Iraq raises idea of timetable for US withdrawal

[actsnoblemartin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.
ADVERTISEMENT

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush.

[5stringJeff]

Good. If the Iraqis are ready for us to leave, let's leave.

[actsnoblemartin]

fine with me but lets give um the :fu: for being such un-grateful fucks, after everything we have done for them


Good. If the Iraqis are ready for us to leave, let's leave.

[5stringJeff]

fine with me but lets give um the :fu: for being such un-grateful fucks, after everything we have done for them

It's not being ungrateful to take responsibility to defend your own country. It's what all countries do. It's one of the inherent acts of governing.

[actsnoblemartin]

It's not being ungrateful to take responsibility to defend your own country. It's what all countries do. It's one of the inherent acts of governing.

I want iraq to defend themselves, but do you think iraq can defend itself now, i dont think so, but i await your response

[Noir]

fine with me but lets give um the :fu: for being such un-grateful fucks, after everything we have done for them

...So would you rather they were "grateful" and insisted that we stay over their with no timetable for leaving? You just can't please some people.


but do you think iraq can defend itself now, i dont think so

The leader of Iraq thinks otherwise...

[actsnoblemartin]

Fine, but if, (and i hope this doesnt happen) things go bad, he better not call us, because I will say you asked to leave so fuck off.


...So would you rather they were "grateful" and insisted that we stay over their with no timetable for leaving? You just can't please some people.



The leader of Iraq thinks otherwise...

[5stringJeff]

I want iraq to defend themselves, but do you think iraq can defend itself now, i dont think so, but i await your response

It doesn't matter what I think - although I have seen enough in the news to think that the Iraqis are ready to start defending their own country. It matters what the Prime Minister thinks, and he thinks his army is ready.

[actsnoblemartin]

fine, i will respect his wishes, but if he is wrong, and iraqis start slaughtering each other, or iran comes in, i hope we dont do a dam thing, cause its his fucking problem not ours


It doesn't matter what I think - although I have seen enough in the news to think that the Iraqis are ready to start defending their own country. It matters what the Prime Minister thinks, and he thinks his army is ready.

[5stringJeff]

fine, i will respect his wishes, but if he is wrong, and iraqis start slaughtering each other, or iran comes in, i hope we dont do a dam thing, cause its his fucking problem not ours

I'm pretty sure he realizes that.

[Noir]

Fine, but if, (and i hope this doesnt happen) things go bad, he better not call us, because I will say you asked to leave so fuck off.


Well as far as i am aware the US still want to have 50 bases in Iraq, so he won't have to ask ya'll already be there.

[Gaffer]

If a time table is to be established then the iraqi's need to do it.

We are not going to have 50 bases in iraq, we will have two or three with some small support points near by. These will be capable of expanding in case we have to take on iran.

[mundame]

There is no reason in the world that we should care if Iraqis kill each other!!

I mean, hey, we kill them constantly ----- so why should we mind if they kill each other?

[Noir]

We are not going to have 50 bases in iraq, we will have two or three with some small support points near by. These will be capable of expanding in case we have to take on iran.

Not what i've been readin, from the Independent


Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

[glockmail]

Not what i've been readin, from the Independent



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html
And now, the rest of the story...


Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for poisoning the public discussion before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks, as well as "frank and honest since the beginning."

"This is an ongoing process," Zebari said. "There is no agreement yet. Proposals have been modified, they have been changed and altered. We don't have a final text yet for them to be judgmental."

..........

The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism.

"Look, there is going to be no occupation," said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli. "Now it's perfectly understandable that there are those that are following this closely in Iraq who have concerns about what this means for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. We understand that and we appreciate that and that's why nothing is going to be rammed down anybody's throat.

"It's kind of like a forced marriage. It just doesn't work. They either want you or they don't want you. You can't use coercion to get them to like you," he added.

