Full Version: Should we leave Iraq no matter what?
Pencil It In
The administration has committed to a June 30 deadline for leaving Iraq. now many are wondering whether that is a feasible departure date. Politically, it would be dangerous for the Bush administration because it would be another change in strategy in Iraq.
But I have never liked this deadline idea because it gives away the upper hand to those fomenting unrest in Iraq. They know when the withdrawal is coming and they can focus on undermining the efforts to create political stability before that date.
I think we should pencil that date in and come up with some minimum requirements before we depart. Establishing a stable legal and judicial system that serves the needs of Iraqi freedom until a fair election can be held must be one of those requirements. I mean, it will be fine with me is the Iraqi people democratically choose a non-democratic form of government, but if we leave before there is stability in Iraq I think might will be right in the country.
I think we should make the June 30 date conditionable sp? and we should work with our friends in Iraq in good faith to make that date happen. But we should let the Iraqis know now that we will not leave the country on the brink of anarchy and civil war because that would be an abrogation of our Geneva Accord responsibilities. Forget Geneva, it would be the wrong thing to do.
Question for debate
What do you think about the concept of making the deadline pencil instead of ink? Is it the right or wrong thing to do? Why?
QUOTE
Asked how Bush could escape accusations that he had broken his word, one administration official said that delaying handover would demonstrate he is genuinely committed to getting Iraq right.
The administration has committed to a June 30 deadline for leaving Iraq. now many are wondering whether that is a feasible departure date. Politically, it would be dangerous for the Bush administration because it would be another change in strategy in Iraq.
But I have never liked this deadline idea because it gives away the upper hand to those fomenting unrest in Iraq. They know when the withdrawal is coming and they can focus on undermining the efforts to create political stability before that date.
I think we should pencil that date in and come up with some minimum requirements before we depart. Establishing a stable legal and judicial system that serves the needs of Iraqi freedom until a fair election can be held must be one of those requirements. I mean, it will be fine with me is the Iraqi people democratically choose a non-democratic form of government, but if we leave before there is stability in Iraq I think might will be right in the country.
I think we should make the June 30 date conditionable sp? and we should work with our friends in Iraq in good faith to make that date happen. But we should let the Iraqis know now that we will not leave the country on the brink of anarchy and civil war because that would be an abrogation of our Geneva Accord responsibilities. Forget Geneva, it would be the wrong thing to do.
Question for debate
What do you think about the concept of making the deadline pencil instead of ink? Is it the right or wrong thing to do? Why?
The deadline was more political than intelligent. It won't happen. It's the same thing that happens when you ask for a deadline for a project and the project manager gives you the "10% probability" answer and forgets to mention that the target has a 90% chance of not being hit.
When they announced that date late last year, certain key decisions and Iraqi activities had to occur. Of course, none of that was mentioned in the general press. And none of it happened.
It's better to get everyone in Iraq comfortable NOW that the deadline won't happen. I think we were using the UN survey team as cover for that.
When they announced that date late last year, certain key decisions and Iraqi activities had to occur. Of course, none of that was mentioned in the general press. And none of it happened.
It's better to get everyone in Iraq comfortable NOW that the deadline won't happen. I think we were using the UN survey team as cover for that.
What do you think about the concept of making the deadline pencil instead of ink? Is it the right or wrong thing to do? Why?
We aren't leaving, but I fear that if the US bows to the imam's plan to vote in June, we are going to have a huge problem on our hands. It appears from what I've read a couple of days ago, that the UN envoy is leaning toward this plan. Iraq may become a theocracy and I'm not sure that would be good for the ME.
QUOTE
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the US-led coalition forces would not leave Iraq soon after the proposed transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis by June 30.
"There's a lot of confusion in people's minds. The June-July timetable (for transfer of sovereignty) does not involve security forces. It involves governance and the transfer of sovereignty," he told the House Defence Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday.
The troop departure would be on "a totally separate timetable," he said adding that there isn't a timetable for turning over total security responsibility.
"And I wouldn't want anyone to think that any of the coalition countries have any intention whatsoever of leaving prematurely. The goal is to stay there as long as they're needed and not one day longer."
