Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable

Trinity · 07-11-08, 11:55 PM

Yes US needs to withdraw some troops from Iraq but not leave it in case war does break out with Iran. Iraq will be a useful base to attack from. Furthermore, Afghanistan needs more troops deployed there to deal with the situation.

At first, I was thinking this is a wild scheme by Bush to carry on the oil gravy train and profit at the cost of American lives and the tax-paying Americans.

Now, if the US is there to undermine the threat of Iran and war breaking out, that is at least a justifiable reason to have a base there. But I would advocate withdrawal of troops to a lesser amt with a withdrawal plan tentatively in place (all bets r off if or when war breaks out with Iran... whereby then we need to throw more troops there to contain the situation).

jfuh · 07-12-08, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity

Yes US needs to withdraw some troops from Iraq but not leave it in case war does break out with Iran. Iraq will be a useful base to attack from. Furthermore, Afghanistan needs more troops deployed there to deal with the situation.

At first, I was thinking this is a wild scheme by Bush to carry on the oil gravy train and profit at the cost of American lives and the tax-paying Americans.

Now, if the US is there to undermine the threat of Iran and war breaking out, that is at least a justifiable reason to have a base there. But I would advocate withdrawal of troops to a lesser amt with a withdrawal plan tentatively in place (all bets r off if or when war breaks out with Iran... whereby then we need to throw more troops there to contain the situation).

What makes you think we are going to war with Iran or would?
What makes you think that if we are there that Iran would not start a war?
Who are we to say whether or not we are going to be there if the Iraqi's don't want us to be there - enter Maliki government.

Trinity · 07-12-08, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

What makes you think we are going to war with Iran or would?

There is always the chance of US breaking into war with Iran ... Iran's nuclear disarmament issue is a thorn on US's side. Bush and his administration has not removed the option of war off the table with Iran. Israel is another time-bomb, wanting this war to happen. Seriously, the chances of war with Iran looks extremely possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

What makes you think that if we are there that Iran would not start a war?

Ofc not, Iran is itching to start war already all on their own and if US isn't there to have diplomatic relations with Israel and Iran, war would have erupted between the 2 earlier. Whether US troops r there or not in Iraq WON'T stop Iran from starting a war with Israel. But the amt of US troops is leverage against Iran starting a war with US. But I have to admit I think Iran will be simply on the defensive. They won't start a war until US or Israel does with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Who are we to say whether or not we are going to be there if the Iraqi's don't want us to be there - enter Maliki government.

This isn't the 1st time Maliki is pressuring US for a timeline to leave. It is the 1st time it is officially made in public. This request was brought up b4 and US simply rejects it as it is doing now. What makes u think the US is NOT insisting to be there whether or not what the Iraqi government says? They r ALREADY doing it and resisting Iraqi's government's efforts to make them leave.

That's why this is a thorny situation.

btw do I think the US troops have a right to stay there? No, not with the Iraqi government wanting US troops out. But obviously, the Bush administration isn't very concerned what Maliki or his Iraqi government do or say at this point of time.

jfuh · 07-12-08, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity

There is always the chance of US breaking into war with Iran ... Iran's nuclear disarmament issue is a thorn on US's side. Bush and his administration has not removed the option of war off the table with Iran. Israel is another time-bomb, wanting this war to happen. Seriously, the chances of war with Iran looks extremely possible.

I won't argue that Bush and his fellow minions want a war with Iran, they've been beating the drums for nearly a year now. But it just won't happen. Not now.
Israel can go play it's war games all it wants, doesn't really matter to us quite frankly. Given the state that our nation is in now and the sentiment that America feels about another irrelevant war I doubt we'd get involved there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity

Ofc not, Iran is itching to start war already all on their own and if US isn't there to have diplomatic relations with Israel and Iran, war would have erupted between the 2 earlier. Whether US troops r there or not in Iraq WON'T stop Iran from starting a war with Israel. But the amt of US troops is leverage against Iran starting a war with US. But I have to admit I think Iran will be simply on the defensive. They won't start a war until US or Israel does with them.

Iran isn't all that trigger happy as this administration would like us to believe. Just look at how Iran had acted in the past with how it is now, same old things over and over no changes really. Iran wouldn't dare start a war with the US. But Iran is winning the popularity vote in that region because of our display of the very "imperialism" that Iran says we are in Iraq.
Israel though, again doubtful, maybe fly in destroy a few targets and have Iran bitching here and there but No arab nation would dare to go up against Israel again as it had in the past which is why Iran continuously uses Hezbollah to fight Israel by proxy and vice versa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity

This isn't the 1st time Maliki is pressuring US for a timeline to leave. It is the 1st time it is officially made in public. This request was brought up b4 and US simply rejects it as it is doing now. What makes u think the US is NOT insisting to be there whether or not what the Iraqi government says? They r ALREADY doing it and resisting Iraqi's government's efforts to make them leave.

