U.S. troops in or out of Iraq?
U.S. and Iraq Negotiate on Extending Troops' Stay
At the end of the year, a United Nations mandate expires that gives the U.S. a legal right to have troops in Iraq. The U.S. is negotiating a pact with Iraq that will extend their right to stay beyond 2008. But Iraqi politicians are concerned the U.S. is seeking too much, and some U.S. Congress members don't want to see the Bush administration tie the hands of the next U.S. president.
"It may be up to the U.N. to decide."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91297264&ft=1&f=1001
LOLs :D, just picturing that puts a smile on my face :) The chickens on crutches, that is.
but think of those poor chickens on crutches..
Getting back to the subject, strategically, the USA will never "fully" leave Eye-RAq.. They are too worried about the influence of Eye-Ran.
It was the first day of a school in USA and a new Indian student named Chandrasekhar Subramanian entered the fourth grade.
The teacher said, 'Let's begin by reviewing some American History.
Who said 'Give me Liberty , or give me Death'?
She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Chandrasekhar, who had his hand up:
'Patrick Henry, 1775' he said.
'Very good!'
Who said 'Government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall not perish from the Earth?'
Again, no response except from Chandrasekhar.
'Abraham Lincoln, 1863' said Chandrasekhar.
The teacher snapped at the class, 'Class, you should be ashamed.
Chandrasekhar, who is new to our country, knows more about its history than you do.'
She heard a loud whisper: 'F**k the Indians,'
'Who said that?' she demanded. Chandrasekhar put his hand up. 'General Custer, 1862.'
At that point, a student in the back said, 'I'm gonna puke.'
The teacher glares around and asks 'All right! Now, who said that?'
Again, Chandrasekhar says, 'Al Gore to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991.'
Now furious, another student yells, 'Oh yeah? Suck this!'
Chandrasekhar jumps out of his chair waving his hand and shouts to the teacher , 'Bill Clinton, to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!'
Now with almost mob hysteria someone said 'You little shit. If you say anything else, I'll kill you.'
Chandrasekhar frantically yells at the top of his voice, ' Michael Jackson to the child witnesses testifying against him- 2004.'
The teacher fainted. And as the class gathered around the teacher on the floor, someone said, 'Oh sh*t, we're f**ked!'
And Chandrasekhar said quietly, 'I think it was George Bush, Iraq , 2007.'
Somethings I won't eat.
LOL! Hey you're shocked! Dude I knew that "ginger beef" from the Chinese place next to the gas station tasted strange. :P
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
Now i am never going to eat in a chinese restaurant
Fun with legalese:
United Nations Security Council resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 949 (1994).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
"the U.N. (presumably S.C.) that voted to let the coalition in... there is a lot more 'blame' to lay than just on the U.S. for what goes on in Iraq."
1.The UN NEVER gave a green light for the American invasion of Iraq.
2.The USA, and the USA ALONE, is 100% responsible for the chaos in Iraq.
Actually Shuai it is legal to sell dog meat in Canada.
Canada
Consumption of dog meat is taboo in mainstream Canadian culture. However it may be practised by some cultural minorities. In 2003, health inspectors discovered four frozen canine carcasses in the freezer of a Chinese restaurant in Edmonton.[12] Subsequently, the Edmonton health inspector said that it is not illegal to sell and eat the meat of dogs and other canines, as long as the meat has been inspected.[13] In the end, these four particular canine carcasses were found to be coyotes. Ed Greenburg, an official with Edmonton's Capital Health Region, said the fact that the animals were coyotes doesn't change anything and inspectors are still looking into the possibility that uninspected meat was served at the restaurant. Under Canada's Wildlife Act, it is illegal to sell meat from any wild species. There is no law against selling and serving canine meat, including dogs, but it must be killed and gutted in front of federal inspectors.[14]
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
Will u allow it for a minority, even though the majority do not consume it,
By the way have u tried scorpion liquor - lol!
By the way Iam sure the supreme court will have a democratic response - LOL!
By the way, the population is around 27 million. Yes KSA exerts a lot of influence, but that's because its the Big Dog in the region. As the USA in North America.
Saudis , do not allow alcohol and pork.. That is their perogative. I think many states in India do not allow sale of cows meat. Again it their right. Even in Israel, some cities ban the selling of pork.
Sorry old men and Western waygooks who want a thrill. :P There will probably always be one dog soup shop just to cater to tourists. ;P
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
Dog in Korea was an issue for a long time before that, since before they held the Olympic Games. Dog is not just for anyone to eat, it's technically for men only to ah *ahem* make them strong like bull. So women were never allowed to eat it anyway. Since those particular effects of dog have been disproven it's gone out of style except among older men. But once they die off it will probably be gone for good.