Coalition forces won't leave Iraq prematurely
"There's a lot of confusion in people's minds. The June-July timetable (for transfer of sovereignty) does not involve security forces. It involves governance and the transfer of sovereignty," he told the House Defence Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday.
The troop departure would be on "a totally separate timetable," he said adding that there isn't a timetable for turning over total security responsibility.
"And I wouldn't want anyone to think that any of the coalition countries have any intention whatsoever of leaving prematurely. The goal is to stay there as long as they're needed and not one day longer."
Coalition forces won't leave Iraq prematurely
We aren't leaving, but I fear that if the US bows to the imam's plan to vote in June, we are going to have a huge problem on our hands. It appears from what I've read a couple of days ago, that the UN envoy is leaning toward this plan. Iraq may become a theocracy and I'm not sure that would be good for the ME.
Bela has correctly pointed out that we are not going to pick up and leave lock stock and barrel. But this transfer of sovereignty date would have to have an impact on the military presence in the country. A sovereign country can request a total withdrawal.
But, that reminder does lower my anxiety level about this coming date. We will still have leverage. I still believe that date should be in pencil and not in ink and that the U.S. election cycle should have no bearing (from either side of the aisle) on how we transfer sovereignty to Iraqis.
Perhaps we can accommodate the shia community with direct elections within a federal system that protects the rights of sunnis shi'ites arabs and kurds. Easily suggested but maybe someone can make the right compromises to allow that to happen.
But, that reminder does lower my anxiety level about this coming date. We will still have leverage. I still believe that date should be in pencil and not in ink and that the U.S. election cycle should have no bearing (from either side of the aisle) on how we transfer sovereignty to Iraqis.
Perhaps we can accommodate the shia community with direct elections within a federal system that protects the rights of sunnis shi'ites arabs and kurds. Easily suggested but maybe someone can make the right compromises to allow that to happen.
As Beladonna wisely pointed out there indeed never was a deadline for leaving Iraq. In fact I believe the actual the transfer of sovereignty will have precious little effect on troop numbers. I sincerely doubt the new Iraqi government, whether it be elected or chosen through local caucuses will request a reduction in coalition troops, let alone a withdrawal.
Key Point: Every indicator shows this is not the will of the Iraqi people so there it little reason to think it will happen. The administration wants chaos no more than the Iraqis.
In a way amf is correct, though I not sure exactly what he's getting at (withdrawal of troops which as has been shown was never planned, or transfer of sovereignty which is certainly not impossible).
The deadline is political however and serves the dual purpose to pander to foreign and press opposition and give Americans an indication this is winding down well before the election.
Like, Eeyore I believed the transfer of sovereignty plan was ill-conceived. The original plan of the administration was to have elections first (which is now what Ayatollah Sistani is, in essence, supporting).
Is that the transfer of sovereignty should be to and elected Iraqi government, even if it mean Iraqi remains under "occupation" for a longer period of time.
The whining about "sovereignty" and the end to "occupation" was left to the UN and European allies who opposed the war. I suspect the Bush administration wanted to be seen to compromise (see where that gets you...) and so went with the plan for all important sovereignty first. Ostensibly, the end to "occupation" would lessen resentment towards the coalition. As I pointed out when the plan was first proposed by the French government that the war is not driven by popular resistance and so general resentment is a best a secondary issue (and not very high mind you...) and so the end to "occupation" will only be a change in euphemisms to the terrorists driven the "insurgency" and they continue to fight until Iraq forces can tamp them down.
So really, "occupation" has nothing to do with it and is simply a buzzword. The transfer of sovereignty is a PR plan.
I think the UN has made clear that they believe, as the CPA that elections in June are not feasible. Most Iraqis say they don't want a theocracy and I trust they will have their way...
UN urges credible Iraqi election
(Try to wade through the diplomatic double-talk
)
Key Point: Every indicator shows this is not the will of the Iraqi people so there it little reason to think it will happen. The administration wants chaos no more than the Iraqis.
In a way amf is correct, though I not sure exactly what he's getting at (withdrawal of troops which as has been shown was never planned, or transfer of sovereignty which is certainly not impossible).
