Are they rolling up the welcome mat??


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080603142949.hgvghqxe&show_article= 1

Iraq at odds with US over troop presence beyond 2008

Quote:

The Iraqi government Tuesday said it had a "different vision" from the US over the deployment of American troops in the country beyond 2008 and vowed not to compromise national sovereignty. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the cabinet discussed the proposed Status of Forces Agreement which is scheduled to be concluded by next month and agreed that Iraq's national interests must be protected. "A joint vision on this issue is yet to be achieved between the two sides, and ... the Iraqi side has a different vision, and it will not undercut or be negligent towards Iraqis' rights and sovereignty," Dabbagh said.

Victory just around the corner? Finally?

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

ooops! That may be a problem on the roads to victory dont you think. You get the victory that you can have and not the one you want. Well I guesse that also hinges on the kind of victory that you want rather then the one that can be had. Im lOst , where am I ?

__________________
EVERY WORD YOU SAY IS A DOOR WAY TO YOU!

Oh lord.

When the Iraqis cooperate with us theyre lap dogs and puppets,when they attempt to remain the soveriegn entity they are theyre burdens.

Youre the ones that are convinced were colonizing the place when in reality the VICTORY has no such objective.Security..period.It wont take long to find out if the IA/IP is ready if the Iraqi govt decides to send us home too soon.I have a feeling theyll work it out.

Ability to have a say in the big picture seems like a fair request and the US has obliged again and again to this point.

Thats seems to me to be all theyre worried about.

__________________

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

Last time I checked we already had 'permanent' bases in Turkey and SA and we also are bookending Iran with Afghanistan, as well as the ships in the Gulf.Go look at a map,Irans already practically surrounded anyway.Iraq is not a necessity from a tactical standpoint for any attack on Iran.Although personally I think the Iraqis will sign an agreement that allows us a security presence for years making your entire point here moot,they have every right to have a say in the process,which they have been voicing(at the behest of Iran IMO).In the end we will be in Iraq a while at some level,those folks need bases so the bases will remain with them.If its 5 or 10 years then I guess the bases will be there for 5 or 10 years.Is that permanent? Not by the dictionary defintion.

Where are these resources you speak of?Iraq oil being pumped at postwar record level but were seeing none of it.In addition have you paying attention to who is doing the negotiation and decision making for the oil contracts (export and develpomental) in Iraq.Hint: its not us,its them.

If the Iranians insist on bringing their country to war then Iraq will be a nice staging area.If the Iraqis allow us to use their country then so be it.If not then we,ve got plenty of options out there boss.

Please provide us with some semblence of proof that US will have bases there forever,ie permanently.

Sadly for you the Iraqis wont be the antagonists to the US you are hoping for.Shortly they will sign an agreement and the US get on with the business of finishing the tasks at hand.

Maybe youre just confused about the meaning of permanent.

__________________

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

It’s simple, the longer we remain in the country we cut the legs out from underneath the Iraq government to be seen as not a puppet government of the united sates. Permanent bases means that we will be fielding killed and injured soldiers for years if not a 100 like Mr. McCain suggests. I do realize what he meant but it is appropriate to use as it relates in a peaceful presence or military. If a sovereign nation is asking us to leave because they feel by then or right now they can handle their country we are obligated to do so. If we don’t, then are true intentions will be revealed!

__________________
EVERY WORD YOU SAY IS A DOOR WAY TO YOU!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D912N6G03&show_article=1

Iraqi lawmaker: US-Iraq security talks stall

Quote:

BAGHDAD (AP) - Lawmakers allied to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Tuesday that negotiations over a U.S.-Iraqi security pact and the future status of American troops in Iraq were stumbling, with "almost all points under dispute." Dawa party lawmaker Haidar al-Abadi told reporters in Baghdad's U.S.- guarded Green Zone that "almost all American suggestions were countered by different Iraqi ones." "The negotiations are at a standstill, and the Iraqi side is studying its options," al-Abadi said, reading a statement from his party. The agreement, which both sides hope to finalize this summer, would outline the long-term security relationship between Iraq and the United States and provide a legal basis for American troops to stay in Iraq after their U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

Wouldn’t that be interesting? The UN putting sanctions on the U.S. for overstaying their welcome?

cont.

