[CoiI8XIj]

Iraq will ask the US to keep its troops in the country beyond the 2011 withdrawal deadline set by US President Barack Obama, Leon Panetta, the White House's pick to lead the Pentagon, said.

"It's clear to me that Iraq is considering the possibility of making a request for some kind of (troop) presence to remain there," Panetta said, adding that he had "every confidence" the request would be "forthcoming at some point."

The outgoing CIA chief told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the US should agree once the request is made.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...022257677.html


How long are we going to continue the charade? WE are the ones who want to stay, not the Iraqis. I'm not a psychic, but I'm pretty sure if the Iraqi authorities had the slightest interest in us staying after the looming deadline they would've asked already.

What's with the obsession with staying in Iraq anyways? Even if the WMDs existed they were stolen ages ago, China has the oil, the Sunni insurgents have been paid off, the Shiites have what they want, and Iran has established ties in the new government. We've already failed every single conceivable objective in this war, so why bother?

[Idorsearogele]

Funny, I don't ever remember them setting conditions for victory. I don't think we even had objectives!

[mvjvz]

I think the objective was toppling Saddam and we did. Then we had to clean up the mess we made in the country which is what has taken so long. The war in Iraq was grossly mismanaged. They never should have gotten rid of everyone in the government and the military. They should have kept a few people and besides, Saddam's army didn't even like him so they would've helped but we just helped create some disgruntled individuals who helped fuel the insurgency.

I think we've done what we need to do and it's time to go. We made an agreement with the Iraq government to be gone by 1 Jan 2012. If the Iraqis haven't asked us by now, they won't. If they did happen to wait until the last minute, that would be incredibly stupid because from what I understand the troops who are still there are in the process of withdrawal - taking inventories, shipping things back. We aren't doing combat missions there just training and advising. Let the State Dept go in and take over the training and let's get the military out. If the Iraqis don't have their shit together by now they aren't going to. We can't stay there forever. I mean look at the US - look how long it took us after we declared independence before we even had our Constitution. Building or re-building a country takes time - especially in Iraq where the infrastructure was let go for like 30 years.

[inilbowly]

WE are the ones who want to stay, not the Iraqis.

+1. I totally agree with you. Now a politician is asking that when Iraq becomes "financially" stable, that they should start paying us money for our mission over there. Well; if they start footing the bill; would you promote a longer presence?

[Wmshyrga]

The defense industry (a.k.a. friends of the generals and congressmen) stand to lose hundreds of billions if we shut down operations. It's all about the benjamins baby.

Iraq will ask the US to keep its troops in the country beyond the 2011 withdrawal deadline set by US President Barack Obama, Leon Panetta, the White House's pick to lead the Pentagon, said.

"It's clear to me that Iraq is considering the possibility of making a request for some kind of (troop) presence to remain there," Panetta said, adding that he had "every confidence" the request would be "forthcoming at some point."

The outgoing CIA chief told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the US should agree once the request is made.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...022257677.html


How long are we going to continue the charade? WE are the ones who want to stay, not the Iraqis. I'm not a psychic, but I'm pretty sure if the Iraqi authorities had the slightest interest in us staying after the looming deadline they would've asked already.

What's with the obsession with staying in Iraq anyways? Even if the WMDs existed they were stolen ages ago, China has the oil, the Sunni insurgents have been paid off, the Shiites have what they want, and Iran has established ties in the new government. We've already failed every single conceivable objective in this war, so why bother?

[ballingham]

+1. I totally agree with you. Now a politician is asking that when Iraq becomes "financially" stable, that they should start paying us money for our mission over there. Well; if they start footing the bill; would you promote a longer presence?

No. Because even if they're "footing the bill", that can't make up for the guys and gals who die over there. No amount of money can make up for that.

The defense industry (a.k.a. friends of the generals and congressmen) stand to lose hundreds of billions if we shut down operations. It's all about the benjamins baby.

I've said that before. War supporters tell me this is a "conspiracy theory".

[Precturge]

No. Because even if they're "footing the bill", that can't make up for the guys and gals who die over there. No amount of money can make up for that.



I've said that before. War supporters tell me this is a "conspiracy theory".

Well we can't keep the military there forever, especially if they cut the force as much as they are talking about so eventually the military has to leave.