U.S. officials in Baghdad say they are determined to complete the accord by July 31 so that parliamentary deliberations can be completed before the Dec. 31 expiration of the UN mandate. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html

[mundame]

Not what i've been readin, from the Independent


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



I'm pretty opposed to this stupid war, but I don't know if I'd trust anything the Independent says --- their bias is wildly anti-American, and usually, in my experience, they are wrong.

It's like relying on Drudge or Newsmax for news; better not.

[avatar4321]

This is a huge mile marker. The Administration has stated that we will stay till the job is done and the Iraqis are ready to defend themselves. It looks like this is the first indication that they are ready. Looks like we won the war and we are in the closing days of winning the peace. This is fabulous news:)

[mundame]

This is a huge mile marker. The Administration has stated that we will stay till the job is done and the Iraqis are ready to defend themselves. It looks like this is the first indication that they are ready. Looks like we won the war and we are in the closing days of winning the peace. This is fabulous news:)


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight............................ ..

Works for me: declare victory and bring the troops home.

As long as we're out, I don't care what nonsense is talked; history will know what to call this mess.

[Sitarro]

I'm pretty opposed to this stupid war, but I don't know if I'd trust anything the Independent says --- their bias is wildly anti-American, and usually, in my experience, they are wrong.

It's like relying on Drudge or Newsmax for news; better not.

I'm curious, what do you consider a reliable news source?

[mundame]

I'm curious, what do you consider a reliable news source?


The Wall Street Journal is my favorite. Best paper in the world, IMO. I like Fox News -- I know they are biased, but I trust them to some extent since they are open about it.

The Economist. Reuters.

Not the Weekly Standard -- basically propaganda. Not CNN -- biased, and don't admit it.


Seriously, the best news sources IMO tend to be the financial papers, because they are about making money, and they aren't kidding: they want REALITY, as close as they can get to it, so people can use it to invest.

I just realized that, so thanx for asking, Sitarro.

[mundame]

Bravo! Neat! Iraq is INSISTING we set a timetable to get out! Thank goodness, we could use some help on getting free of this situation.

************************************************
Iraq insists on U.S. withdrawal timetable: official

Tue Jul 8, 2008 11:21am EDT

By Ahmed Rasheed and Mohammed Abbas

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.

The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

On Monday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.

Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq".
************************************************** ***

Doesn't look too good for bases................

I always knew bases were the whole point of the exercise.

If we get foreign bases, it means we won. (Philippines until we lost recently, Japan, Germany, etc.) If we don't get foreign bases, it means we lost (Vietnam).

But power-projection bases cannot coexist with a hostile society: then we're simply at war, as now in Iraq and Afghanistan.


No bases, we lost. Bases, we won. Remember that. That's how it works.

[5stringJeff]

The Wall Street Journal is my favorite. Best paper in the world, IMO. I like Fox News -- I know they are biased, but I trust them to some extent since they are open about it.

The Economist. Reuters.

Not the Weekly Standard -- basically propaganda. Not CNN -- biased, and don't admit it.


Seriously, the best news sources IMO tend to be the financial papers, because they are about making money, and they aren't kidding: they want REALITY, as close as they can get to it, so people can use it to invest.

I just realized that, so thanx for asking, Sitarro.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I am also a WSJ subscriber. I refuse to read any other paper, besides local ones, i.e. the once-a-week county newspaper.

[Sitarro]

The Wall Street Journal is my favorite. Best paper in the world, IMO. I like Fox News -- I know they are biased, but I trust them to some extent since they are open about it.

The Economist. Reuters.

Not the Weekly Standard -- basically propaganda. Not CNN -- biased, and don't admit it.


Seriously, the best news sources IMO tend to be the financial papers, because they are about making money, and they aren't kidding: they want REALITY, as close as they can get to it, so people can use it to invest.

I just realized that, so thanx for asking, Sitarro.

All very good, I'm impressed.:clap:

[bullypulpit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.
ADVERTISEMENT

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush.

