Reply With Quote
won't like that.
Obama Demands Iraq War Changes
By Jason Leopold
November 7, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama, in one of the first policy statements of his transition, demanded that the Bush administration either submit the proposed U.S.-Iraq “status-of-forces agreement” to Congress or leave an opening for him to change it next year.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/110708b.html
won't like that.
GFY and wait your turn young one.
That's Mr. President Elect, to you.
nice. Obama calling Bush out on all his halliburton, caci, blackwater bull .
at your weak "young one" smack.
dude should shut his pie hole
he is not president tell he is sworn in on the Bible
why do you love it?
he is already getting to big for his pants
just wait tell he gets to be president and takes your rights away
Wow...
Obama clearly wants to the soldiers with SOFA!
My understanding is that Iraq wants to be able to try soldiers for crimes. That's fine at times. One thing that a SOFA does is protect soldiers from being tried for just anything, under host country laws.
Do we want female soldiers to be stoned?
Please post a link supporting your bull claim.
And let us all know where stoning is called for in the new Iraqi justice code that the US brought into effect.
I'm not going to look up what I heard. I trust the souce, that's enough for me. SOFA isn't yet agreed upon because the Iraqi's want more control of what crimes they can try soldiers for under their courts. President Bush is maintaining a firm protection of our soldiers. For Obama to want to move the process forward faster means giving up this right of our soldiers.
I guess it's possible something else is holding up the process, but to my knowledge, that is the only thing.
Do you want our soldiers tried for most crimes under the Iraqi laws?
Terms of operation
The SOFA is intended to clarify the terms under which the foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, purely military issues such as the locations of bases and access to facilities are covered by separate agreements. The SOFA is more concerned with the legal issues associated with military individuals and property. This may include issues like entry and exit into the country, tax liabilities, postal services, or employment terms for host-country nationals, but the most contentious issues are civil and criminal jurisdiction over the bases. For civil matters, SOFAs provide for how civil damages caused by the forces will be determined and paid. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts will have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a servicemember against another servicemember or by a servicemember as part of his or her military duty, but the host nation retains jurisdiction over other crimes.
It's fine that you can't back up your stupid bull .
Quite expected, actually.
I'm simply not going to waste my time on the matter. You're going to believe what you want anyway.
I've lived in both South Korea and Germany under two different SOFA agreements. They vary allot by country. SOFA generally has the host country dealing with civil matters that a soldier is accused of for crimes. However, some nations are not given this privilege in the agreements because their idea of justice is so alien to us.
Just play along for a moment and consider I am right, just for the purpose of argument. Do you want civil matters of accused soldiers to be under Iraqi jurisdiction?
I will not consider for a moment your being right.
You are full of and have proven that time and time again.
Thinking you are right is a waste of time -- so back up your claim if you want to be taken seriously.
Yeah, being an American soldier in a foreign land so doesn't get you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
There were some rape and possibly murder cases in Asia which I'm not really familiar with, but Cavalese disaster and subsequent acquittals certainly resonated across Europe, back then when Clinton was still the head honcho.
Just something that will have to change if obamamania around the world is not to be shortlived. Either that or keep the soldiers on very short leash.
Last edited by xeromass; 11-08-2008 at 06:28 AM.
"because their idea of justice is so alien to us."
Less alien than the 700+ US military bases and people disfiguring 100s of countries, wasting 100s of $Bs of US taxpayer funds, "redistributing" US taxpayer $$ to the foreign economies that support the US bases. But conservative war-mongers don't care about that kind redistribution of taxpayer wealth.
How many of the 700+ bases are really necessary?
Do they provide any benefit to the US, other than feeding the US military's/MIC's self-preserving/expanding greed for imperialistic power and world domination?
Of course not WC. I mean why would you ever want to do that? If there's one thing we've seen around here is how much you hate to look for verification.
How about those polls again?
Only petty minded jack-asses keep bringing up someones mistake.
Proud of yourself Donkey Fluffer?
I understand DUBYA has somethingt to do with Buish...but what does it stand for?
DD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
G dubya Bush
The late Molly Ivins called him shrub, because he was that dumb.
he's squeezing Bush and the Big 3 are squeezing Obama.
meet the new boss same as the old.boss.
America Barack'd the vote baby!!
time to get Hussein in the membrane!!!
Texas is slowly turning blue!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