That's why this is a thorny situation.

btw do I think the US troops have a right to stay there? No, not with the Iraqi government wanting US troops out. But obviously, the Bush administration isn't very concerned what Maliki or his Iraqi government do or say at this point of time.

Apparently Bush isn't really concerned with what anyone says at the moment. He got retroactively legalized for his former illegal activities, congress has a very very minor majority of pussies who don't dare to call Bush a traitor for fear of being called weak on terror. But there is a difference.
The UN mandate of Iraq is about to expire - that combined with Maliki's public requests of us to leave in combination with November will play out rather interestingly in months to come.

Trinity · 07-18-08, 10:52 AM

Bush, Maliki agree 'time horizon' for US drawdown - Yahoo! News

Bush, Maliki agree 'time horizon' for US drawdown

Quote:

TUCSON, Arizona (AFP) - US President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have agreed on "a general time horizon," not an "arbitrary timetable" for a drawdown of US forces, the White House said Friday.

In talks by video conference Thursday, Bush and Maliki said improving security conditions in Iraq should allow for including that goal in a pending long-term diplomatic and security pact, said spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"Improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of US combat forces from Iraq," she said in a statement.

"The president and prime minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal," she said.

Finally... this is indeed good news. Time to break out the champagne.

jallman · 07-20-08, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity

Bush, Maliki agree 'time horizon' for US drawdown - Yahoo! News

Bush, Maliki agree 'time horizon' for US drawdown

Finally... this is indeed good news. Time to break out the champagne.

Yeah but have you seen how the most rabid sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome are claiming that Bush made up the term "time horizon"?

Trinity · 07-20-08, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Yeah but have you seen how the most rabid sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome are claiming that Bush made up the term "time horizon"?

Sure thing. I had to admit I was having some nervousness when the US gov didn't seem to want to budge from Iraq.

That would be so wrong on so many levels, and yes, feeds to the speculation that there is more to US staying in Iraq.

Now that BOTH parties AGREED to a timeline... it is loads of ppl's minds... there is a plan for the US troops to leave Iraq. Not only can US troops be deployed elsewhere like in Afghanistan, u can also save a bundle from the expenses spent on the Iraq war as the Iraqis pull their own weight rebuilding their own country.

US can then focus on its internal problems like education and healthcare, economy and infrastructure. All much needed areas.

Chinese saying goes like this : Only after u manage yr home well, can u manage a town. Only after u manage a town well, can u manage a city. Only after u manage a city well, can u manage a country. If u can't manage yr home well, u have no biz to manage other countries.

It is not right to go on crusades to make other countries better like Iraq... while not caring for & ignoring the plight of American citizens in yr own country. Not fair to Americans at all. Esp when Maliki is now distributing $8K per Iraqi to buy popularity in his country and help their ppl to rebuild Iraq.

Would Bush hand out $8K to every American on the streets in US? I don't think so .... last I heard Bush said the $600 per person the gov gave out last May shd tide the economy and ppl over...

Volker · 07-20-08, 10:01 AM

US troops have not been needed there, they are not needed now and they will never be needed.

The best you could say about them, is, that they are totally useless.

But they are much worse than this.

Trinity · 07-20-08, 11:26 AM

Troop withdrawal timeline concerns Pentagon chief - Yahoo! News

Troop withdrawal timeline concerns Pentagon chief

Quote:

WASHINGTON - A fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq could jeopardize political and economic progress, the Pentagon's top military officer said Sunday.

Adm. Mike Mullen said the agreement between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more troops home from the war was a sign of "healthy negotiations for a burgeoning democracy."

"I think the strategic goals of having time horizons are ones that we all seek because eventually we would like to see U.S. forces draw down and eventually all come home," the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said. "This right now doesn't speak to either time lines or timetables, based on my understanding of where we are."

The best way to determine troops levels, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said, is to assess the conditions on the ground and to consult with American commanders — the mission that Bush has given him.

"Should that mission change, and we get a new president, and should those conditions be conditions that get generated or required in order to advise a future president, I would do so accordingly," Mullen said. "Based on my time in and out of Iraq in recent months, I think the conditions-based assessments are the way to go and they're very solid. We're making progress and we can move forward accordingly based on those conditions."

The prime minister was quoted by a German magazine over the weekend as saying U.S. troops should leave "as soon as possible" and he called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal."