Bush did say that US forces would leave if asked by a duly elected Iraqi government...

<blockquote>
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 - President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers. - <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/politics/28prexy.html?_r=5&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=>NYT, 1/28/05</a></blockquote>

Apparently Bush was just blowing smoke up Iraqi, and our, asses.

[Kathianne]

Bush did say that US forces would leave if asked by a duly elected Iraqi government...

<blockquote>
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 - President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers. - <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/politics/28prexy.html?_r=5&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=>NYT, 1/28/05</a></blockquote>

Apparently Bush was just blowing smoke up Iraqi, and our, asses.
and he's not saying differently now, have you looked at what is being done with troops numbers and movements now? Did you know the 'time table' is saying 2011? It will follow Iraq's directives, though my guess is without a declared 'time table'.

You just let your Bush hatred color all that you wish to comment on.

[red states rule]

The liberal media is slowly admitting the good news in Iraq - but some continue to go out of their way to find some bad news


ABC Sees 'Impressive Gains in Iraq' While CBS Finds Bad Hospitals
By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
July 8, 2008 - 21:22 ET

As was pattern earlier this year and last, ABC's World News is much more willing -- than its CBS and NBC competitors -- to acknowledge good news in the Iraq war. On Tuesday night, ABC's Martha Raddatz cited “some really impressive gains” as she reported the plummeting number of attacks in Baghdad, falling from 1,278 in June of 2007 to 112 last month. The night before, only anchor Charlie Gibson highlighted the “upbeat assessment of security in Iraq today from Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen.”

Neither the CBS Evening News nor NBC Nightly News mentioned Mullen on Monday night while NBC's Jim Miklaszewski only noted less violence in Iraq in contrast to a “record number of Americans killed in Afghanistan last month,” so “if there's any bright side here...it's that the level of violence in Iraq has come down enough” to allow the military to move resources to Afghanistan.

Tuesday night, CBS anchor Katie Couric offered just a clause on violence in Iraq -- “Iraq's national security adviser called today for setting a timetable, a sign Baghdad is growing more confident as the violence decreases” -- before finding a away to deliver depressing news about Iraq: How though Iraqi oil profits “are on the rise,” the “money is not going to one place it's desperately needed.” That would be ill-equipped hospitals.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/07/08/abc-sees-impressive-gains-iraq-while-cbs-finds-bad-hospitals

[mundame]

U.S. Army General: Iraqi Security Forces Still Need Help
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif<SCRIPT language=javascript _extended="true">function farkItButton(h, u, s) { if (!IsDef(h)) { if (IsDef(window.fark_headline)) { h = window.fark_headline; } else { h = ''; } } u = unescape(location.href); var img = 'FarkItButton2_16x16.gif'; imgw = 16; imgh = 16; document.write('http://img.fark.net/pub/' + img + ' (http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/farkit.pl?h=' + h + '&u=' + u + ')');}function IsDef(variable) { return (!(!( variable||false )))}function GetThis(T, C, U, L){ var targetUrl = 'http://www.myspace.com/Modules/PostTo/Pages/?' + 't=' + encodeURIComponent(T) + '&c=' + encodeURIComponent(C) + '&u=' + encodeURIComponent(U) + '&l=' + L; window.open(targetUrl);} </SCRIPT>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army three-star general who for a year led efforts to train Iraq's army and police units says progress is mixed and U.S. help is needed for the foreseeable future.
************************************************** **

This is an example of the maddening shuck-and-jive we constantly get from Washington:

If we're winning, that means we have to stay.

If we're losing, that also means we have to stay.

So whatever happens, the American people lose because the war stretches out endlessly.


I have a suggestion that makes just as much sense as that:

How about if we're winning, we bring the troops home?

And if we're losing, we also bring the troops home?


Same deal, except we could save the economy and finally start repairing the Army. Hey, we might need an Army that can occasionally WIN something someday, you can never tell.

