"It is also not easy when you are working with a sovereign government, and we intend to fully respect the sovereignty of Iraq," Rice said.

Am I the only one that has to chuckle just a little bit at this statement?

"Well, we are very close. I've said many times, really, that I think it is in the final stages."

Duh. After keeping them there for years against all reason, Bush needs to get some sort of negotiations in place. That way, when Obama comes along and ends the charade for good, Bush can claim credit. Can't have the effective, competent one steal your thunder by showing how easy it is to just put down a protracted, ineffective and unjust occupation like the sick dog it is.

"Heh, heh...Sure, he OPENED the jar. But I LOOSENED it."

Asshole.

But differences still remain, notably on granting immunity to US soldiers for acts committed in Iraq,

WHAT? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Tell me I'm reading this wrong.

"Yeah, I know that Joe raped several fellow female soldiers and has a habit of shooting Iraqi children for fun, but we need to support our troops damnit!"

I understand that most of the US military is disciplined and honorable, but how can they grant universal immunity when there's bound to be a few bad apples?

"We are working on the SOFA. We're making good progress. This is an important agreement," agreed Rice.

Condi and Hoshyar are working on the sofa?

bow-chicka-bow-bowww...

Raiden333

The question is who has jurisdiction to try U.S. troops. They still get court martialed under American law if they have immunity under Iraqi law. American soldiers have been tried for rape and murder commited in Iraq.

We are reluctant to let our troops be subject to foreign courts. This is due to concerns about fair treatment as well as disagreement over substantive law. You may recall the fury over American women soldiers in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield. Imagine if some local police force decided that American women were criminals because they did not wear veils, or because they drank alcohol.

Lionel Mandrake: Condi and Hoshyar are working on the sofa?

I thought Condi had a thing for Stephen Harper?

ZAZ: Raiden333

The question is who has jurisdiction to try U.S. troops. They still get court martialed under American law if they have immunity under Iraqi law. American soldiers have been tried for rape and murder commited in Iraq.

We are reluctant to let our troops be subject to foreign courts. This is due to concerns about fair treatment as well as disagreement over substantive law. You may recall the fury over American women soldiers in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield. Imagine if some local police force decided that American women were criminals because they did not wear veils, or because they drank alcohol.

Thanks for clearing it up. I'm still not sure how I feel about it, but it's a lot better than it previously sounded. I didn't catch the 'only immune in Iraqi law' thing.

ZAZ: Raiden333

The question is who has jurisdiction to try U.S. troops. They still get court martialed under American law if they have immunity under Iraqi law. American soldiers have been tried for rape and murder commited in Iraq.

We are reluctant to let our troops be subject to foreign courts. This is due to concerns about fair treatment as well as disagreement over substantive law. You may recall the fury over American women soldiers in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield. Imagine if some local police force decided that American women were criminals because they did not wear veils, or because they drank alcohol.

WTF? A logical, well argued answer? Who are you and what have you done to my Fark?

I think this is bad...

...for Obama.

...about time?

seminole87: and bush supporters are still assholes.

And seminole fans are gay, what are we gettin at?

SOFAkingretarded

DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA!!! IT'S A TRAP!!!

TERRORISM ZOMG ZOMG !@1!!

FarKnight: I think this is bad...

...for Obama.

See Nixon '72

FarKnight: I think this is bad...

...for Obama.

I think MaxxLarge pointed that out. What's important is that George Bush Barack Obama Democrats vs. Republicans rage politics bla bla bla. Not that our troops come home.

But differences still remain, notably on granting immunity to US soldiers for acts committed in Iraq, whether Washington has the right to detain Iraqi prisoners and on the future command of military operations on the ground.

...WHAT? Why shouldn't they have immunity? It's war.

How close are we?

10 more American lives close? 1000 more Iraqi lives close? 10,000,000,000 US dollars a day close?

Just how close are we to solving this quagmire that our President and his cabinet thrust us in to? I'd really like to know so that tomorrow I can check Iraq off of my deployment list again.

Lionel Mandrake: "We are working on the SOFA. We're making good progress. This is an important agreement," agreed Rice.

Condi and Hoshyar are working on the sofa?

bow-chicka-bow-bowww...

Oh, it ain't a couch and it ain't no sofa. It's a love seat. Ahhhhh yeah!

Tacoby Bellisbury: But differences still remain, notably on granting immunity to US soldiers for acts committed in Iraq, whether Washington has the right to detain Iraqi prisoners and on the future command of military operations on the ground.

...WHAT? Why shouldn't they have immunity? It's war.

Really? When was war formally declared?

There should be a constant presence in the middle east to ensure a quick responce to any instability with our new found allies in iraq.

kuwait imo.

Sorry I meant 10bil/month close. You get the point though.

I understand that most of the US military is disciplined and honorable, but how can they grant universal immunity when there's bound to be a few bad apples?

Germany, Japan, and Korea have all managed to live with SOFA agreements.