[NKUDirectory]

Not from a lack of trying...

[ZesePreodaNed]

Iraq will ask the US to keep its troops in the country beyond the 2011 withdrawal deadline set by US President Barack Obama, Leon Panetta, the White House's pick to lead the Pentagon, said.

"It's clear to me that Iraq is considering the possibility of making a request for some kind of (troop) presence to remain there," Panetta said, adding that he had "every confidence" the request would be "forthcoming at some point."

The outgoing CIA chief told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that the US should agree once the request is made.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...022257677.html


How long are we going to continue the charade? WE are the ones who want to stay, not the Iraqis. I'm not a psychic, but I'm pretty sure if the Iraqi authorities had the slightest interest in us staying after the looming deadline they would've asked already.

What's with the obsession with staying in Iraq anyways? Even if the WMDs existed they were stolen ages ago, China has the oil, the Sunni insurgents have been paid off, the Shiites have what they want, and Iran has established ties in the new government. We've already failed every single conceivable objective in this war, so why bother?

Isn't it great when campaign promises might be broken?

[Âåðåùàãèí]

I've said that before. War supporters tell me this is a "conspiracy theory".

It wasn't that we are still there because of the "war supporters" making tons of money, we call your theory for going INTO the country as a "conspiracy". We stay now for 2 reasons, one is the people that are making money hand over fist at setting up Iraq, the other is for the pride of not finding the WMDs that we knew they had because they tested them out on villages.

[Pippoles]

It wasn't that we are still there because of the "war supporters" making tons of money, we call your theory for going INTO the country as a "conspiracy". We stay now for 2 reasons, one is the people that are making money hand over fist at setting up Iraq, the other is for the pride of not finding the WMDs that we knew they had because they tested them out on villages.

great post

[vSzsgifP]

They ARE asking us to stay:

http://theiraqidinar.com/2011/06/05/...rkuk-governor/

Kirkuk, June 5 (AKnews) – Kirkuk governor Najmaddin Karim said on Sunday that US forces will stay in Kirkuk beyond the December 2011 deadline for their withdrawal set in a security agreement signed between Iraq and Washington in 2008.

Currently, there are some 47,000 remaining US troops in Iraq, about a quarter of the number that were stationed here following the 2003 invasion.

”We have told the US officials that until article 140 of the Iraqi constitution is implemented, the US forces must stay in the disputed areas,” said Mr. Karim, “…and the US officials have given us guarantees that their forces will remain.”

Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution outlines a three-stage process to resolving the disputes over areas contested by the Kurdistan Regional Government and the central government in Baghdad.

[wonceinee]

Settle it, then let us out, please...just my 2 cents

[Dilangfh]

It wasn't that we are still there because of the "war supporters" making tons of money, we call your theory for going INTO the country as a "conspiracy".

I'd be interested to know what this "theory" that I supposedly made is. Maybe while you're researching this baseless claim you'll also find a piece of the true cross, the holy grail, Noah's anchor, and a fossil proving people and dinosaurs roamed the earth together.

We stay now for 2 reasons, one is the people that are making money hand over fist at setting up Iraq, Exactly.

the other is for the pride of not finding the WMDs that we knew they had because they tested them out on villages. Then it is very fortunate that we intervened and destroyed the villages before Saddam could.

[purchasviagra]

I'd be interested to know what this "theory" that I supposedly made is. Maybe while you're researching this baseless claim you'll also find a piece of the true cross, the holy grail, Noah's anchor, and a fossil proving people and dinosaurs roamed the earth together.

You don't think we went in there just to claim their oil? Or to make money for the evil Haliburton? You are telling me you actually believe our intentions were to find the WMDs?

[actioliGalm]

You don't think we went in there just to claim their oil? Or to make money for the evil Haliburton? You are telling me you actually believe our intentions were to find the WMDs?

I honestly don't know. Saying we just went in for the oil is overly simplistic. While its true a war can be profitable for American oil companies, it also runs a huge risk for them. So that may be ONE underlying cause, maybe - I would definitely not say that is the primary reason we invaded.

As for Dick Cheney's Haliburton connections, he's certainly made them obscenely rich by killing/crippling American troops by the thousands... but again, that doens't necessarily mean IRAQ. And while our foreign policy is definitely influenced by the corporate free market, I'm not sure I buy that explanation either.

