Jaleho

SOFA

You keep trying to validate your argument with very poor examples. For your information the overwhelming majority of people in those countries you mentioned, Korea, Japan, Germany, absolutely detest the US presence there. No one wants them, and the only reason the governments agree to them is to remain in good graces with the US! Who wants foreign troops and bases on their soil? Can you imagine a Chinese airforce base in St. Louis Missouri? Or how about a French naval base near Tampa, Florida? There is only one thing to say to advocates of occupation, YOU'RE BRAIN WASHED! Please report to your local infowars website for deFOXification.

Anti-semites

I fail to see how making an argument for sovereignty of nations has to envoke terms such as anti-semitism and Islamism. Why not simple nationalism? I wouldn't want US control of Iran under any circumstance, and I could give a hoot about any religion, mine or yours. It seems most of you are simply losing sight of the forest through the trees. The region is awash with oil, hence the US interest. No one lifted a finger to help Rwanda or Sudan when genocide occured there because there's no oil. I find it comical that those who envoke terms like anti-semitism, some jews and some not, didn't show their sense of outrage and call for humanity when people in Africa were being beheaded by the thousands. Even though "The Civilized World" cried never again after the atrocities of the holocaust, they clearly looked the other way and kept silent while poor brown and black people butchered each other. This same hypocricy is what makes the whole notion of American interests in placing a democracy in Iraq a farce. Because most of us know, even those who often times choose to keep their heads in the sand, that if there were true democracy in Iraq they would elect those most likely to counter American/occupation forces' interests. You say Islamism and anti-semitism, I say gimme a break!

US militarism

Why are there so many apologists for US militarism? 

US forces have no right to be present in countries other than the US. Military invasion of other countries is an act of war punishable under international law. It is quite simple really. 

But no, the 'defenders of freedom' want not just one or two military bases in Iraq, but FIFTY of them!

Fact is, the US will soon not be able to afford such extravagance anyhow regardless of how many agreements they sign. Time is up for this unwelcome bully.

Peace!

Against occupation but....

I'm absolutely against occupation; however I still believe that the agreement will benefit the Iraqis with some adjustments. Many Sunni's as well as Majority Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Christians see USA presence is vital in order to prevent civil war. Even Some Shia groups except the Sadrists believe that USA should remain in Iraq till situation in Iraq calm down and that Al-quida who are foreigners remain low and maybe defeated. So again for the countries democracy to progress I believe that USA should remain in Iraq. It's will of many Iraqi’s.

Islamist "Press T.V." says so

The Islamist/Anti-Semites and their lefty allies think that in this day and age they can pass their Islamist “press TV” and “Tehran Times” as authoritative news sources.  The SOFA is a standard agreement that is in force in more that three dozen countries including Japan and S. Korea. What the Islamists fail to say is that they are using this agreement as a springboard for their Islamist hegemonic move as their founder Khomeini, the Anti-Iranian Islamist, did over four decades ago. The SOFA has many flaws and from time to time it creates international uproars, but the Islamists should stick to their backing terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and leave these sort of legitimate causes to legitimate bodies to rectify. 

LOL: You reap what you sow, Safavids!

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't be collaborating with the colonizers and decimate the Sunnis(ethnic cleansing of Sunnis by Shi'ite Death squads funded by IRI) to prop your IR-friendly puppet government of Maliki and expect not to pay...Poetic Justice all around.

Maliki government has almost no choice but to capitulate. They know if the US troops left Iraq, they will be overthrown in less than a week. The problem is the true Iraqis hate the safavids more than the US.

Here's what Sistani said, slamming Obama:
In a recent comment by his representative, Ayatollah Sistani told Iraqi officials not worry about the politicians who are running on a cut and run platform (Obama)...
They are just saying that because it's election time.
Aswat Aliraq reported:

A representative of top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani on Friday called Iraqi officials to show patience during the U.S.-Iraq long-term deal negotiations, terming pledges of withdrawing foreign troops from Iraq as transitory and elections-oriented.

"The pledges to withdraw from Iraq given by (officials) from occupation forces countries are only for elections sake ", Ahmed al-Safi, a representative of Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, said at Friday prayer speech in Karbala.
The cleric noted "the reality of their pledges is that they desire their troops to stay in (Iraq)".

He pointed out "it accounted for their desire to draft an agreement to keep the presence of the troops in Iraq".
The cleric called on Iraqi negotiator to be patient "in drafting the issues of such decisive agreement".

He stressed the importance of "announcing the agreement details to Iraqi intellectuals and people".

Iraq and U.S. are negotiating a long-term agreement to govern the presence of the U.S. troops in Iraq. The proposed agreement is based on a declaration of principles signed between U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Premier Maliki upon the latter's visit to Washington in last November

//www.aswataliraq.info/look/english/article.t...

Correction to above blog & Fred

Sorry, I have been too sleepy last night and have too many mistakes in my writing. Few letters has been dropped from one of the links I provided, as well as words "Force Agreement" from the security pact, SOFA (Status Of Force Agreement), and many other little mistakes, and I forgot to undo the bold face too. These although irritating to read, really does not change the content. But, you need to change the second link above to the following in order to go to the right page!

//iranian.com/main/news/2008/05/12/us-lay...

//iranian.com/main/news/2008/06/13/irania...

And Fred, "Capitulation" is just one of the articles of this disgraceful pact, other articles gives away Iraqi sovereignty and control of its natural resources. See the first link above for some details of the pact.

But, I really don't understand you?! Even if capitulation were the only item of the agreement, it is disgraceful enough in a post colonial world for Iraqi people revolt against it. You are right, honorable Iranian people revolted agaisnt it many decades ago!!

Toeing the line

Some forty odd years ago the Islamists in Iran used this very issue, SOFA, back then calling it “Capitulation”, to launch propaganda attack in lieu of their need for a shred of nationalistic credential. In reminiscence the Iranian Islamist/Anti-Semites and their like minded Lefties are now unabashedly toeing the line of the Islamist regime and its standard-bearer, torturer Shariatmadari( featured in the attached video) .  If they were genuinely against SOFA in principle, and there is some merits to that, they should have raised the issue in regards to over three dozen countries where identical agreements have been in force for decades.