Security Agreement is Passed by the Iraqi Parliament
Reuters reports that the Iraqi parliament passed the US-Iraqi security agreement, which stipulates that all US troops will be out of Iraq by 2011. of 275 members of parliament, 198 attended and 149 voted in favor. That means it barely passed from the point of view of an absolute majority, though it was a clear simple majority. Apparently the al-Maliki government bowed to Sunni Arab demands that the agreement be submitted to a national referendum, California-style. If that is true, it is possible that it could still be rejected by the Iraqi people. But al-Maliki got it through parliament by painting opponents as implicitly opposing a US withdrawal, and that campaign tactic may work with the general public, too.
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/27/2008 11:53:00 AM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
The sad truth of the matter is that no matter what happens the Iraqis won't be seeing the backs of the Americans for several thousand years.
I'm talking about the depleted uranium the Americans have fouled Iraq with. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are going to contract cancers from that filth. Generation after generation. That in a land where cancer was so rare that it was defamatory to say "so and so has cancer".
At some point - perhaps 40 generations (1,000 years) down the road, the death toll is likely to run to several million.
Does that count as a holocaust? As a war crime?
Raed Jarrar is the best source of information regarding the SOFA and its ratification (IMO.)
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2008/11/iraqi-parliament-passes-conditional-and.html
Reuters reports that the Iraqi parliament passed the US-Iraqi security agreement, which stipulates that all US troops will be out of Iraq by 2011.
Well, actually...
Reuters reports that the Iraqi parliament passed the US-Iraqi security agreement, which stipulates that all US troops will continue to occupy Iraq at least until 2011.
I'd imagine that the Neocons got Al Maliki and the rest of their compradors to rubber stamp their continuing occupation of the country by bribery, both direct and indirect, and I don't imagine that will work with the general public.
Do you?
John Francis Lee,
I sugguest you read the link to http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com, that I posted earlier. U.S. troops are required to leave Iraq in entirety by 2011. I don't think the law leaves any room for Satterfieldian interpretation.
I think Sistani's remaining quite neutral - just been a bit ago to the friday sermon in the courtyard of Imam Husayn's shrine in Karbala. Sayyid Ahmad al-Safi was quite neutral and balanced and reiterated the sistani position - the referendum has certainly placated some. but the impression that one gets speaking to people is broadly against the ittifaqiyya.
Most of those in favour continue to say that there is no alternative - went to the friday sermon last week in the Sadri stronghold of Kufa where there was a strong rejection of the ittifaqiyya and praise for the 'brave' Sadri MPs who argued against it (Muqtada's statement was read out by Sayyid Riyad Shawqi) - this was followed as it was in Baghdad by a demo.
Sajjad
Post a Comment
<< Home