[DragonStryk72]

fine with me but lets give um the :fu: for being such un-grateful fucks, after everything we have done for them

How are they being ungrateful in this? All along we've said how we will not be having a permanent presence in Iraq, and yet, 5+ years later, we're still there, and we've built the world's largest military base there, a base that could contain several of their palaces.

Yes, he's asking for a timetable, so that he knows when it is that we'll be leaving to head home, and when he'll need to have his forces ready by. This would be one of the few normal things that's occurred in this war

[red states rule]

Iraq was "unwinnable" according to the messiah and the Dems. Yet President Bush did the surge, despite attacks from the Dems, and now we are winning.

And now that we are winning we will soon no longer be needed there and we can start bringing the troops home.

America and Pres Bush wins

Terrorista and the libs lose

[mundame]

And now that we are winning we will soon no longer be needed there and we can start bringing the troops home.


Oh, don't give up so soon. That general training Iraqis sez we'll be there as far as he can foresee, and even Obalama is backing off his plans to bring the troops home.

You may luck out and we'll see American troops fighting there another 43 - 44 years.

Doesn't "winning" mean the troops have to keep fighting there forever?

Same as what "losing" means.

[red states rule]

Oh, don't give up so soon. That general training Iraqis sez we'll be there as far as he can foresee, and even Obalama is backing off his plans to bring the troops home.

You may luck out and we'll see American troops fighting there another 43 - 44 years.

Doesn't "winning" mean the troops have to keep fighting there forever?

Same as what "losing" means.

I am sorry mundame, I forgot the #1 rule when debating the war with anti war folks

No news coming from Iraq can possibly be good news.

[mundame]

No news coming from Iraq can possibly be good news.


True, it never has been yet.

Well, since we supposedly won the war after 3 1/2 weeks. That was good news. But that turned out to be a lie.

[red states rule]

True, it never has been yet.

Well, since we supposedly won the war after 3 1/2 weeks. That was good news. But that turned out to be a lie.

So all the various reports coming from a vast variety of sources on the stunning turn around in Iraq are all propaganda?

Sure is, ask any anti war peace nik

[mundame]

So all the various reports coming from a vast variety of sources on the stunning turn around in Iraq are all propaganda?


Of course it's all propaganda. We've had a constant diet of propaganda (lies) pushed on us since well BEFORE the war started.

First they wanted to go in there and win so they lied us into war, then they wanted to win so they lied about how well the war was going when it was going STINKY for YEARS, and then they were desperate not to lose so they lied about how surely they COULD win if they just threw yet more bodies at it--------

It's been nothing but lies from beginning to end. You can't fool people these days because information is so free, but these government types are behind, have no idea of that, never get on the Internet.


Remember the surefire, objective way we can tell if we won or lost any given war:

If we get forward-power-projection bases in a country stable enough to host them, we won.

If we don't, we lost.

Maliki is saying no bases, he wants us all out. So we'll see.

[Gaffer]

Of course it's all propaganda. We've had a constant diet of propaganda (lies) pushed on us since well BEFORE the war started.

First they wanted to go in there and win so they lied us into war, then they wanted to win so they lied about how well the war was going when it was going STINKY for YEARS, and then they were desperate not to lose so they lied about how surely they COULD win if they just threw yet more bodies at it--------

It's been nothing but lies from beginning to end. You can't fool people these days because information is so free, but these government types are behind, have no idea of that, never get on the Internet.


Remember the surefire, objective way we can tell if we won or lost any given war:

If we get forward-power-projection bases in a country stable enough to host them, we won.

If we don't, we lost.

Maliki is saying no bases, he wants us all out. So we'll see.

The sure fire objective way to know you have won the war is when the enemy is no longer attacking you. We will continue to have bases there. Not many but a few.

[mundame]

The sure fire objective way to know you have won the war is when the enemy is no longer attacking you.


