• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


The bill to keep troops in Iraq until 2011

Page history last edited by tedrandazzo 14 years, 10 months ago

For each entry, include the following as the TITLE

1) the title of the news article (in quotation marks);

2) the author of the article if one is listed (Associated Press & Reuters count as authors);

3) where you read the story (eg: New York Times online), in italics;

4) The URL of the story if you read it online; the page number(s) if you read it in print;

5) the date the story was published (and if you read it on line, the time you consulted it).

At the end of the summary, write your name!


Thesis : Americans should care about the Forces Agreement Act in Iraq because it affects their everyday lives significantly.


 “Iraqis Protest Against Troops Deal”

BBC News.com


11/21/08 11:45 A.M

U.S troops are set to leave Iraq by the end of December this year according to the U.N agreement, but the United States is already starting to pass a new bill with the Iraqi government to keep troops there through the year 2011. American government is trying to ensure that democracy is upheld in Iraq and that peace remains there. However, the agreement is being met with much protest from the Iraqi people. All Muslims in Iraq are banning together to let both governments know that U.S help is no longer needed or wanted. Shia cleric, Moqtada Sadr was the main organizer amongst other Muslim leaders in the protest and promises the protest will stay completely peaceful.

“Thousands Protest U.S Security Deal in Baghdad”

Google News in association with PBS.com



11/22/08 2:30

The Status of Forces agreement was passed by the new Iraqi cabinet but is waiting for the parliamentary approval which should be reached by early December. The approval was met with much controversy and has caused protest that slander the U.S president George Bush. Some members of Parliament that are supporters of Moqtada Sadr have clearly stated they will not  support any agreement with America. Currently, the negotiations between in Parliament have been unsuccessful because of all the passionate disagreements that have even led to violence. The Prime Minister, Al-Maliki, is completely behind the Forces Agreement to ensure the safety of Iraq, but the many thrifts and different views in Parliament is delaying its approval. The opposition from the people of the bill, far outweighs the support for it.

“Iraq Needs Security Pact for Order, Officials Say”


New York Times



11/23/08 11:00 P,M

It has become apparent to many that the security of Iraq will not be complete without the protection of United States troops. Abdul Qadir al-Obaidi, the minister of defense, and Jawad Kadem al-Bolani, the minister of the interior are both in strong favor of the United States Force Agreement and worry about the future of Iraq without it. They feel that the coast would go completely unprotected and would become over run with pirates. The bill is still having trouble being passed and the people in favor of the bill are having trouble convincing others to vote in favor of it. The President of Iraq and other government officials are trying to crush any conspiracy theories that are being spread by those opposing the agreement. The two main reasons for opposition of the agreement are due to many Muslims being against any agreement with America and the other is that Sunni lawmakers want special privileges for their fellow Sunni’s that have already been detained.


Iraq's Nouri Maliki may gain power with U.S. security agreement

Ned Parker

L.A Times



            The power and prominence that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki would gain from being responsible for the evacuation of United States troops would be great if the Forces Agreement Act is passed. With U.S troops gone Iraqi’s that do not share the same branch of Muslim, Shiite, feel that they will have little influence in the government. Some believe in Maliki’s view of a strong central unified government that would unify the country, while others fear another dictatorship. George Bush believes the U.S and Maliki do share the same goals even though other members of government do not. There has been speculation of faulty arrest made by Maliki to further his power more, and this new Force Agreement Act will only add on to it.

Iraqi Foes of Security Deal Seek to Shield Assets

New York Times

James Glanz and Steven Lee Myers



11/25/08 12:00 P.M

            The Iraqi lawmakers that have been opposed to the renewal of the Forces Agreement Act since the beginning are now making the claim the U.S is just trying to control the oil supply and others assets in Iraq in order to regain what the U.S claims they lost in fighting Saddam Hussein. These Iraqi’s that are opposed to the signing of this agreement believe they will just be signing away their oil rights for the remainder of the U.S presence in Iraq. There is flaws in the agreement that need to be resolved in order for some Iraqi’s to feel secure about their assets and have assurance that the United States we be protecting those assets. Government officials from Iraq are requesting special agreements from the U.S Security Council, but also an executive agreement from President George Bush himself. Currently the money gained from oil exports from Iraq go first to the Federal Reserve Bank in NYC and then back to Iraq, as of right now there is $20 billion in that account. This problem will have to be resolved in order to satisfy those Iraqi’s who are very pessimistic about the situation.



Comments (1)

sandra jamieson said

at 12:14 pm on Dec 2, 2008

Ted, this is a good start, however, your thesis needs to go a little deeper and tell us WHY we should care, ie: HOW the situation affects our everyday lives. Instead of writing "Americans should care about the Forces Agreement Act in Iraq because it affects their everyday lives significantly," you should write "Americans should care about the Forces Agreement Act in Iraq because it affects their everyday lives by causing [x], [y], and [z]" or "Americans should care about the Forces Agreement Act in Iraq because it affects their everyday lives in a number of significant ways including [x], [y], and [z]." In either case, x, y, and z are the claims your paper discusses to support your argument, and they are he structure you use to discuss the ideas, interpretations, or implications you draw from the summaries. Does this make sense?

You don't have permission to comment on this page.