|
03 Sep 07 - 06:09 AM (#2139509) Subject: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Big Phil Have we Brits found our senses and are now going to pull out of Iraq. Good or bad move. |
|
03 Sep 07 - 06:32 AM (#2139520) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: GUEST,ifor It is a small move in the right direction but have no illusions the major partner in the Coalition of The Willing ,the USA , intends to remain in Iraq for a very,very long time......which is a recipe for continued carnage and chaos. The British soldiers should leave immediately .We have no business occupying that country. Iraq once had an economy and standard of living that for many was approaching European standards.Today there is utter devastation.Years of sanctions,the attack on Iraq and the subsequent war of occupation has plunged the country into barbarism with cholera now a factor of life. The country needs help not more uranium bombs,white phospherous shells,air bombardments orterroristic killings from all sides. ifor |
|
03 Sep 07 - 06:55 AM (#2139532) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: akenaton well said Ifor |
|
03 Sep 07 - 07:01 AM (#2139539) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: akenaton and the reason for our hasty retreat? "Macavity" wants to win the next election. So much for "our brave lads" who died for nothing. Politicians!! (spit) |
|
03 Sep 07 - 07:29 AM (#2139554) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Ron Davies 1) Could you give us more details as to the timeline for the UK leaving Iraq? 2) The US will not "leave Iraq" for the foreseeable future---if you include "Kurdistan" as part of Iraq. I suspect, however, that the Kurds in that area would not include it.--though Maliki--and most Westerners--probably would. At any rate, not only does "Kurdistan" have oil--especially when they officially include the Kirkuk region--likely to happen soon--- but the Kurds themselves in that part of "Iraq" are strongly in favor of a continued US presence there--lest Turkey, at some point in the future, under less rational leadership than it now has, should be tempted to a full-scale invasion of "Kurdistan" to stamp out the continuing problem it has with the PKK. Iraq, which always was an artificial Western-imposed construction, is going to cease to exist as a unified state. Soon there will be no "Iraq" to leave. The main question now regarding the US in Iraq is when Bush will finally publicly admit that "Kurdistan" is the fallback position. |
|
03 Sep 07 - 07:51 AM (#2139563) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Bobert Well, Ron, Bush ain't ever going to admit anything... You know that as well as I do... (But, Bobert... Hasn't Bush said "Some mistakes were made...") Well, yeah... Name one actual mistake that Bush has coped to... Just one... I'm so sick of this guy's adminisration I could puke... (But, Bobert... If we get out there is going to be a civil war...) Duhhhhhhh!!! |
|
03 Sep 07 - 02:12 PM (#2139825) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Yes, the PKK in "Kurdistan" is a problem - not only to Turkey but to Iran as well. If the U.S. 'falls back' to Kurdistan, they either have to wipe out the PKK (and risk the rath of the general population) or go to war with Iran and Turkey. Doesn't seem like a very safe position to me. |
|
03 Sep 07 - 02:22 PM (#2139836) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: GUEST,Cruz I do not pretend to understand anything about the area except the Iraq war was a huge mistake. However, I do think the Kurds are the "best" people in that region, and I would hate to see them wiped out. |
|
03 Sep 07 - 03:48 PM (#2139908) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Ron Davies But if the UK is going to pull out of Iraq, it would be honestly worthwhile to have details on the timeframe. Does anybody have them? |
|
03 Sep 07 - 03:54 PM (#2139918) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: SINSULL http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/11/wiraq11.xml Ron, Try GOOGLE. It is amazing the facts you can find. |
|
03 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM (#2140009) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Ron Davies Sinsull-- Thanks. But I'm probably not the only person interested in this. So your link is welcome. Also, I usually don't have to ask such things--they'd be in the WSJ. No WSJ today. |
|
03 Sep 07 - 05:50 PM (#2140011) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Ron Davies Actually, Sinsull, I've checked that date. 10 Jan 2007. Blair was in charge. Things may have changed--in fact I've read that Brown is backing off this. So more recent confirmation would be welcome. |
