PDA

View Full Version : Time table for pulling out of iraq



CC
November 23rd, 2005, 07:59 AM
Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable

Tuesday November 22, 2005 3:16 AM


AP Photo XAN107

By SALAH NASRAWI

Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5431131,00.html

It appears that Iraq's "new" government is doing exactly as Bush wanted, which was to stand up for themselves and do the heavy lifting required to put Iraq back together.

However, their (the new Iraqi Government) wanting Bush to set a timetable as to when and how we will pull out and leave their country (and their oil?) to govern itself. Bush has repeatedly refused to give any sort of time table for US troops to be withdrawn from Iraq.

So do we do as their new government ask of us or do we simply tell the new government that they still cannot tell us what to do? Meaning of course that their new government is either stupid or not really in charge. So should we grant them the very liberty to run their country as they see fit or do we admit that they even still, are not really in charge of their own fate?...........:O)

Snoop
November 23rd, 2005, 10:17 AM
Just leave one man behind - GWB - to replace the statue of Saddam (the pidgeons would love it).

I heard they are scheduling troop withdrawals at the beginning of 2006 - we'll see. They are not yet "in charge" as you put it. The Iraqi govt. has to survive assasinations, road bombs, suicide bombs, mortar attacks, etc. - then they'll be in charge (whoever is left).

CC
November 30th, 2005, 08:12 AM
*bump*....I find it odd that only snoop commented...:O)

Snoop
November 30th, 2005, 08:15 AM
*bump*....I find it odd that only snoop commented...:O)That's not odd - it's predictable :)

CC
November 30th, 2005, 12:44 PM
I guess you are right. It's just that I expected (or hoped) that someone would debate what I presented. But sometimes I guess the truth is too hard to take....:O)

mog
November 30th, 2005, 08:48 PM
It appears that Iraq's "new" government is doing exactly as Bush wanted, which was to stand up for themselves and do the heavy lifting required to put Iraq back together.

However, their (the new Iraqi Government) wanting Bush to set a timetable as to when and how we will pull out and leave their country (and their oil?) to govern itself. Bush has repeatedly refused to give any sort of time table for US troops to be withdrawn from Iraq.

So do we do as their new government ask of us or do we simply tell the new government that they still cannot tell us what to do? Meaning of course that their new government is either stupid or not really in charge. So should we grant them the very liberty to run their country as they see fit or do we admit that they even still, are not really in charge of their own fate?...........:O)

Ah, but that is not Iraq's government calling for a withdrawal. The meeting was simply an Arab League conference at which some 100 prominent Iraqis were present.

If the Iraqi government passes legislation which formally declares that foreign troops are no longer required, then I don't think there is any realistic doubt that Rumsfeld will begin to pull them out. However, this is a long way off because the Iraqis know perfectly well that their own security forces aren't yet ready and that coalition help is still needed.

FruitandNut
November 30th, 2005, 09:58 PM
CC - I haven't responded (until now) because pretty much everything has all really been said. What is happening now is something that 'could have been'/'was' predicted. It is all a question of whether people choose to take on board that reality or not.

I think that I have already said my piece in previous posts, and so far everything seems much on schedule.

One thing that I do predict is that Saddam will never face true 'justice'. How can even the taking of his life equate to all that his dictatorship has overseen and approved? I also predict that his trail and execution/imprisonment will take/cost yet more innocent lives. I predict a lot more trouble ahead for Iraq. I predict that what is largely an internally fuelled grudge and 'turf' power battle will continue, and that a central casualty will be the fledgling semi-democracy that is struggling to assert itself. I predict that the attentions of bordering countries will only exascerbate the internal problems, as they seek to influence politico-economic outcomes. I predict that what happens in Iran will have a great bearing on the shape of Iraq's changing political scenery.

I predict that any 'ideal model' of a military withdrawal coinciding with a successful transition to democracy will be confounded.

I HOPE THAT MY PREDICTIONS ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS. Mog - There have already been comments from various factional leaders that the coalition should start pulling out. In effect there are many groups who wish to see the 'referee' out of the ring so they can take the gloves off and really get stuck in.

CC
December 1st, 2005, 06:13 AM
moq:
some 100 prominent Iraqis were present.

" Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance."

These were the LEADERS of the different factions of Iraqi's. THEY are the ones who will be telling us when they think they are ready for the US to leave. Given that they are already stating such leads to a conclusion that they would want us out as soon as they are elected.
Also, being that these our the leaders of the different factions it is quite clear that they may well deem themselves capable, (by nature of ordering the US out) from the start. Bush will not pull out the troops until he either accomplishes his task, (one I believe at present is not a reachable goal) or is drummed out by the growing dis-contention in Iraq and here.

