Iraq

I'm confused. I thought everyone in that part of the world wanted us gone.

Iraqi foreign minister urges security deal with US By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 8 minutes ago



BAGHDAD - Iraq's foreign minister says the country has little choice but to sign a new security agreement with the U.S. that would let American troops stay in the country after a U.N. mandate expires.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari recently returned to Iraq after meeting with President Bush in Washington to discuss the agreement, which has been criticized by many Iraqi officials worried it would leave too much power in U.S. hands.

But Zebari told parliament Tuesday that the only other options were to extend the U.N. mandate that expires at the end of the year or continue without a formal agreement, neither of which holds much appeal to Iraqis.

He said an agreement would last one or two years and urged Iraqi officials to finalize it by the end of July.

Everybody? No. Almost everybody, yes.

I don't see that either.

Hell, I'm not even sure ALMOST everybody on this forum would agree with you.

In fact, I would say you're probably in the minority. So how is that ALMOST everybody?

Stephanie wrote:Everybody? No. Almost everybody, yes.

But not the officials of sitting governments the U.S. keeps from falling, of course.

And certainly not the governments of the Middle East that have the most to lose by us marching out.

The only governments that have requested our absence from Iraq and the Middle East are shiite dominated governments that would look to expand their territiory during out absence.

You mean, only those governments we aren't currently engaged in propping up.

Perhaps you can clear it up. Are we currently propping up Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Oman, The UAE, Qatar, Lebanon, Yemin or Turkey?

Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey are amoung the top 10 US Aid recipients. Egypt alone receives almost $2 billion dollars a year in US aid. We have bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and troops everywhere.

Aside from Lebanon.......all of them are being propped up with some combination of financial and military support from the US government. I wouldn't bet my eye teeth on leaving out Lebanon, btw. Who knows what's really going on.

I don't think we have bases in Saudi Arabia any more, but the other countries, yes. Much of our support to Middle Eastern countries is a vestige of the Cold War, where if we didn't have influence in that strategic area, the Soviets would have gladly stepped in. The Mideast is no less strategic today.

Randall,

I think you may be correct....I think perhaps we have withdrawn all of our troops from Saudi Arabia. I thought we still had some remaining, but could find nothing saying so. Looking into it is why I spent so long getting back to you.

The Middle East is a mess. The Soviet Union is no more. We are digging ourselves into massive debt to enemy nations fighting and killing and arming all these nations.

Do you really think that is what's best for America and Americans? With the technology we have available today, are all those troops on what they consider to be "sacred ground" really necessary?

It's time for a new approach. No matter who intervenes in those Islamic nations the Muslims will fight them to the death. Too many of them are too radical, they will never just roll over for some Western nation.

It seems to me we would be better off investing in securing our own ports and our borders and cleansing America of illegal immigrants who pose genuine threats to our sovereignty and national security and in development and construction etc to make America energy independent.

As far as the Middle East, and the rest of the world, I believe nearly everything we need to do can accomplished with ships and submarines. There is not need for hundreds of thousands of troops in over 100 countries.