MB4 on April 14, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Funny!

Pathetic little person that alphie is.

To, however, determine what constitues a SOFA and what constitutes a Treaty can only be decided by a Court of Law, or by such Law passed by Congress. Both of which our system of governance will stand on the narrow bridge, turn to face the camera, and say “You shall not pass.” Albeit with a bit of role reversal.

We all know the Iraqi legislature is Bush administration and U.S. Congress are a rubber stamp body appointed by Bush bamboozled by Maliki and his cronies in Washington Baghdad to do their bidding so that they can suck Iraq America dry of oil billions of dollars so that they can get rich off the profits tribute when they sell it for record prices put it in their Swiss bank accounts. :D

Vatican Watcher on April 14, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Serial?

We all know the Iraqi legislature is a rubber stamp body appointed by Bush and his cronies in Washington to do their bidding so that they can suck Iraq dry of oil so that they can get rich off the profits when they sell it for record prices. :D

Because you are literally rooting for the enemy.

blatantblue on April 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Off with his head! Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

This pact puts them in the position of abandoning the Iraqis

According to an old Chinese proverb, if you save a man’s life you’re responsible for him thereafter. But what if the man whose life you saved was trying to kill himself? Are you more responsible than ever?
- Pierre Salvadori

A Treaty say somthing like I will defend you….

A SOFA says, when your troops are in my country, they will follow these rules, and have this authority…

If Bush tries to get the “I will defend you” part into a SOFA, then it needs to go to the Senate…

Otherwise… not….

Part of this issue is that the Senate has NOT pushed there authority on SOFAs… so they have essentialy given up that power… just like they did with the War Powers Act on War.

LOL

Now, all is revealed.

That’s called Texas Hold ‘Em!!

:)

Troika, it’s best not to feed this particular troll.

BAD IDEA!

A Status of Forces Agreement doesn’t usually have a long list of security demands and restrictions associated with it which would rise to the level of a treaty. It is an agreement over who will guard the bases (host nation rent a cops, US rent a cops, etc…), how they will handle their communications and operations, what will happen to US military and host nation civilians accused of crimes on the bases or in the field, where US forces will be allowed to train, what rules they will follow to do so, who they will call when things go wrong, when the lights don’t work, who pays whom, etc…. They are more like contracts for services than treaties.

They don’t usually cover who will land in country and set up a defense of the host nation if attacked by country B. That’s a treaty. “We will come to your aid if you are attacked by B”. That stuff is usually covered in Operations Plans produced by the military anyway as contingencies. And treaties will be formalized by the State Dept, not DOD. If the Iraqis want to approve it via legislators (since the only military folks they have are trained by the USA, they might want an independent review), then let ‘em have theirs. We have folks paid to do that for a living in DOD, not Congress.

This is a lot of nonsense about nothing. Does Congress really need to be briefed that a US serviceman accused of raping a 12 yr old host national will be turned over to the custody of the US Military for holding until formal charges are brought by the host nation, and discuss the nuances of how he shall then be turned over for prosecution to the host nation authorities? Guess we’d better get Congress to carry on full hearings on the Okinawa/Japan SOFA ASAP, huh? How about every time Korea wants to renegotiate this stuff, we get Congress involved instead of letting DOD and State do their legwork first? If everything is agreed to first, then why does Congress really need to put their grubby hands on it?

This is the worst idea I ever heard. Let Congress get into the bowels of DOD and use their proctoscope to finagle out ever crappy nuance of international law possible so we can idiot proof US military conduct? That’s the way to run a military. Why don’t we just give up Flag Officers and give each Congressman their own Army? That way when they duke it out on the floor of Congress, we can get some real resolution for our policy problems.

You can’t “idiot proof” everything. Why don’t we just listen to Chap and Bohica 22 and let the professional military folks handle the Status of Fodrces Agreements and let Congress get back to doing what it does best? Prostitution. Giving us a screwing and taking our money.

Subsunk out.

So no, not too surprising.

If we dont confront the radicals that want to CONQUER energy producing countries how much will it cost to no more then outguess them in the future? For an indeterminate amount of time.

Not to mention we would be viewed as nutless to the rest of the world, we also could never be assured that we could protect ourselves from catastrophic attack from the animals we let off the hook.

Cost is irrelevant since the other choice is simply defeat.

The Bush administration’s reliance on parsing the word “treaty” is simply Clintonian. This security partnership involves significant long-term commitments and should have Congressional oversight.

A conservative blog that isn’t a shill for the Bush Administration (*gasp*). I like your style, sir!

It is not a long term win.

They just use our bribe money to rearm.

“The Democrats want to avoid another national debate about Iraq.”

Wishful thinking?

Iraq’s falling apart…again.

I think them Dems would rather welcome another debate on Iraq…and the $200,000,000,000 a year we’re spending on it.

alphie on April 14, 2008 at 9:03 AM

What in the F are you talking about?

Falling apart? Holy shit, there is a small upsurge in violence for two weeks, and everything is “falling apart.”

The Maliki govt is transcending sectarian lines and taking out Shiite militias there; militias who established themselves after the British left….

PROVING THE POINT THAT IF WE JUST RETREAT THE VOID WILL BE FILLED WITH 7TH CENTURY SAVAGES!

How come you sillies dont raise those points alphie?

Because you are literally rooting for the enemy.

Troika37 at 9:28AM

Here, here! Jolly well said.

What good is a military success in Iraq if it costs America so much that we lose economically to India and China?

And the goalposts move again. Now it’s not that we’re winning, and stabalizing the country, it’s that it has become too expensive.

Tell you what, you figure out a way to tell millions of free Iraqis that securing the blessings of liberty for them and their posterity just isn’t worth it. It’s too long of a process, too complicated, and frankly, just too damn expensive.

I do have one question though: How can you believe it is the responsiblity of the United States to pay for healthcare and education for the millions of illegal aliens in this country on the grounds that they are simply seeking a better life? You are claiming – at the same time – that Iraqis have no right to a better life if it comes at the price of American dollars. “What good is … success in Iraq if it costs America so much that we lose economically?”

What good is a military success in Iraq if it costs America so much that we lose economically to India and China?

In the long run…military strength comes from economic strength.

And we’re getting our butts kicked.