Mullen, asked about the possibility of withdrawing all combat troops within two years, said, "I think the consequences could be very dangerous."

"It hard to say exactly what would happen. I'd worry about any kind of rapid movement out and creating instability where we have stability. We're engaged very much right now with the Iraqi people. The Iraqi leadership is starting to generate the kind of political progress that we need to make. The economy is starting to move in the right direction. So all those things are moving in the right direction," Mullen said.

The military buildup in Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended. In recent days, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by Bush last year has left the country. Asked if the security improvement he has seen would have occurred without the troop buildup, Mullen said, "No, I don't think it could have."

If conditions keep improving, "I would look to be able to make recommendations to President Bush in the fall to continue those reductions," Mullen said. Asked if more troops might depart before Bush leaves office in January, Mullen said, "Certainly there are assumptions which you could make which would make that possible."

Turning attention to Afghanistan, where violence is on the rise from Taliban attacks, Mullen expressed concern about "a joining, a syndication, of various extremists and terrorist groups which provides for a much more intense threat, internal to Pakistan as well as the ability to flow — greater freedom to flow forces across that porous border."

The top U.S. commander in Iraq said in an Associated Press interview Saturday that after intense U.S. assaults, al-Qaida may be considering shifting focus to its original home base in Afghanistan. Gen. David Petraeus said there are signs that foreign fighters recruited by al-Qaida to do battle in Iraq are being diverted to the largely ungoverned areas in Pakistan from which the fighters can cross into Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have pressed Pakistan for more than a year to halt the cross-border infiltration. It remains a major worry not only for the war in Afghanistan but also for Pakistan's stability.

Mullen called the issue of safe havens in Pakistan "for foreign fighters, for al-Qaida, for Taliban and the insurgents that are now freely — much more freely able to come across the borders — a big challenge for all of us. And it's having an impact on our ability to move forward in Afghanistan."

He cited "mixed progress" in Afghanistan, but added, "I would not say in any way, shape or form that we're losing in Afghanistan."

Noting U.S. participation in international talks Saturday with Iran over its nuclear program, Mullen said he was encouraged. "A few weeks ago I wouldn't have thought those were possible."

But he said he supports continued economic, financial, diplomatic and political pressure on Iran "to bring them to a point where we can all deal with this issue of nuclear weapons."

"I fundamentally believe that they're on a path to achieve nuclear weapons some time in the future. I think that's a very destabilizing possibility in that part of the world. I don't need — we don't need — any more instability in that part of the world." Mullen said.

Asked about the fallout from a potential attack against Tehran by either the U.S. or Israel, Mullen said, "Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one ... not that we don't have the reserve to do it in the United States."

He added, "I worry about the instability in that part of the world and, in fact, the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that and, in fact, having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to both predict exactly what it would be and then the actions that we would have to take to contain it."

Iran, he said, seems "headed in the direction of building nuclear weapons and having them in their arsenal, and ... we need to figure out a way to ensure that that doesn't happen."

More update on the situation.

jfuh · 07-22-08, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity

Troop withdrawal timeline concerns Pentagon chief - Yahoo! News

Troop withdrawal timeline concerns Pentagon chief

More update on the situation.

Interesting of what happened this past weekend.
When Iraqi goverment has said that Obama's plan of troop withdraw was what they wanted, both the Bush administration and McCain say - must be a mistranslation.

07-11-08, 11:55 PM	#61
Trinity Professor Join Date: Apr 2008 Last Seen: 09-10-09 03:35 PM Posts: 1,579 Thanks: 82 Thanked 166 Times in 132 Posts Lean: Libertarian Gender:	Re: Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable Yes US needs to withdraw some troops from Iraq but not leave it in case war does break out with Iran. Iraq will be a useful base to attack from. Furthermore, Afghanistan needs more troops deployed there to deal with the situation. At first, I was thinking this is a wild scheme by Bush to carry on the oil gravy train and profit at the cost of American lives and the tax-paying Americans. Now, if the US is there to undermine the threat of Iran and war breaking out, that is at least a justifiable reason to have a base there. But I would advocate withdrawal of troops to a lesser amt with a withdrawal plan tentatively in place (all bets r off if or when war breaks out with Iran... whereby then we need to throw more troops there to contain the situation).
	__________________ I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian

07-20-08, 10:01 AM	#68
Volker Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Last Seen: 08-25-08 11:19 AM Location: Germany Posts: 6,592 Thanks: 62 Thanked 146 Times in 124 Posts Lean: Independent Gender:	Re: Iraq insists on withdrawal timetable US troops have not been needed there, they are not needed now and they will never be needed. The best you could say about them, is, that they are totally useless. But they are much worse than this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode