Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (249591)	11/26/2007 10:34:09 AM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraq to seek long-term US presence By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago BAGHDAD - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday. ADVERTISEMENT The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence. As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty. Iraq has been living under some form of U.N. restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said. U.S. troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal — which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year — to be the last. The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions. The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula. At the White House, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, President Bush's adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the new agreement was not binding. "It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations," Lute said. "Think of today's agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations." Those negotiations will take place during the course of 2008, with the goal of completion by July, Lute said. The new agreement on principles spells out what the formal, final document will contain regarding political, economic and security matters. When asked about the plan, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo noted that Iraqi officials had expressed a desire for a strategic partnership with the U.S. in a political declaration in August and an end to the U.N.-mandated force. "Thereafter then, the question becomes one of bilateral relationships between Iraq and the countries of the multinational forces," she said. "At that point we need to be considering long-term bilateral relationships and we're following the Iraqi thinking on this one and we agree with their thinking on this and we'll be looking at setting up a long-term partnership with different aspects to it, political, economic, security and so forth." She said any detailed discussion of bases and investment preferences was "way, way, way ahead of where we are at the moment." The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000. The Iraqi target date for a bilateral agreement on the new relationship would be July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 by President Bush as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence. On Sunday, Iraq's Shiite vice president hinted at such a formula, saying the government will link discussions on the next extension of the U.N. mandate to an agreement under which Iraq will gain full sovereignty and "full control over all of its resources and issues." Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said Iraq wanted an "equal footing" with the U.S. on security issues as a sovereign country so Iraqi could "have relations with other states with sovereignty and interests." He said the government would announce within days a "declaration of intent" that would not involve military bases but would raise "issues on organizing the presence of the multinational forces and ending their presence on Iraqi soil." One official said the Iraqis expect objections from Iraq's neighbors. Iran and Syria will object because they oppose a U.S. presence in the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not like the idea of any reduction in their roles as Washington's most important Arab partners.

To: michael97123 who wrote (249591)	11/26/2007 11:58:52 AM
From: c.hinton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

michael .its a dollar problem...there are too many out there slushing around the world economic system like water in an overfiled tub. when the liquidity tide moves local interest rates get effected up and down ...never quite in sync with the real economy. central banks get stuck in a bind where the actual economic cycle does not dictate rates. it is artificial(not a result of the local economy) cash inflows and out flows do the dictating. The whole proscess can spin out of controll causing huge headaches for our allies. We do nothing and they say well sod off and deal with iraq and iran without our help. And now we have a resurgant russia and a colossus china to deal with..... whose side do you think the europeans will take ? they will snuggle up to who ever offers the best outlook for profits . re chines imports...no. the weak dollar just adds to their productivity advantage vs the europeans.