The deadline is political however and serves the dual purpose to pander to foreign and press opposition and give Americans an indication this is winding down well before the election.
Like, Eeyore I believed the transfer of sovereignty plan was ill-conceived. The original plan of the administration was to have elections first (which is now what Ayatollah Sistani is, in essence, supporting).
Is that the transfer of sovereignty should be to and elected Iraqi government, even if it mean Iraqi remains under "occupation" for a longer period of time.
The whining about "sovereignty" and the end to "occupation" was left to the UN and European allies who opposed the war. I suspect the Bush administration wanted to be seen to compromise (see where that gets you...) and so went with the plan for all important sovereignty first. Ostensibly, the end to "occupation" would lessen resentment towards the coalition. As I pointed out when the plan was first proposed by the French government that the war is not driven by popular resistance and so general resentment is a best a secondary issue (and not very high mind you...) and so the end to "occupation" will only be a change in euphemisms to the terrorists driven the "insurgency" and they continue to fight until Iraq forces can tamp them down.
So really, "occupation" has nothing to do with it and is simply a buzzword. The transfer of sovereignty is a PR plan.
QUOTE(Beladonna)
We aren't leaving, but I fear that if the US bows to the imam's plan to vote in June, we are going to have a huge problem on our hands. It appears from what I've read a couple of days ago, that the UN envoy is leaning toward this plan. Iraq may become a theocracy and I'm not sure that would be good for the ME.
I think the UN has made clear that they believe, as the CPA that elections in June are not feasible. Most Iraqis say they don't want a theocracy and I trust they will have their way...
UN urges credible Iraqi election
(Try to wade through the diplomatic double-talk
)
QUOTE
What do you think about the concept of making the deadline pencil instead of ink? Is it the right or wrong thing to do? Why?
We could make the deadline crayon or permanent marker and it won't make one iota bit of difference.
We are not herding cats here--we are trying to herd lions and tigers and bears (oh my).
Like this should be a surprise. But oh well, this albatross will be with us for a very long time. Ultimately, we (the world) might discover that dictatorship in the ME is the only form of government that works. The countries in that region that are peaceful happen to be monarchies, just an older form of absolute control over the masses. At least so I think--can't come up with one democracy in the region from memory except Israel (maybe). Google isn't helping:
Israel Not A Democracy
Has anyone else detected the irony that a federalist republic with a strong central government is promoting democracy? Shoot, we can't handle democracy. What makes us think anyone else can?
But that has never been the real reason for invading Iraq. The real reason has to do with motivations at a much less grand level. It has to do with greed and possibly revenge, with a good measure of pig-headed power mongering in there. This of course begets itself as anyone who has read history (or scripture) would know.
So I propose we use disappearing ink when determining any deadline.
Who actually said June 30th? Must have been the media.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 15 2004, 06:54 AM)
Like this should be a surprise. But oh well, this albatross will be with us for a very long time. Ultimately, we (the world) might discover that dictatorship in the ME is the only form of government that works. The countries in that region that are peaceful happen to be monarchies, just an older form of absolute control over the masses. At least so I think--can't come up with one democracy in the region from memory except Israel (maybe). Google isn't helping:
Israel Not A Democracy
Has anyone else detected the irony that a federalist republic with a strong central government is promoting democracy? Shoot, we can't handle democracy. What makes us think anyone else can?
Turkey is a parliamentary democracy, AM, and secular (relatively) as well
I think that's about the only one. Per the question for debate...Didn't we already make that line in pen? Maybe we were stupid and short-sighted to have made that promise, but we did, and can't pencil over the pen mark and still maintain any semblance of integrity. If we fear a civil war at the handoff, wouldn't there be massive violence just as certainly if there is no handoff at the agreed time?
So, I think we should give Iraq the sovereignty we promised, when we promised. The U.S. and other UN military police can remain to work with Iraqi authorities as they did in Kosovo and Bosnia. I don't have a good feeling about this, but a much worse one about the alternative.
If anyone thinks the U.S. is going to be able to establish a democratic government in Iraq within less than five months, I want some of whatever it is you're smoking.