That's why we have the UCMJ. It's universally applied to troops wherever they are.

thatguyfred: Sorry I meant 10bil/month close. You get the point though.

look up how much we spend a month on illegal immigration...

Swede: I understand that most of the US military is disciplined and honorable, but how can they grant universal immunity when there's bound to be a few bad apples?

Germany, Japan, and Korea have all managed to live with SOFA agreements.

That's why we have the UCMJ. It's universally applied to troops wherever they are.

oh and we are subject to double jeopardy aswell...

lexslamman: Really? When was war formally declared?

Oh, yeah, that's right, they're having a polo match over there. My bad.

I thought Obama tried to sabotage the Executive Branch and had a treasonist deal down to postpone this? So much for Obama's effectiveness in foreign policy undermining America's interest. Man - are them Socialist/commies gonna be pissed. I see a big vote surge for Nader in the next polling cycle....

UnholyBacon: thatguyfred: Sorry I meant 10bil/month close. You get the point though.

look up how much we spend a month on illegal immigration...

Yes we spend a lot of money trying to combat something that is ultimately not going to work. -- That can be applied to The War on Terror, The War on Drugs, and Illegal Immigration.

What the American people have to decide is, when is enough enough?

It is fairly typically for foreign troops to only fall under the judicial oversight of their own legal system. It makes sense, if you're looking for a scapegoat the foreign troops with all the guns look like a great one.

For most UN operations the troopa only answer to their home governments.

SilentStrider: Lionel Mandrake: Condi and Hoshyar are working on the sofa?

I thought Condi had a thing for Stephen Harper?

Wrong guy. (new window).

Tacoby Bellisbury: lexslamman: Really? When was war formally declared?

Oh, yeah, that's right, they're having a polo match over there. My bad.

Its actually more like pocket pool.

Tacoby Bellisbury: But differences still remain, notably on granting immunity to US soldiers for acts committed in Iraq, whether Washington has the right to detain Iraqi prisoners and on the future command of military operations on the ground.

...WHAT? Why shouldn't they have immunity? It's war.

Right, war means you can basically do what you want with no consequences whatsoever.

Wow, that guy looks like Paul Bearer

"American Army pulling out? That's a GRAVE mistake!"

Tacoby Bellisbury: lexslamman: Really? When was war formally declared?

Oh, yeah, that's right, they're having a polo match over there. My bad.

You do realize that there hasn't been a congressionally sanctioned war since before Vietnam right? Simply because we're there fighting doesn't all of the sudden make it legal or official.

butIprovedthem: SilentStrider: Lionel Mandrake: Condi and Hoshyar are working on the sofa?

I thought Condi had a thing for Stephen Harper?

Wrong guy. (new window).

This time with real link.(new window)

FTFA: "But we also are working in the context of a long-term strategic framework that will make us allies and friends for a long, long time to come."

I don't know about you guys, but if somebody bombs my house and forcibly enters it, I'm not going to consider them my friend.

Just leave. A major American military presence in the Middle East does nothing but agitate everyone there and lead to all sorts of saber-rattling that we just don't need.

bulldg4life: Am I the only one that has to chuckle just a little bit at this statement?

You are SO right. Sovereignty is a magical get-away-with-genocide card, and as long as the tyrant in charge is not dumb enough to leave their fingerprints on a swing at somebody outside their borders, they're free to kill and rape and torture to their blackened little heart's content.

And since it's impossible for even the combined might of the civilized world to save every victim/target of genocide, it's only fair that we save nobody and restrict ourselves to strongly worded letters, press conferences during which unspecified dire consequences are threatened possibly mentioned, and periodic well-catered conferences in which we condemn the latest atrocities in the strongest possible terms and restate our firm commitment to human rights before returning to our drinks.

You do realize that there hasn't been a congressionally sanctioned war since before Vietnam right? Simply because we're there fighting doesn't all of the sudden make it legal or official.

Every time Congress cuts a check to fund it says otherwise.

Gulper Eel: You are SO right. Sovereignty is a magical get-away-with-genocide card, and as long as the tyrant in charge is not dumb enough to leave their fingerprints on a swing at somebody outside their borders, they're free to kill and rape and torture to their blackened little heart's content.

And since it's impossible for even the combined might of the civilized world to save every victim/target of genocide, it's only fair that we save nobody and restrict ourselves to strongly worded letters, press conferences during which unspecified dire consequences are threatened possibly mentioned, and periodic well-catered conferences in which we condemn the latest atrocities in the strongest possible terms and restate our firm commitment to human rights before returning to our drinks.

Stuff your sarcasm up your ass. Iraqis are worse off right now than they were before we invaded.

What is 'illegal' about this? It was passed by both houses, making it law.

Link (new window)

deltabourne: Tacoby Bellisbury: But differences still remain, notably on granting immunity to US soldiers for acts committed in Iraq, whether Washington has the right to detain Iraqi prisoners and on the future command of military operations on the ground.

...WHAT? Why shouldn't they have immunity? It's war.

Right, war means you can basically do what you want with no consequences whatsoever.

