Comments on: Iraq Status-Of-Forces Agreement: Why It’s A Really Bad Deal No Matter How You Look At It

By: “But That’s Not What He Meant!” « Liberty Street

“But That’s Not What He Meant!” « Liberty Street — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:37:19 +0000

[...] It’s not like Iraqis don’t want U.S. troops in their country for the next 100 years. It’s not like the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are vehemently opposed to the terms and conditions under which the United States proposes to stay in…. [...]

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:19:10 +0000

What is interesting to bear in mind with this list of demands by the Bush administration is the rare blot on Israel's record regarding its haggling in the past with the Arabs over sovereignty in the Territories. I have seen insistences by at least some Israelis in the past that any new Palestinian “nation” not have any military forces or make mutual defense pacts with any other nation. That is hardly sovereignty or anything like a “nation.” (Consider how distorted that concept can be elsewhere, such as when some of the … unrealistic … expectations or merely desires by some Quebec separatists come to light [retaining Canadian currency and citizenship, etc., "divorce with bedroom privileges"]. Sovereignty means true separation and independence.)

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:14:46 +0000

Well, we know what you'll see no matter what the reality is there, Shaun.

Another good photo selection, I noticed, though.

This _is_ an occupation, Chris, but the USA has _never_ been an empire, even if it was imperialistic in a previous century.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:23:44 +0000

This just in. Iraq has asked that they be allowed to arrest anyone in America without our permission and for exemption from prosecution for any Iraqi national or contractor. Why the hell not? Let's sign it!

By: Buck Naked Politics

Buck Naked Politics — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:55:43 +0000

Iraqis Unhappy with US Demand for Indefinite Presence; Meanwhile, Bringing Troops Home ‘Not too important’ to McCain

by Damozel | One of my colleagues has been saying for some time that none of the candidates will actually bring the troops home because, as a practical matter, the US can’t afford to bring the troops home. Thanks to Bush and Halliburton, we’ve spille…

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:23:02 +0000

Who still wants to argue we aren't an empire and this isn't an occupation?

By: RememberNovember

RememberNovember — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:20:39 +0000

This is Bush's “I drink your milkshake” document.

By: bellisaurius

bellisaurius — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:27:28 +0000

For the sake of comparison:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/usa/sfa/pdfs/f...

and

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b510619a.htm

The first one is Japan's SOFA, the second is Nato's. The bases, immunity (not so much immunity, but rather the ability to try people in american court, under the foreign law), and the contractual monopoly are part of japan's. The immunity and bases, with some contractual elements, in Nato's.

The Iraqi don;t have to sign it, in fact, I think they would be putting on quite the display of independence if they don't. Both sides have a good chunk of leverage, so I'm pretty sure we'll get a SOFA, and probably one of the things on that list (outside of the stuff in japan's sofa), most likely the part about determining for ourselves what a threat is.

By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Iraqis Learning To Say No To The United States

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:17:45 +0000

[...] at the details of the agreement that Bush Administration is proposing, you have to ask yourself why the Iraqis would be dumb enough to agree to it: Under the agreement, formally known as a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship [...]