When Donald Rumsfeld talked about the "long, hard slog" through Iraq he was saying we are going to be over there for a LONG time. Look at it this way: How long has World War II been over and there's still a strong American presence in Germany, Italy and Japan?
Anyone who thinks Bush is serious about transferring power to the Iraquis in June is delirious. A figurehead government will be propped up into place, but the real power is going to remain within U.S. hands. Nobody's going anywhere anytime soon in the morass that is post-Saddam Iraq.
When Donald Rumsfeld talked about the "long, hard slog" through Iraq he was saying we are going to be over there for a LONG time. Look at it this way: How long has World War II been over and there's still a strong American presence in Germany, Italy and Japan?
Anyone who thinks Bush is serious about transferring power to the Iraquis in June is delirious. A figurehead government will be propped up into place, but the real power is going to remain within U.S. hands. Nobody's going anywhere anytime soon in the morass that is post-Saddam Iraq.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Feb 15 2004, 12:18 PM)
If anyone thinks the U.S. is going to be able to establish a democratic government in Iraq within less than five months, I want some of whatever it is you're smoking.
If anyone thinks the June deadline was ever intended or portrayed to be a deadline for a democratic Iraqi government I'd like to see what they're reading.
Again, the deadline was for turnover of sovereignty to a transitional Iraqi government, not establishment of a democracy.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
When Donald Rumsfeld talked about the "long, hard slog" through Iraq he was saying we are going to be over there for a LONG time. Look at it this way: How long has World War II been over and there's still a strong American presence in Germany, Italy and Japan?
Yeah, those are pretty rough areas for U.S. troops.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Anyone who thinks Bush is serious about transferring power to the Iraquis in June is delirious. A figurehead government will be propped up into place, but the real power is going to remain within U.S. hands. Nobody's going anywhere anytime soon in the morass that is post-Saddam Iraq.
Evidence...
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Feb 15 2004, 12:18 PM)
Anyone who thinks Bush is serious about transferring power to the Iraquis in June is delirious. A figurehead government will be propped up into place, but the real power is going to remain within U.S. hands. Nobody's going anywhere anytime soon in the morass that is post-Saddam Iraq.
Another puppet screamer.
Of course, i know that any government that gets put into place in June or July will be accused of being a "US puppet". It's typical garbage that comes from Al-Queda propaganda.
We just might have to put a government into place in June or July and help them run because they might not be able to do it themselves. We might have to help a little.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Feb 26 2004, 05:32 PM)
Another puppet screamer.
Of course, i know that any government that gets put into place in June or July will be accused of being a "US puppet". It's typical garbage that comes from Al-Queda propaganda.
We just might have to put a government into place in June or July and help them run because they might not be able to do it themselves. We might have to help a little.
Of course, i know that any government that gets put into place in June or July will be accused of being a "US puppet". It's typical garbage that comes from Al-Queda propaganda.
We just might have to put a government into place in June or July and help them run because they might not be able to do it themselves. We might have to help a little.
So we can "help them a little", but that doesn't make them our "puppet", huh?
How about if they wanted an Islamist state? Bremer's already said "no" to that. That make them somehow not a "puppet", huh?
You need to considering adjusting the testosterone levels in your argument.
QUOTE(amf @ Feb 26 2004, 04:39 PM)
So we can "help them a little", but that doesn't make them our "puppet", huh?
How about if they wanted an Islamist state? Bremer's already said "no" to that. That make them somehow not a "puppet", huh?
Precisely, a puppet government is one that does what the US tells it to.
What the US is doing is using its influence to encourage Iraqis not to go the way of Iran.
Interfernce?
Maybe.
Puppet government?
No where near...
Fortunately, though Iraiqs want the government to respect Sharia, they dislike a Iran style government (10% of Baghdadis support one) and want the government to ensure rights similar in many ways to our own.
Freedom of speech: 98%
Freedom of religion: 86%
Freedom of assembly: 68% (Wary after those riots you know)
Seperation of church and state is losing by a slim margin, they want islamic parties, but not clerics in control. Bremer voiced no concern with that.