F&N:
CC - I haven't responded (until now) because pretty much everything has all really been said. What is happening now is something that 'could have been'/'was' predicted. It is all a question of whether people choose to take on board that reality or not.
I agree it is becoming a worn-out debate. Which "people" are you speaking of when you say "whether people"? As for me, things have been going along pretty much as I was hoping they would not, which is damaging US world support as well as spending so much money that my 10 year old grandson will still be paying for in 10 to 20 years.

I do agree with the rest of the paragragh, and in so much as my thoughts align with yours I do not see and end in sight. But like you, I would love to be proven wrong......:O)

mog
December 1st, 2005, 03:08 PM
moq:
" Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance."

These were the LEADERS of the different factions of Iraqi's. THEY are the ones who will be telling us when they think they are ready for the US to leave. Given that they are already stating such leads to a conclusion that they would want us out as soon as they are elected.
They are influential people, but they aren't necessarily running for office. Also, keep in mind that this was a reconciliation conference. A consensus formed there, where all three tribes are equally represented, is a lot different to legislation voted on in parliament where Sunnis hold only a tiny minority of seats. It is generally only the Sunnis who advocate an immediate withdrawal. In effect, the outcome of this conference is an assurance by the Shia and Kurds that they will support a withdrawal timetable as soon as the Iraqi Security Forces are ready.

As the article says:
<blockquote>Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time - reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.</blockquote>

FruitandNut
December 2nd, 2005, 01:46 AM
CC - (F&N: It is all a question of whether people choose to take on board that reality or not.)

It was just a general observation - that people choose to differ even when confronted with reality.


Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable

Tuesday November 22, 2005 3:16 AM


AP Photo XAN107

By SALAH NASRAWI

Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance.

The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The participants in Cairo agreed on ``calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation'' and end terror attacks.

The conference was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers, as well as leading Sunni politicians.

Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time - reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.

On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.

``By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready,'' he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.

Debate in Washington over when to bring troops home turned bitter last week after decorated Vietnam War vet Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and estimated a pullout could be complete within six months. Republicans rejected Murtha's position.

In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

``Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships,'' the document said.

The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all ``innocent detainees'' who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.

The statement also demanded ``an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order.''

The communique included no means for implementing its provisions, leaving it unclear what it will mean in reality other than to stand as a symbol of a first step toward bringing the feuding parties together in an agreement in principle.

``We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people,'' said Harith al-Dhari, leader of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni group. He said he had reservations about the document as a whole, and delegates said he had again expressed strong opposition to the concept of federalism enshrined in Iraq's new constitution.

The gathering was part of a U.S.-backed league attempt to bring the communities closer together and assure Sunni Arab participation in a political process now dominated by Iraq's Shiite majority and large Kurdish minority.

The conference also decided on broad conditions for selecting delegates to a wider reconciliation gathering in the last week of February or the first week of March in Iraq. It essentially opens the way for all those who are willing to renounce violence against fellow Iraqis.

Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the former Saddam regime or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique.

The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times, and at one point Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a BBC TV programme some weeks back that included interviews with British troops and Shi'ite civilians and officials in Basra, there was a clear feeling that the coalition 'occupancy' was being seen as an increasing problem. The Shi'ites are feeling more confident and they are beginning to see western troops as getting in the way of executing their agenda to secure power.

CC
December 2nd, 2005, 09:31 AM
F&N beat me to it and did a better job than I would have anyway..........:O)

Ibelsd
December 2nd, 2005, 11:53 AM
First, as has been noted, it was a summit conference (sponsored by the U.S.), not a legislative assembly. Secondly, the conference agreed on the following:
"The participants in Cairo agreed on ``calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation'' and end terror attacks"

U.S. withdrawl is contingent on a timetable. Not by the U.S. though. It is a timetable based on the Iraq government's ability to meet certain milestones. In other words, it is not an agreement to ask Bush for a specific date of departure. It is an agreement to get their house in order in a timely fashion. I don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't a worthy goal. Seeing as how these goals aren't met, the inference is that the leaders who met at the summit agreed that the U.S. presence there is still needed. The headline could have easily been

IRAQ LEADERS REQUEST CONTINUED U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE!

Of course, that wouldn't have gotten by the Guardian's vaunted editors now, would it?