Quote:

al-Abadi, a Shiite legislator close to the prime minister, said talks have hit major stumbling blocks over the future status of U.S. military bases and American use of airspace over Iraq. "The Americans have some demands that the Iraqi government regards as infringing on its sovereignty," al-Abadi said. "This is the main dispute, and if the dispute is not settled, I frankly tell you there will not be an agreement." Al-Abadi said Iraq insists that Washington pay fees for each of its military bases in Iraq, as well as promise not to hold the bases permanently or even long-term. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh also issued a statement Tuesday saying al-Maliki's Cabinet discussed the proposed security agreement and "affirmed not to accept any article that undermines the national sovereignty."

So now they want us to pay them rent? Obviously us beng there is not in their best interest at this point, otherwise they wouldn't be treating us like unwanted guests, doncha think?

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

Looking on a map I see a strategically sound advantage to having base (s) in Iraq, as do you from your statements, especially concerning Iran!

As I also pointed there is an advantage but not a 'need' for it,you said that was the primary reason for the invasion.

Resources do not have to be used to be "financially" beneficial. Diamonds are in abundance on this planet, but it is the control over the product and it’s distribution that makes this commodity so valuable! It’s the control that makes it so precious. It’s the control of oil that makes it so valuable. Those profiting from oil do not want the market flooded with excessive drilling, anymore than the environmentalists do for completely different reasons. Pay attention to the obvious for a change!

So show me where the US begins to 'control' the product and its distribution.The free movement of oil is among the reasons listed by Bush himself as a reason to provide continued security in Iraq.Not restriction of oil transportation but freedom.If flooding the market is the concern the US had better stop Iraq as their oil output exports are nearing record levels and countrywide is expected to double in the next year....due to security.Talk about fearmongering.Without any evidence you continually play the conspiracy card but at some point dont you need to offer proof instead rhetoric? I can show the Iraqis 'controlling' their 'product',can you show me otherwise?Or maybe you meant the camel trade?

Jeez why don’t ya just ask me too produce the Easter Bunny? Logic dictates there is more to Iraq than helping Iraqis. Lot’s of people in countries all over the world could benefit from our government’s generosity and intervention into their government affairs, same as we did in Iraq!

There is more.Who has ever said otherwise.Its a complex war that is going to solve a variety of problems once completed.Any public figures state 'permanent' bases were on the horizon? Bush,Gates?

Why is it do you believe we are not so determined to bring freedom, democracy, and civil rights, to those folks, many of which could be helped without near the cost of Iraq?

I see youve earned your Phd in revisionist history,congrats.When the war in Iraq started 5 years ago there was no other country in need of regime change quite like Iraq.As I stated there were a variety of objectives to be attained with success in Iraq,democracy and freedom for them, just a couple.Even tho Bush pushed the democracy angle hard, its really just a byproduct of the big picture.


Sadly for me? They are only interested in gaining control of their own country. We are arming them for an impending civil war that will finally determine that, "once" we leave, or are out of their way! Why do you think the powers to be are so afraid of turning their keys back over to them? We are only preparing them for a civil war that is already in the process, they just need us out f the way so they can proceed!

Lol...you refuse to read up of the truth in Iraq dont you? To a degree youre right,we cant leave them until their military/police are cleansed of corruption and can function is a unified manner to protect for themselves the assets we now protect,which by all accounts is happening every single day in Iraq.IA/IP continues to take the lead all the time.


Right the battle over who is really in charge of Iraq! AKA civil war!

Civil war? more like taking out the trash.The IA is in the lead all over Iraq.Sunnis/Shia mixed in battle vs criminals who now arent sanctioned by the govt.It will take time to build numbers and confidence but I can assure those Marines/soldiers training the IA have alot to be proud of.Note that ogvt has cleaned up Basra,Sadr,Anbar,Mosul.I dont see sectarian persecution,I see going where the bad guys are and taking them out.Once again show me where im wrong.