Polls can be found at the CPA's website but were conducted independently by Gallup,
QUOTE(amf @ Feb 26 2004, 03:39 PM)
So we can "help them a little", but that doesn't make them our "puppet", huh?
How about if they wanted an Islamist state? Bremer's already said "no" to that. That make them somehow not a "puppet", huh?
You need to considering adjusting the testosterone levels in your argument.
How about if they wanted an Islamist state? Bremer's already said "no" to that. That make them somehow not a "puppet", huh?
You need to considering adjusting the testosterone levels in your argument.
I don't think we're looking for a puppet government in Iraq. In every nation-building effort we've undertaken after the cold war(total of five not counting Afghanistan), we've attempted to install a democratic government.
We're employing the lessons learned in Bosnia and Kosovo. If direct elections are held too early, the most radical and nationalistic forces are usually the fastest to organize. The OSCE managed all elections until authority was handed to the nationals after a few years. In the beginning, they removed "Dayton obstructors" and refused to allow the Serb Radical party to register. Was the Bosnian government a 'puppet' then? I dont' think so. I believe the alternative of letting the radical and oppressive majority rule with a weak constitution is a worse idea.
QUOTE(amf @ Feb 26 2004, 04:39 PM)
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Feb 26 2004, 05:32 PM)
Another puppet screamer.
Of course, i know that any government that gets put into place in June or July will be accused of being a "US puppet". It's typical garbage that comes from Al-Queda propaganda.
We just might have to put a government into place in June or July and help them run because they might not be able to do it themselves. We might have to help a little.
Of course, i know that any government that gets put into place in June or July will be accused of being a "US puppet". It's typical garbage that comes from Al-Queda propaganda.
We just might have to put a government into place in June or July and help them run because they might not be able to do it themselves. We might have to help a little.
So we can "help them a little", but that doesn't make them our "puppet", huh?
Actually, helping them a little isn't making it a puppet of the US. Helping them and telling them what to do are 2 different things. If we suggested they try this, this and this if they need help, that is not a puppet government. TELLING them to do something is.
Not allowing them to have an Islamic Theocracy may be interfering, as Turnea has said but it is also telling them what not to do.
First of all we are not leaving Iraq on 30 June. We are turning the running of the country (less security) completely over to the intrim council. We wanted to wait until elections could be held, but the Shiites didn't want to wait. So they get the government such as it is, on 1 Jul.
I think a lot of folks here are missing the point. As in Afghanistan, we can only give the Iraqi people the opportunity to set up a form of government that will give them the freedoms we take sfor granted. We cannot and will not force any form of government on them.
1SG
I think a lot of folks here are missing the point. As in Afghanistan, we can only give the Iraqi people the opportunity to set up a form of government that will give them the freedoms we take sfor granted. We cannot and will not force any form of government on them.
1SG
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 16 2004, 08:46 AM)
First of all we are not leaving Iraq on 30 June. We are turning the running of the country (less security) completely over to the intrim council. We wanted to wait until elections could be held, but the Shiites didn't want to wait. So they get the government such as it is, on 1 Jul.
I think we will see a gradual decrease in US presence after the July 1st handover. Iraqis will want to see the US leave so they can make it on their own (which i think is doubtful because we are the only thing keeping a civil war from brewing)
GoAmerica
"I think we will see a gradual decrease in US presence after the July 1st handover. Iraqis will want to see the US leave so they can make it on their own (which i think is doubtful because we are the only thing keeping a civil war from brewing."
IMO we will see Coalition troops leave Iraq only as their ability to secure themselves grows. I'm reading in the papers and all over the web, that Iraqi Leaders from all factions are dead set against Civil War. In fact the most influencial of the Shiite leaders has called on the Intrim Council to boot al Jezera(sp) out of the country as they see this News Org as promoting civil war between the Shiites and Sunni.
There is a good chance Iraq may end up going exactly the way Americans would like to see.
IMO, they have had a taste of freedom and that is heady stuff.
1SG
"I think we will see a gradual decrease in US presence after the July 1st handover. Iraqis will want to see the US leave so they can make it on their own (which i think is doubtful because we are the only thing keeping a civil war from brewing."