That's not what "immunity" means in this case it means that the tropps will fall under the UCMJ instead of local law, why don't you go back and re-read the posts.

China's the new superpower, let them start policing the g*d damn world.

Our troops need to leave Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi, Germany, etc. They probably will soon anyway, once we can no longer afford to support our Pentagon.

Swede: You do realize that there hasn't been a congressionally sanctioned war since before Vietnam right? Simply because we're there fighting doesn't all of the sudden make it legal or official.

Every time Congress cuts a check to fund it says otherwise.

You and I both know that argument doesn't hold up. It would be nice if either of us didn't have to continually to deploy to that shiathole wouldn't it? I'd rather spend my time in Afghanistan where we should have stayed.

michaeld5: ur troops need to leave Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi, Germany, etc. They probably will soon anyway, once we can no longer afford to support our Pentagon.

Give it 8 years, with the exception of Japan and Germany, we'll be all but out.

I'm working up to taking a crap, if anyone is interested in that "news".

Seacop: deltabourne: Tacoby Bellisbury: But differences still remain, notably on granting immunity to US soldiers for acts committed in Iraq, whether Washington has the right to detain Iraqi prisoners and on the future command of military operations on the ground.

...WHAT? Why shouldn't they have immunity? It's war.

Right, war means you can basically do what you want with no consequences whatsoever.

That's not what "immunity" means in this case it means that the tropps will fall under the UCMJ instead of local law, why don't you go back and re-read the posts.

That may be what immunity means in this case but that certainly didn't sound like what the poster meant.

deltabourne: Seacop: deltabourne: Tacoby Bellisbury: But differences still remain, notably on granting immunity to US soldiers for acts committed in Iraq, whether Washington has the right to detain Iraqi prisoners and on the future command of military operations on the ground.

...WHAT? Why shouldn't they have immunity? It's war.

Right, war means you can basically do what you want with no consequences whatsoever.

That's not what "immunity" means in this case it means that the tropps will fall under the UCMJ instead of local law, why don't you go back and re-read the posts.

That may be what immunity means in this case but that certainly didn't sound like what the poster meant.

He had already been addressed, you had not.

Seacop: deltabourne: Tacoby Bellisbury: But differences still remain, notably on granting immunity to US soldiers for acts committed in Iraq, whether Washington has the right to detain Iraqi prisoners and on the future command of military operations on the ground.

...WHAT? Why shouldn't they have immunity? It's war.

Right, war means you can basically do what you want with no consequences whatsoever.

That's not what "immunity" means in this case it means that the tropps will fall under the UCMJ instead of local law, why don't you go back and re-read the posts.

troops are also subject to double jeopardy, few know this to be true but ive seen it happen several times at my command.

UnholyBacon: Seacop: deltabourne: Tacoby Bellisbury: But differences still remain, notably on granting immunity to US soldiers for acts committed in Iraq, whether Washington has the right to detain Iraqi prisoners and on the future command of military operations on the ground.

...WHAT? Why shouldn't they have immunity? It's war.

Right, war means you can basically do what you want with no consequences whatsoever.

That's not what "immunity" means in this case it means that the tropps will fall under the UCMJ instead of local law, why don't you go back and re-read the posts.

troops are also subject to double jeopardy, few know this to be true but ive seen it happen several times at my command.

As have I. Right now in fact, I'm a mast rep on Friday for an E-3's DUI, also facing civi charges.

MaxxLarge: "Well, we are very close. I've said many times, really, that I think it is in the final stages."

Duh. After keeping them there for years against all reason, Bush needs to get some sort of negotiations in place. That way, when Obama comes along and ends the charade for good, Bush can claim credit. Can't have the effective, competent one steal your thunder by showing how easy it is to just put down a protracted, ineffective and unjust occupation like the sick dog it is.


Actually, the UN mandate runs out Dec 31. So it is necessary to either pull out all troops by that date (we all know that aint gonna happen), or have another agreement that allows them to stay. Waiting for the next administration won't work, from a legal standpoint.

And before we go off on the legalities of being there in the first place, I would only say that there was a Ceasefire declared in 1991. Iraq violated that CF on an almost daily basis. So from a legal standpoint, when one side violates a ceasefire, the ceasefire is no longer binding on anyone. There is several centuries, if not millenia, of set precedent. I know, our idiot President 'sold' the war on totally different issues, but this is why you could never get any type of conviction for our troops Iraq presence in a court of law.

Whether or not you could get a conviction for selling the war on false pretense, or the total mismanagement of the war, are other issues altogether. And it was mismanaged. I have never seen such absolute stupidity. First and most importantly, was there was not a proper plan to keep the peace after the government was deposed. The troops sat back and allowed all kinds of looting and vengeance to take place right in front of them because they had no orders to stop it. Then, after telling the Iraqi army to stay home during the invasion, and for the most part they did, then say 'You're all fired', well, we might as well have strapped bombs to their chests ourselves and said 'The Americans/Sunnis/Shiites are that way'. Those are the criminal issues in my opinion.