FruitandNut
December 3rd, 2005, 06:34 AM
Ibby - Perhaps another headline could be - WATCH THIS SPACE!

ps. You didn't read, or at least take on board the BBC interviews and the heightened feeling that 'we' are beginning to get in the way of their underlying agendas.

pps. I think the US troops took a bad hit near Fallujah yesterday, and US, British and Iraqi opinion is that it is only going to get worse.

CC
December 4th, 2005, 12:31 PM
Let's not forget our swaggering president started this war, wanted this war and so will decide when "they" are ready to self-govern, regardless of their schedules or wishes.....to think otherwise is folly.....:O)

Ibelsd
December 5th, 2005, 12:07 PM
Ibby - Perhaps another headline could be - WATCH THIS SPACE!

ps. You didn't read, or at least take on board the BBC interviews and the heightened feeling that 'we' are beginning to get in the way of their underlying agendas.

pps. I think the US troops took a bad hit near Fallujah yesterday, and US, British and Iraqi opinion is that it is only going to get worse.

ppps: The topic's contention was based on a conference and specifically as it was noted in an article presented in the Guardian. So, no, I didn't take into account the BBC's point of view, its interviews, or other extraneous pieces of opinion/facts.

pppps: The contention was not whether U.S. troops or British troops are still dealing with terrorist insurgents in the Iraqi region. The contention was that Iraqi leaders wanted us out. The source used to make this contention was being misutilized and I think I showed convincingly that the Guardian's article definitively showed Iraq leaders would prefer we stay, even if for only a bit longer.

CC
December 5th, 2005, 06:46 PM
even if for only a bit longer.

And THAT, is up to dubya, not anyone in Iraq......anyone who believes that we did all this just to take marching orders from those we "liberated" has NOT been paying attention.......:O)

Ibelsd
December 6th, 2005, 12:12 PM
And THAT, is up to dubya, not anyone in Iraq......anyone who believes that we did all this just to take marching orders from those we "liberated" has NOT been paying attention.......:O)

The point? Again, your contention was that the Iraqi leadership wants U.S. troops out of Iraq immediately. This is simply incorrect. Other issues, such as whether Bush will agree to get out of Iraq when asked, are outside the scope of the contention you presented.

CC
December 6th, 2005, 12:43 PM
Ibelsd:
that the Iraqi leadership wants U.S. troops out of Iraq immediately.

I never said that. All I did was point out that IF they really in charge of their destiny and IF they DID decide they were ready to go along that it would not matter a spit, since bush is the one managing this war, certainly not ANY Iraqi.


Bush will agree to get out of Iraq when asked, are outside the scope of the contention you presented.

No. I used the story to make the opening for a "what if" on a developing issue that was well within the scope of what I said, after showing the story.
And I guess your point is to point out my pointlessness?......*g*..........:O)

Ibelsd
December 7th, 2005, 09:54 AM
Ibelsd:

I never said that. All I did was point out that IF they really in charge of their destiny and IF they DID decide they were ready to go along that it would not matter a spit, since bush is the one managing this war, certainly not ANY Iraqi.

So do we do as their new government ask of us or do we simply tell the new government that they still cannot tell us what to do?


This was your question as best I could tell. Do we do as their new gov asks? Well, the new gov has asked us to stay a while longer. If you are arguing that should they decide, for real, that they don't want the U.S. army in Iraq, would Bush pull the troops out, then you have not provided much of a framework for your argument.

CC
December 7th, 2005, 01:14 PM
If you are arguing that should they decide, for real, that they don't want the U.S. army in Iraq, would Bush pull the troops out, then you have not provided much of a framework for your argument.
Not much of a framework but plenty good enough to illustrate my point.

Let me ask you flat out. Do you believe they will be given the right to self-govern so long as Bush either does not think so or has more to accomplish there?.........:O)

Ibelsd
December 7th, 2005, 01:41 PM
Not much of a framework but plenty good enough to illustrate my point.

Let me ask you flat out. Do you believe they will be given the right to self-govern so long as Bush either does not think so or has more to accomplish there?.........:O)

I believe Bush would love to get the troops out of Iraq. Its not like he, nor the party, are getting outstanding press by remaining there. I also think he is looking for some type of victory before making that move. If the Iraq leaders fulfill the goals they established at their own conference, I think Bush, or whoever happens to be president, will bring the troops home.

CC
December 7th, 2005, 03:32 PM
That's not exactly answering the question I posed though.

The question was/is "Would Bush allow the Iraqis the freedom to self govern if the Iraqis believe they are ready but Bush either does not or has more to accomplish?" In other words, WE are calling the shots as to when they will be able/allowed to govern themselves regardless of how confident they may be.......................:O)

Ibelsd
December 8th, 2005, 11:51 AM
That's not exactly answering the question I posed though.