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
Not after the international outrage during the world cup.
Com se com sa we all find a way of approving what we want and disapproving what we dont seem fit for us.
Democracy wins!!
Well, it would have to go to the Supreme Court, and more then likely if there's enough interest shown in it there will be health guidelines established to oversea that it's done humanely.
But seeing as how it's difficult to find a great demand for dog meat in Korea, I don't see it happening.
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
Come to think of it Shuai, it's probably easier to get dog/cat or scorpion meat here then pork. :P
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
And what if they do ask for it?
Just like u
I'm against censorship in any way. As for dogs, cats and fetuses well...we've got loads of Chinese, Korean's and Japanese in Canada and they aren't asking for that yet. :S
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
But are u saying ur against restricted censorship.
Or just that u miss liquor and pork.
Because i can live with that,
U see as soon as they allow pork to be available in the markets u will have the chinese asking for scorpions and koreans will be asking for dogs and cats and the Japanese will be asking for Human Fetuses - LOL!!
The fact is that internal country policy is often affected by the neighbouring country. In Canada we won't be legalizing marijuana anytime soon because of trade threats from the US. The more fundamentalist states you have surrounding you (especially ones with an economic influence on you) the more likely you are to conform to their demands.
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
But KSA is also the reason that Sharjah is a completley dry emirate in the U.A.E, KSA but up the money for the grand mosque there with conditions. One of those was that there is to be no alcohol.
No I was actually thinking something more economic such as halting trade with other GCC countries, stopping Saudi citizens from crossing the borders to spend their hard earned cash in Dubai and Bahrain. Making travel visa's even more difficult to get. There's loads they can do.
Also, I'm not arguing whether the government is or is not doing things islamically, the point is THEY say they are.
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
Blah I've been sick as a dog all weekend and I'm having trouble framing my thoughts. But, the KSA is a country with 55 million people, some of whom are very very very rich,the rest of the Gulf states border this country, and in cases like, say, sending a truckload of magazines from Dubai to Doha, actually need to pass through the KSA where the contents of the trucks are subjected to the laws of the KSA. So, if you print a magazine in Dubai to send to Doha you have to make sure there's nothing in it that would get it stopped and held at either border, therefore, Dubai and Doha tend to stick to more strict censorship laws.
There's also pressure on what/and how the newspapers talk about Saudi. And how available pork and alcohol are in Bahrain. The current legislations in Bahrain are actually a direct result of KSA pressure.
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
Touche
Gypsy with ur comment i realize what Canary bird meant by a lot of wud be politicians
By the way Qatar has been called irreligious by its own and not only the other gulf countries, but it doesnt matter since Qatar is a Monarchy not a Islamic government.
And who gave the onus of being religious to KSA, there are many things going on the rest of KSA which can be called unislamic
By the way what kind of trouble do u mean,
A little trash talk in the daily? - LOL!
Southland i am sure the ISI arent available for confirming this
Just like any other secret service organisation in the world
U can believe in conspiracies if u want to
I am sure you are again correct. Though the Gulf Monarchs are independent, I am sure the pay fealty to King Abdullah.
Democracy in the GCC:
http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0412_kechichian.asp
With many of the Gulf states it has less to do with religion and more to do with how much trouble they can expect from the KSA, or other "religious" states for being called "irreligious"
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
ur mixing religion with government here
Muslim dominated countrys usually abide by these standards
But i am very sure u get those things in Qatar, infact i was offered the same unknowingly by a friend
Saw it here when it first came out. They are the 'brainchild' of the ISI, for pan-Pashtu influence. See attached map.
You don't think Iran and Saudi Arabia put pressure on the Gulf States? What about the lack of access to pork, alcohol, etc, not to mention a lot of the censorship here. That's all because of pressure from KSA.
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
The origin as u say wasnt in 1994 but way back in the 80s when the afghans were fighting the soviets
It is the Wahhabi in the Near East:
This branch of Islam is often referred to as "Wahhabi," a term that many adherents to this tradition do not use. Members of this form of Islam call themselves Muwahhidun ("Unitarians", or "unifiers of Islamic practice"). They use the Salafi Da'wa or Ahlul Sunna wal Jama'a. The teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab are more often referred to by adherents as Salafi, that is, "following the forefathers of Islam."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm
And It has never happened before either.