Maybe you just refuse to admit that Iraqi plans for their future, may not be in line with corporate America’s plans for their future!

lol. Im a big advocate of Iraq taking control of themselves and expanding economically,implimenting security and reconstruction on their own.I fully expect that they will make the decisions about their future as theyve done all along.Knowing a little something about economics,I can see its going to be a natural progression that Iran becomes economically involved in Iraq.Whos got a problem with that? US just doesnt want military involvement from Iran.

Im also a realist who see its going to take some time.Given the progress to this point and the vast momentum swing over that last few years,its seems like the recent optimism is well founded.

__________________

New contracts could give Iraq quick oil fix

Reuters, Wednesday June 4 2008 By Simon Webb and Ahmed Rasheed

DUBAI/BAGHDAD, June 4 (Reuters) - Iraq is exporting more oil than it has for years and is on the verge of signing deals with oil majors that could quickly take output higher, oil officials say.

Baghdad expects this month to conclude negotiations for six oilfield service contracts with international companies that could boost output this year.
The deals could provide the extra 200,000 barrels per day (bpd) in exports Iraq wants from the southern Basra terminal by the end of 2008. Basra accounts for most of Iraq's exports, shipping more than 1.5 million bpd.
"Provided they are signed promptly, these deals could give quick progress," said an executive at a western oil company negotiating for one of the contracts.

"They are the first step towards real improvement in a sector that has been under stress for 30 years."

Iraq expects June exports to reach 2.2 million barrels per day, the highest for monthly shipments since the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003. Baghdad sees exports rising further to 2.3 million bpd by the end of 2008.

The oil sector has increased output as security has improved but oil companies remain nervous.

Iraq will contract international oil firms to help manage operations at its largest producing fields such as Rumaila in the south, supplying equipment to refurbish dilapidated infrastructure.

The two-year deals call for a total output boost of 600,000 barrels per day. Once the contracts are signed, Iraq plans to offer the same fields in a bidding round for longer-term development.

The industry needs billions of dollars for renewal and expansion. The service deals are part of stop-gap measures to attract part of that investment in the absence of a vital oil law.

Political disputes have stalled the passage of an oil law through parliament for over a year. The legislation aims to set the terms and extent of foreign investment in developing the world's third largest oil reserves.

"Considerable progress can be made without the law," said Muhammad-Ali Zainy, senior energy analyst at the London-based Centre for Global Energy Studies.

"These contracts are a big step forward and will help bring new methods and technology to these important fields."

BETTER SECURITY

Improved security has yielded gains of nearly 500,000 bpd in northern exports since last summer. Sabotage had kept that line mostly idle since the war.
Baghdad hopes to see Kirkuk oil exports up by another 100,000 bpd by the end of the year.

Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani said this week he was optimistic that Iraqi forces would keep security tight at oil facilities, helping to bolster the confidence of foreign investors discouraged by sectarian violence.

Rising output and exports are allowing Iraq to cash in on record oil prices and have raised the prospect of an accelerated recovery in its shattered economy.

Iraq has a 10-year plan to boost output from 2.5 million bpd this year to 6 million bpd, Shahristani said this week. It aims to hit 4.5 million bpd in five years.

But for those larger long-term gains, Iraq needs the oil law in place for international oil companies to play a bigger role in developing untapped fields.

"We remain very cautious in terms of further capacity expansion," said Alex Munton, analyst at global consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

"Iraq has almost reached the point, simply by repairing the damage of the last few years and adding security around main pipelines, of maximum capacity with the infrastructure in place. But there is little likelihood of being able to add to that without much larger-scale investment and the assistance of international oil companies."

Even with the law, international oil majors have said it would be years before security improves enough for them to be able to send ground staff to Iraq.
They intend to manage the new technical service contracts from outside the country, and will rely on Iraq's state oil companies to execute their plans.

The law is meant to help bridge divides between Iraq's Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. Control of oil reserves is one of the principal disputes.

The Iraqi Kurdish region's prime minister said on Tuesday that it would take fresh proposals to Baghdad on the oil law in the next two weeks. The Kurds' top energy official said he hoped the law would pass this year.

__________________