The question was/is "Would Bush allow the Iraqis the freedom to self govern if the Iraqis believe they are ready but Bush either does not or has more to accomplish?" In other words, WE are calling the shots as to when they will be able/allowed to govern themselves regardless of how confident they may be.......................:O)

We could debate what your exact question really is.... but I will go along with the last one you presented :)

I certainly think we have placed some criteria that must be established before we exit Iraq. If that criteria hasn't been met, Bush would probably resist leaving, even if the Iraqi leaders asked. With that being said, it appears from the agenda laid out at the conference that Bush has gotten the Iraq leaders to buy into the criteria established by the U.S. In other words, your question is moot since our goals are very closely aligned to the goals of the Iraq leadership. This implies a well developed diplomacy between the U.S. and Iraq and should be seen as a positive.

CC
December 9th, 2005, 07:29 AM
I don't think the question is moot at all.

Bush would probably resist leaving, even if the Iraqi leaders asked.
So That is settled. BUSH is in charge of any time-tables and NOT any Iraqis.

Bush has gotten the Iraq leaders to buy into the criteria established by the U.S.
Gotten? That's an interesting choice of words. "Demanded" would be more appropriate, pehaps "intimidate" would fit more snugly as well. What Bush has "gotten" the Iraqi leaders, (leaders, now there is a misnomer) he can take back at his whim. While we may be trying to create an illusion that there are Iraqi's running the show I believe we know who the man behind the curtain really is..............:O)

Ibelsd
December 9th, 2005, 11:40 AM
I don't think the question is moot at all.

Bush would probably resist leaving, even if the Iraqi leaders asked.
So That is settled. BUSH is in charge of any time-tables and NOT any Iraqis.

Bush has gotten the Iraq leaders to buy into the criteria established by the U.S.
Gotten? That's an interesting choice of words. "Demanded" would be more appropriate, pehaps "intimidate" would fit more snugly as well. What Bush has "gotten" the Iraqi leaders, (leaders, now there is a misnomer) he can take back at his whim. While we may be trying to create an illusion that there are Iraqi's running the show I believe we know who the man behind the curtain really is..............:O)

Really? Who is the man behind the curtain? The Wizard of Oz... I am unsure where you are going with this. You bemoan Bush for attacking Iraq. You criticize his ability to lay out U.S. diplomacy because it is backed with force. You criticize us for being in Iraq. You criticize Bush for setting up a criteria for leaving. You criticize the Iraqis for not having leaders. At some point you have to own up to reality.

1. We are in Iraq.
2. Our foreign policy should benefit U.S. interests.
3. An exit strategy in Iraq is a part of our foreign policy.
4. Therefore, an exit strategy should be done in a manner that best meets U.S. interests.

CC
December 10th, 2005, 11:59 AM
At some point you have to own up to reality.

Oh, but you do not? By everything you said you have agreed with my stance. THAT bush says what happens in Iraq, and not any Iraqi......of course you'll never come out and say it, instead you will insist that somehow I am wrong about it. I'm not....perhaps you could stand a dose of reality yourself....:O)

Ibelsd
December 12th, 2005, 12:57 PM
What is that? The I know you are, but what am I rebuttal?

CC
December 13th, 2005, 04:38 AM
What is that? The I know you are, but what am I rebuttal?

Simply answer one question: Do you think Bush would withdraw all troops if the newly elected iraqi government DID want us to pull out pronto?................:O)

Meng Bomin
December 13th, 2005, 07:22 AM
Simply answer one question: Do you think Bush would withdraw all troops if the newly elected iraqi government DID want us to pull out pronto?................:O)
An interesting question, but I think that it would be hard for us to know, as such decisions likely happen behind closed doors. Neither the Iraqi government nor us would not be in good shape if they asked publicly and we said no. So, I'm not exactly sure what each side wants, but I do think that we won't find out for quite a while.

Ibelsd
December 13th, 2005, 11:10 AM
Simply answer one question: Do you think Bush would withdraw all troops if the newly elected iraqi government DID want us to pull out pronto?................:O)
I did answer this question. Go back and reread it if you must.

CC
December 13th, 2005, 12:12 PM
Got it....shoulda seen it already,

1. We are in Iraq.
2. Our foreign policy should benefit U.S. interests.
3. An exit strategy in Iraq is a part of our foreign policy.
4. Therefore, an exit strategy should be done in a manner that best meets U.S. interests.

Here we have been in agreement all the while......*g*......:O)