If it has i wud be really happy if u cud enlighten me
A Paki phenomenon:
The world first became aware of the Taleban in 1994 when they were appointed by Islamabad to protect a convoy trying to open up a trade route between Pakistan and Central Asia.
Years of conflict have made gun culture the norm in Kabul
Years of conflict have made gun culture the norm in Kabul
The group - comprised of Afghans trained in religious schools in Pakistan along with former Islamic fighters or mujahedin - proved effective bodyguards, driving off other mujahedin groups who attacked and looted the convoy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/144382.stm
I was using the Taliban as an example of a fundamentalist government. So you're saying fundamentalist regimes like KSA and Iran don't have the ability to put much pressure on the Gulf States?
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
Its very hard for the Taliban to put pressure on the gulf states
Taliban even in power is still a poor government without the necessary means for applying pressure.
I'd be more worried about religious hardliners (ie. the Taliban) taking over in Iraq and putting more pressure on the Gulf states to adopt a hardline Islamist government.
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
Which forces r u talking about,
Iraqs gone underground already,
Iran will never ever attack Qatar and Bahrain, since irans own people have a lot to lose in such a scenario.
Just look at the roots of the major business power houses in Qatar if u think i am wrong,
U dont have to leave anywhere - believe u me!
There are so many would be politiciams here, I would like to see how you will all handle the ongoing peace process to keep the whole of the Gulf Region stable including Iran and Iraq if the US does pull out its forces. I can tell you there are a great many more forces in the game than just the US, who are waiting for an opportunity to crush the Gulf States - this means you me and all the others would have to leave and go home. The result would be disasterous for an already oncoming world depression.
Colin powell said it best "You Break it You Buy it"
Realsomeone the US will leave when order has been restored to the country. They have no intentions of making Iraq a 51st state.
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
what ever, you cant deny the fact that US occupied Iraq and will not leave until defeated...so what is your point?
if you look in the last decades it was US who was fueling wars around the world, so i guess its US who is going back to middle ages.
"He who does not thank people, does not thank Allah" prophet Muhammed (pbuh)
So your all about going 'Ghengis Khan' aren't you? You know the Middle Ages were about 800 years ago.
this sounds funny, US anyway occupied Iraq and they can stay as long as they want until they are defeated so what is the use of security pack.
secondly what is the use of UN mandate, UN could not stop US from devastating Iraq and they still gave mandate what a useless org.
anyway its not upto the UN, its upto the Iraqi people to free their country by force. otherwise US will never leave Iraq and they will use it for launch ground to attack other countries.
"He who does not thank people, does not thank Allah" prophet Muhammed (pbuh)
You are correct Gypsy. I'm just curious how it will play out. Since there is only the 'coalition of the coerced' and the evil Zionist/capitalist/fascist America is running the world, I want to see who is playing patsy ;)
The US can't pull out now, that would lead to even more chaos and destruction in Iraq :(
Visit www.qatarhappening.com
No new UNSC resolution needed for war against Iraq: Howard
Asian Political News, March 17, 2003
Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Sunday called the prospects of a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq ''very remote indeed'' but argued there is ''already an adequate basis in international law'' for the United States and its allies to launch an attack.
''The prospects of that resolution or some roughly equivalent or acceptably amended form passing the Security Council now appears very remote indeed,'' Howard told a press conference, speaking a day after telephone talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
But he added, ''At the eleventh hour, you could still get a faint possibility of avoiding military conflict if everybody in the Security Council got behind a tough new resolution.''
In an apparent allusion to France, Howard said the difficulty in gaining acceptance for a new resolution proposed by the U.S., Britain and Spain is ''largely due to the intransigent attitude being taken by one of the other (Security Council) permanent members.''
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_/ai_98838918
I am not blaming the USA. I just feel that they "manipulated" the U.N when getting the green light for Iraq.
Now that they are there, they will not want to leave in a hurry or permanently.
That quote was from the audio portion on the link. I thought the interesting part about it, was that it was the U.N. (presumably S.C.) that voted to let the coalition in and it may go before the S.C.(?) again. Even though the U.N. GA may be 'worthless' there is a lot more 'blame' to lay than just on the U.S. for what goes on in Iraq.
Link to current U.N.S.C.
http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp
It was all fine, till the sentence.."It may be up to the UN to decide."... Now that's funny. The UN is as much use as Ni*ples on a man, if you'll pardon the expression.
The Iraqis are in no real position to negotiate.
The next president may reduce troops to a manageable level, but the USA will always have a presence in the country / region from now on.