IMO we will see Coalition troops leave Iraq only as their ability to secure themselves grows. I'm reading in the papers and all over the web, that Iraqi Leaders from all factions are dead set against Civil War. In fact the most influencial of the Shiite leaders has called on the Intrim Council to boot al Jezera(sp) out of the country as they see this News Org as promoting civil war between the Shiites and Sunni.
There is a good chance Iraq may end up going exactly the way Americans would like to see.
IMO, they have had a taste of freedom and that is heady stuff.
1SG
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Feb 14 2004, 05:25 PM)
Question for debate
What do you think about the concept of making the deadline pencil instead of ink? Is it the right or wrong thing to do? Why?
What do you think about the concept of making the deadline pencil instead of ink? Is it the right or wrong thing to do? Why?
Unlike Korea and Vietnam this war was done right. Why set a fixed and perhaps unreasonable timetable for any aspect of the turnover of Iraq to it’s people. Lets take the time to do it right – regardless of what the French think.
Ted
I believe we will be leaving Iraq when it becomes stable enough to function on its own. As to our military, we may be there for years. But then we've spent over 50 years in Western Europe, Japan and Korea and few outside of the American taxpayer seemed to mind.
1SG
I believe we will be leaving Iraq when it becomes stable enough to function on its own. As to our military, we may be there for years. But then we've spent over 50 years in Western Europe, Japan and Korea and few outside of the American taxpayer seemed to mind.
1SG
Should we leave Iraq no matter what?
There is much misunderstanding about the Iraqi deadline of June 30th with many thinking the U. S. is going to fold up their tents and go home. That is not true. What is supposed to happen on June 30th is that the interim Iraqi Governing Council will continue the long process of establishing a foundation for their new government-leaders, constitution, elections, etc. I think their first democratic election is going to be held within the year or early in 2005.
If you saw any of the media footage of the tragic explosion at the hotel early this morning (yesterday in Iraq), the Iraqi police and Iraqi firemen were the first responders at the scene with our troops in the background for extra security. Our troops loaned them the heavy equipment necessary to clear the debris to excavate the remaining bodies and remove the rubble. Whether this last explosion will delay the the June 30th date is up in the air.
I heard Colin Powell say during an interview that so much progress has been made in both Afghanistan and Iraq that is seldom covered by the media notwithstanding there is still so much to do. He also said that the process of forming the new Iraqi government will not replicate that of our founding fathers, in fact it will probably seem quite different from what we expect or hope for, but that is the Iraqi peoples' decision to make.
The reason, I read, they put a date on it is: One, at first the Iraqi Governing Council was riddled with delays, fights, and people not taking it seriously (not even showing up or only working for a few hours and then leaving) and thus little progress was being made. So, giving them a deadline motivated the process to move forward on a serious mode. Second, it was becoming evident that the Iraqi people and those on the Governing Council wanted us out of there sooner rather than later, and I really think Bremer is one exhausted man who is more than ready to go home. Yesterday when asked if he would accept a cabinet position, he said, "No I am going to retire and sleep for three months straight!"
Only time will tell....so much can happen in such a brief time to alter the best of plans.
There is much misunderstanding about the Iraqi deadline of June 30th with many thinking the U. S. is going to fold up their tents and go home. That is not true. What is supposed to happen on June 30th is that the interim Iraqi Governing Council will continue the long process of establishing a foundation for their new government-leaders, constitution, elections, etc. I think their first democratic election is going to be held within the year or early in 2005.
If you saw any of the media footage of the tragic explosion at the hotel early this morning (yesterday in Iraq), the Iraqi police and Iraqi firemen were the first responders at the scene with our troops in the background for extra security. Our troops loaned them the heavy equipment necessary to clear the debris to excavate the remaining bodies and remove the rubble. Whether this last explosion will delay the the June 30th date is up in the air.
I heard Colin Powell say during an interview that so much progress has been made in both Afghanistan and Iraq that is seldom covered by the media notwithstanding there is still so much to do. He also said that the process of forming the new Iraqi government will not replicate that of our founding fathers, in fact it will probably seem quite different from what we expect or hope for, but that is the Iraqi peoples' decision to make.