Apparently we have not won yet, then.


U.S. Troops in Iraq Face A Powerful New Weapon
Use of Rocket-Propelled Bombs Spreads

By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070902396.html?hpid=topnews)Thursday, July 10, 2008; Page A01

BAGHDAD, July 9 -- Suspected Shiite militiamen have begun using powerful rocket-propelled bombs to attack U.S. military outposts in recent months, broadening the array of weapons used against American troops.

U.S. military officials call the devices Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions, or IRAMs. They are propane tanks packed with hundreds of pounds of explosives and powered by 107mm rockets. They are often fired by remote control from the backs of trucks, sometimes in close succession. Rocket-propelled bombs have killed at least 21 people, including at least three U.S. soldiers, this year.

The latest reported rocket-propelled bomb attack occurred Tuesday at Joint Security Station Ur, a base in northeastern Baghdad shared by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. One U.S. soldier and an interpreter were wounded in the attack.

U.S. military officials say IRAM attacks, unlike roadside bombings and conventional mortar or rocket attacks, have the potential to kill scores of soldiers at once. IRAMs are fired at close range, unlike most rockets, and create much larger explosions. Most such attacks have occurred in the capital, Baghdad.
************************************************** **

So the Shiites are shooting new and better types of rockets at our positions. Say, weren't the Shiites supposed to be our allies and bestest new little friendsies? The ones we gave all this democracy and freedom to? Darn, looks like they don't like us as much as we like them. http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/megkerg%FCltek/speechless-smiley-014.gif

[Gaffer]

No one said it was over. And the shite militia is supported by....iran. Surprise! Where do you suppose they get the rockets for these weapons? The guys that use these are part of the special groups that our military is targeting.

Special groups is code for iranian led shite insurgents.

[mundame]

No one said it was over. And the shite militia is supported by....iran. Surprise! Where do you suppose they get the rockets for these weapons?


Naaaaaaaaaaah, they make these locally: read the article. They make them out of propane tanks, which are "ubiquitous," the article says, for cooking, because their infrastructure is destroyed for other power sources. They stuff them with nails and rocks, also local.

If Iran wants them to have better weapons, they'll have to get cracking: these are better than they DID have, but not very high-tech even so.

My guess is Iran doesn't want stuff traced back to them, or they would provide them with good remote-control-guided missiles.

[Gaffer]

Naaaaaaaaaaah, they make these locally: read the article. They make them out of propane tanks, which are "ubiquitous," the article says, for cooking, because their infrastructure is destroyed for other power sources. They stuff them with nails and rocks, also local.

If Iran wants them to have better weapons, they'll have to get cracking: these are better than they DID have, but not very high-tech even so.

My guess is Iran doesn't want stuff traced back to them, or they would provide them with good remote-control-guided missiles.

The propane tanks are not the rocket, they are the explosive part of the rocket. The rocket itself is supplied by iran. The tanks make it bulky which is the reason for the short range. The iraqi militia cannot produce the rockets themselves. Those are imported.

There's been a constant flow of iranian weapons into iraq for years.

[mundame]

The propane tanks are not the rocket, they are the explosive part of the rocket. The rocket itself is supplied by iran. The tanks make it bulky which is the reason for the short range. The iraqi militia cannot produce the rockets themselves. Those are imported.

There's been a constant flow of iranian weapons into iraq for years.


I reread the article. You may have a point there.........................



U.S. military officials said they have found Iranian-made 107mm rockets at some of the blast sites, which they said suggests the weapons -- or parts -- may have come from Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iran.html?nav=el).
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/10/ST2008071000971.html)
<SCRIPT><!--var rn = ( Math.round( Math.random()*10000000000 ) );document.write('<s\cript src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070902396_StoryJs.js?'+rn+'"></s\cript>') ;// --></SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070902396_StoryJs.js?4168735847"></SCRIPT>