|
03 Sep 07 - 05:51 PM (#2140013) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Ron Davies 12 Jan 2007. |
|
03 Sep 07 - 05:56 PM (#2140020) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: akenaton Try This Ron |
|
03 Sep 07 - 06:52 PM (#2140072) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: SINSULL This is tyhe ABC link I attempted earlier: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2891738 Britain plans to reduce its forces in Iraq from 7100 to 5000 by summer's end. Take a look at the breakdown of coalition forces: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5217.htm |
|
03 Sep 07 - 07:02 PM (#2140083) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Amos Bush's recent visit to Iraq was entertaining. For once, I hope to read just one more IED story in the morning paper.... A |
|
03 Sep 07 - 07:56 PM (#2140115) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: GUEST,Cruz Would that headline read: The Burning Bush... |
|
04 Sep 07 - 10:51 PM (#2141148) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Ron Davies Sinsull et al.-- It's clear from the articles you cite that Brown is hedging his bets. It's not at all clear that all UK troops will be leaving Iraq soon----"Brown has...refused to announce a timetable for the complete withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq"-----or ever. So no change there. Dianavan-- You posit a false choice. The US can stay in "Kurdistan" indefinitely without fighting the PKK or the Turks--as long as PKK provocations don't cause a full-scale invasion by Turkey. And the very presence of US troops in "Kurdistan" is likely to deter an invasion. This is very clear to Kurds in "Kurdistan". |
|
21 Aug 08 - 07:33 AM (#2419300) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Ron Davies So now it's time for the US to leave Iraq (except "Kurdistan"). WSJ 21 Aug 2008: "US and Iraq reached a pact on troop withdrawals. Negotiators from the two nations struck an accord that calls for US military forces to leave Iraq's cities by next summer." Now who has been dead set against any timetable whatsosever for withdrawal? Seems to me Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain have been railing against the folly of any timetable for several eons--that is, since March 2003. And who has been in favor of a timetable? That would be Mr. Obama--and it turns out, Mr. Maliki. The deal "represents a remarkable turnaround from just a few months ago, when talk of timetables and deadlines was routinely dismissed by the Bush administration and other Republicans in Washington." All of a sudden all the objections--all the whining about how any timetable would just turn Iraq over to the enemy--are gone. And who has been saying for months that there is absolutely no chance for al-Qaeda to take over in Iraq--and therefore the justification for US troops to stay there --except in "Kurdistan"-- was gone? Check my--and many other Mudcatters'--earlier posts. But it seems I recall the Alamo and other dread disasters being cited as a warning as to what would happen if US troops were only in "Kurdistan". OK BB, Teribus, pdq, and other brilliant supporters of the Bush maladministration, your turn to comment. |
|
21 Aug 08 - 07:46 AM (#2419305) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Ron Davies Obviously this pact cites only "cities". But it is clearly a definite timetable--the "surrender" we've been warned about for years. |
|
22 Aug 08 - 07:31 AM (#2419983) Subject: RE: BS: Leaving Iraq From: Ron Davies Gee, no answer on this latest development from BB, pdq, Teribus, and the other giant intellects who meekly follow their fearless leader, Mr. Bush, rather than thinking for themselves. What a surprise. Perhaps their leader is deserting the field so fast they can't catch up. McCain, just a few days ago, was still railing about "hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines" which could "squander" the victory he still sees coming in Iraq. But now Bush has agreed to a definite timeline. The 2011 deadline for "all troops" leaving Iraq is no doubt extremely fungible, to say the least. But, as I noted, they are to leave Iraqi cities by next summer. That's a undeniable deadline--and one coming up remarkably fast. And why this deadline in the agreement? Easy--the Iraqis insisted on it. Gee, I thought we were supposed to be partners in the struggle to win the war in Iraq. But now our partner is telling us to go home. Sounds like it's time to comply--as Obama has been saying for quite a while. |