The reason, I read, they put a date on it is: One, at first the Iraqi Governing Council was riddled with delays, fights, and people not taking it seriously (not even showing up or only working for a few hours and then leaving) and thus little progress was being made. So, giving them a deadline motivated the process to move forward on a serious mode. Second, it was becoming evident that the Iraqi people and those on the Governing Council wanted us out of there sooner rather than later, and I really think Bremer is one exhausted man who is more than ready to go home. Yesterday when asked if he would accept a cabinet position, he said, "No I am going to retire and sleep for three months straight!"
Only time will tell....so much can happen in such a brief time to alter the best of plans.
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 16 2004, 06:53 PM)
QUOTE
In fact the most influencial of the Shiite leaders has called on the Intrim Council to boot al Jezera(sp) out of the country as they see this News Org as promoting civil war between the Shiites and Sunni.
IMO, they have had a taste of freedom and that is heady stuff.
IMO, they have had a taste of freedom and that is heady stuff.
That is just funny. This is a taste of freedom? Yes, let's start with censorship. That's always been a good way to express freedom.
QUOTE
There is a good chance Iraq may end up going exactly the way Americans would like to see.
And what is this... exactly? How will they turn out the way Americans would like... exactly?
QUOTE
That is just funny. This is a taste of freedom? Yes, let's start with censorship. That's always been a good way to express freedom.
With the explosion of news outlets in Iraq since the fall of Saddam's regime, do you have some sort of link to show that censorship is taking place?
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Feb 14 2004, 10:25 PM)
What do you think about the concept of making the deadline pencil instead of ink? Is it the right or wrong thing to do? Why?
Such things are difficult to put in ink. I think that their needs to be an international security presence in Iraq until after there has been an election, a government is established (whatever government the people decide they want), and a reliable native security force is in place -- and not until then. Once that occurs I think we need to get out and get out completely. I believe the coalition security forces should be replaced by UN led forces.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Mar 18 2004, 01:46 PM)
With the explosion of news outlets in Iraq since the fall of Saddam's regime, do you have some sort of link to show that censorship is taking place?
Mine was a response to GDan204's statement that throwing al-Jazeera out of the country because it is believed that they promote civil war could be considered having "a taste of freedom".
OK....maybe I misunderstood your post.
BTW, Please avoid double posting...you can use the EDIT button to make any additions to your post for up to 12 hours after.
BTW, Please avoid double posting...you can use the EDIT button to make any additions to your post for up to 12 hours after.
QUOTE
I believe we will be leaving Iraq when it becomes stable enough to function on its own. As to our military, we may be there for years. But then we've spent over 50 years in Western Europe, Japan and Korea and few outside of the American taxpayer seemed to mind.
I agree, our military is going to be over there for quite some time. But I think gradually over time we will be reducing our presence there only if the security situation improves. Thats why I think its critical that we negotiate with the UN on sending a security team to take over for our military. Just a feeling by the Iraqi people that we are leaving hopefully will reduce the violence in that country. If not, whoever is President next year will have their hands full. You can count on that.
QUOTE(cgorham @ Mar 18 2004, 08:20 AM)
Just a feeling by the Iraqi people that we are leaving hopefully will reduce the violence in that country. If not, whoever is President next year will have their hands full. You can count on that.
I agree on that one but actually some Insurgents won't care and will continue to kill maybe long after we split.
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 17 2004, 05:57 AM)
Ted
I believe we will be leaving Iraq when it becomes stable enough to function on its own. As to our military, we may be there for years. But then we've spent over 50 years in Western Europe, Japan and Korea and few outside of the American taxpayer seemed to mind.
1SG
I believe we will be leaving Iraq when it becomes stable enough to function on its own. As to our military, we may be there for years. But then we've spent over 50 years in Western Europe, Japan and Korea and few outside of the American taxpayer seemed to mind.
1SG
There is not a comparsion there.
Iraq was invading a country for so called preemptive reasons.
Your other examples were not preemptive reasons.
The public is more understanding when they realize that we were forced into a war because of a belligerent action.
