of a post. Why don't you drop the sarcasm and contribute your point of view then Tex?

Texpat

or Wellington.

bkkandrew

Because it would be incorrect in any case?

Panda

Hey Tex, While I can understand that you might be lost for words right at the moment, I kind of get the impression that you might be an allright kind of bloke under that brazen US patriot persona.

Somewhere down the track I hope that we can meet up for a quiet beer (without talking politics).

Texpat

Iraq has had a sovereign, democratically elected government in place for more than two years now. If they wanted the US out tomorrow, there is little the US would do but try to negotiate with them, but ultimately, leave. The Iraq government is exploring their newfound powers -- and what better training partner than their liberators.

You remember -- the Americans you guys claim installed them in the first place. Do you really think they're playing hardball with Bush and Co? Do you really think they're willing to tell the US to get stuffed?

I don't, and I don't think any of you do either.

sabang

Not really, I think they're playing two faced diplomacy- but with the Iranians increasingly pulling the strings. I think the Iraqi gov't still relies on the US miltary presence for it's short term survival, but I also think they are weaning themselves away from this- with the Iranians now the prime broker between the Shiite factions.

Meanwhile, the US is in a tricky position, because it is (understandably) aligning itself with some Sunni factions, even arming them, in the fight against the radical Sunni Al Qaeda, and allied elements. This can't be seen positively by the Shiites.

A damn can of worms- but you opened it.

Not yet, Tex. Not yet.

__________________
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.

Texpat

By Dean Yates
Reuters

BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have ended efforts to reach a formal security pact before President George W. Bush leaves office in favor of an interim deal, the Washington Post said on Sunday, citing senior U.S. officials.

The two sides had been negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement that would provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to remain when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

But in the past week Iraqi leaders have spoken of only agreeing what they call a memorandum of understanding. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has also raised for the first time the prospect of setting a timetable for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
The Washington Post quoted one U.S. official close to the negotiations as saying "we are talking about dates", even though Bush has previously rebuffed calls for a timetable.

Iraq is a major issue in November's presidential election battle between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. McCain supports the Bush administration's current strategy, while Obama has called for a timetable for withdrawal.

The Post said the "bridge" security document would be limited in both time and scope and would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue once the U.N. mandate ended.

Iraq has rejected a number of Washington's demands, insisting they infringe on the country's sovereignty.

The document now under discussion with Iraq was likely to cover only 2009, the Post said.

Negotiators expected it to include a "time horizon", with specific goals for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Baghdad and other cities and installations, it added.
The fixed dates are likely to include caveats referring to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over security. Some Iraqi officials themselves have said any timetable would be determined by security conditions on the ground.

PRESSURE

There is strong domestic pressure in Iraq to set dates for a withdrawal of U.S. forces, especially with violence at a four-year low and with Iraqi security forces getting larger and taking the lead in more security operations.

Maliki's political opponents would also likely try to exploit the issue of an undefined U.S. troop presence in provincial elections later this year.

The most contentious unresolved issue was the legal immunity of U.S. troops in Iraq, the Post reported.

U.S. officials have said this is non-negotiable. But Iraq's deputy parliament speaker has said lawmakers would probably veto any deal that gave U.S. soldiers immunity from Iraqi law.

The Bush administration has always opposed setting any withdrawal timetable, saying to do so would allow militant groups to lie low and wait until U.S. troops in Iraq have left.

U.S. troop levels are already being cut, with the last of five additional combat brigades Bush deployed last year expected to pull out this month. That will leave 15 combat brigades in Iraq, or around 140,000 soldiers.

Washington was considering withdrawing additional troops beginning in September, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing administration and military officials.
The withdrawal stemmed partly from the need for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight the rising insurgency by the Taliban and other fighters.

No final decisions had been made, but up to three combat brigades in Iraq could be withdrawn, or slated for withdrawal, by the end of the administration in January, the Times said.

The White House declined to discuss the withdrawals, but spokesman Gordon Johndroe told the newspaper that while Bush hoped to bring more troops home, he would await recommendations in September from General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, the Times said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTKM00295920080713?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNew s&rpc=22&sp=true

***

It makes sense to have a MOU in favor of a full SOFA anyway. I'm not aware of any nations that have a SOFA with the US that don't have permanent bases. Japan and Korea and UK and Germany do. Thailand does not. The Philippines does not. Iraq does not. I doubt if Australia does. The US has already announced there will be no permanent basing in Iraq.

SOFAs are more precise than MOUs, but they cover the same scenarios. A SOFA is usually a very long-term proposition with a country that shares a defense treaty. I'm not aware of any treaties the US shares with Iraq.

Leaving this alone until after the US election is probably a good idea anyway.

machangezi

Whatever the figure is the U.S of A had and has no right to be there simple as fuck now if you wanna Yank it up then go ahead but that would only explain that you are an ignorant moron which we already know.

__________________
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." Samuel P. Huntington


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Texpat

Look what the cat dragged in.

machangezi

whatever you say!

Panda

Arrrr.. all warm and fuzzy. So Nice of the US to drop in and set things straight in Iraq.
I guess that's just what the US does in far away places. Freedom , democracy and the American way.There you go guys. Now we are off home after we have helped you along the way. If only fairy tales were true.

The thing is that the UN mandate for the US to continue the occupation of Iraq ends this year, so there are 2 options on the table for USA. 1. find some excuse to ignore the UN mandate and continue occupying the country illegally. 2, pull up stumps and get the fuck out of Iraq as the democratic government of Iraq wants them to do.

Alternatively, the US could start a war with Iran and justify the occupation of Iraq as in the American interest. That seems to be on the cards, but wouldn't be real smart IMHO. So, they will probably do it anyway.

machangezi

Come on man........ how dare you say something like that about the U.S of A. They are the upholders of democracy in the world.

Reasons for attacking Iraq was on the suspicion of Iraq having WMDs and being able to attack but where are the WMDs?? Now they twist the story by saying that it was America's moral responsibility to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's rule...... now Saddam's gone so why don't they just fuck off??

If "Liberation from Oppression" is the American slogan why not attack North Korea? Kim Jong Il is well known for getting his jollies by killing people. why not do that??? IMO it is a far more noble thing to do.

Texpat

By Andrew Johnson
The Independent
13 July 2008

British soldiers forced a boy of 14 to carry out an act of oral sex on a fellow male prisoner in Iraq, according to shocking new allegations made about the behaviour of British troops.

The Ministry of Defence confirmed yesterday that the Royal Military Police (RMP) have launched an investigation. If the allegations are proved, it would mark a sordid low in the behaviour of British troops in Iraq, and damage further the reputation of Britain in the Middle East.

The victim, now 19, whom The Independent on Sunday has agreed to identify only as Hassan, says he was rounded up with a friend while trying to steal milk cartons from a food distribution centre. He was whipped, beaten and forced to strip naked.

"They made us sit on each other's laps," he said. "They were enjoying humiliating and abusing us, I wished I was dead at this moment. Then they made me sit with Tariq... where I was forced to put Tariq's penis in my mouth. The other two were made to do the same."

Court action is ongoing o