What I don't get is why Saddam was such a dickhead. He talked big, but didn't have any weapons. Why the hell would someone provoke a stronger opponent into attacking over a weapon he doesn't have? I'll bet there's more to the Iraq war than meets the eye. Guess we'll have to wait for the next WikiLeaks revelation...

[Agedprepdoock]

Funny, I didn't know that the governor of Kirkuk (a.k.a. nephew of some higher up) spoke for all of Iraq. Good to know. You don't think he was influenced at all (a.k.a. given $50.00) to make this public request?

Maybe I'm just skeptical based on my two tours in that crotch of a country though.

They ARE asking us to stay:

http://theiraqidinar.com/2011/06/05/...rkuk-governor/

Kirkuk, June 5 (AKnews) – Kirkuk governor Najmaddin Karim said on Sunday that US forces will stay in Kirkuk beyond the December 2011 deadline for their withdrawal set in a security agreement signed between Iraq and Washington in 2008.

Currently, there are some 47,000 remaining US troops in Iraq, about a quarter of the number that were stationed here following the 2003 invasion.

”We have told the US officials that until article 140 of the Iraqi constitution is implemented, the US forces must stay in the disputed areas,” said Mr. Karim, “…and the US officials have given us guarantees that their forces will remain.”

Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution outlines a three-stage process to resolving the disputes over areas contested by the Kurdistan Regional Government and the central government in Baghdad.

[StoyaFanst]

They ARE asking us to stay:

http://theiraqidinar.com/2011/06/05/...rkuk-governor/

Kirkuk, June 5 (AKnews) – Kirkuk governor Najmaddin Karim said on Sunday that US forces will stay in Kirkuk beyond the December 2011 deadline for their withdrawal set in a security agreement signed between Iraq and Washington in 2008.

Currently, there are some 47,000 remaining US troops in Iraq, about a quarter of the number that were stationed here following the 2003 invasion.

”We have told the US officials that until article 140 of the Iraqi constitution is implemented, the US forces must stay in the disputed areas,” said Mr. Karim, “…and the US officials have given us guarantees that their forces will remain.”

Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution outlines a three-stage process to resolving the disputes over areas contested by the Kurdistan Regional Government and the central government in Baghdad.

The governor of Kirkuk does not represent the Iraq government. I'm sure behind the walls in Baghdad, the Iraq government wants us to stay. In public, they will never say that because they don't want to lose any more public support that they have. The only way US forces can stay in Iraq past 31 Dec 2011 is if the government of Iraq amends the 2008 resolution and asks the US to stay. But right now it's June, getting closer to July. If they haven't asked for an amendment to that resolution or announced they are amending the resolution, it's getting a bit late in the game to switch gears. From what I understand, troops in Iraq are shutting down bases and transferring stuff to the Iraqis. Haven't they moved most troops back into tents and give out MREs because they are closing down the fast food places and such? That was an article I read awhile back.

Kirkuk does not represent Iraq. Of course they want us to stay. If they became their own country and separated from Iraq, then sure we could make an agreement with them but they are part of Iraq still. What boggles my mind is how you go up into Kurdish territory and can't even tell there is a war going on at all. Why can't they all just be like the damn Kurds and get it together?

[FjFHQLJQ]

From what I've read on various news and blog sites in Iraq, the situation is as described - politicians and especially businessmen want the US and other forces to stay in order to stabilize the country. Only the Imans and other religious leaders want us out.
Check out this website to give you a sense of what is going on there.
I also follow Iraqthemodel.blogspot.com and, when they post, they show the true feelings of the Iraqi people - and NOT what the lame-stream media reports!!!

[unfolaReemoma]

From what I've read on various news and blog sites in Iraq, the situation is as described - politicians and especially businessmen want the US and other forces to stay in order to stabilize the country. Only the Imans and other religious leaders want us out.
Check out this website to give you a sense of what is going on there.
I also follow Iraqthemodel.blogspot.com and, when they post, they show the true feelings of the Iraqi people - and NOT what the lame-stream media reports!!!

Anyone who believes what's in the news is a moron. I know how things are working over there having deployed twice and I am still able to know what is actually going on. The politicians behind closed doors want us to stay but in public they don't say it.

We need to leave - we did our job, set them up and now let State Dept take over.