So far as I can tell, Saddam committed no belligerent actions toward us.
Oh thats right he had Wmds(Bush said) but now he doesn't have any.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Mar 18 2004, 11:35 AM)
So far as I can tell, Saddam committed no belligerent actions toward us.
Oh thats right he had Wmds(Bush said) but now he doesn't have any.
So he never did anything belligerent to us? We won Gulf War I and Iraq never complied with a single UN resolution, they threatened our inspectors and prevented them from doing their jobs.
As far as no WMD- who said that? Why and WHAT was Clinton bombing in 1998???
Was he a liar? How about your favorite Dems – Liars???
They said:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
Are they ALL lying? How can Bush be wrong and these folks be right. If you want to play the blame game there is a lot of it to go around. LOL
entspeak - "That is just funny. This is a taste of freedom? Yes, let's start with censorship. That's always been a good way to express freedom."
With over 100 non-governmentally controlled newspapers and several non--government controlled TV Stations, Iraqis for the first time are getting news as they have never been able to get it before. Please cite your sources the the exact censorship you are talking about.
All of which has nothing to do with when the Coalition will be leaving Iraq. The Brits just came out again the other day and stated they felt they would have troops in the naiton for the forseeable future.
entspeak - "Mine was a response to GDan204's statement that throwing al-Jazeera out of the country because it is believed that they promote civil war could be considered having "a taste of freedom"."
The freedom comes from the fact that it is not the Governing Council who is calling for the removal is AJ from Iraq. It is the Shiite Leaders who believe AJ is fomenting Civil War between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis. This is indeed freedom of speech. It is this type of thinking that may enable the Coalition military to leave Iraq years sooner then anyone has a right to expect..
popeye47 - "Iraq was invading a country for so called preemptive reasons. Your other examples were not preemptive reasons."
Yet the other countries (except Korea) were invaded. In Germany it took four years from the end of the war until all terrorist like activity by Germans ceased. Also is the cry there is no exit plan. But that is just Democrat smoke. The plan as we have heard over and over is to turn the governing of Iraq over to the Governing Council on 1 July of this year. Then as soon as the security of the nation is under controll or the Iraqi Police and Army can take control, we will cease military operations. How long will that take??? Who knows? But, probably not 50+ years.
1SG
With over 100 non-governmentally controlled newspapers and several non--government controlled TV Stations, Iraqis for the first time are getting news as they have never been able to get it before. Please cite your sources the the exact censorship you are talking about.
All of which has nothing to do with when the Coalition will be leaving Iraq. The Brits just came out again the other day and stated they felt they would have troops in the naiton for the forseeable future.
entspeak - "Mine was a response to GDan204's statement that throwing al-Jazeera out of the country because it is believed that they promote civil war could be considered having "a taste of freedom"."
The freedom comes from the fact that it is not the Governing Council who is calling for the removal is AJ from Iraq. It is the Shiite Leaders who believe AJ is fomenting Civil War between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis. This is indeed freedom of speech. It is this type of thinking that may enable the Coalition military to leave Iraq years sooner then anyone has a right to expect..
popeye47 - "Iraq was invading a country for so called preemptive reasons. Your other examples were not preemptive reasons."
Yet the other countries (except Korea) were invaded. In Germany it took four years from the end of the war until all terrorist like activity by Germans ceased. Also is the cry there is no exit plan. But that is just Democrat smoke. The plan as we have heard over and over is to turn the governing of Iraq over to the Governing Council on 1 July of this year. Then as soon as the security of the nation is under controll or the Iraqi Police and Army can take control, we will cease military operations. How long will that take??? Who knows? But, probably not 50+ years.
1SG
Heard Wolfe Blitzer interview the new Prime Minister of Iraq (appointed by the interim Governing Council) and Wolfe asked him three questions:
Q: The Polish President is pulling their troops out of Iraq on June 30th because he feels his country was mislead about going to war in Iraq. Do you feel that you and the Iraqi people were mislead?
A: No, I don't feel that we were mislead. We know better than anyone about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, he used them on his own people and the Kurds. Saddam had almost a decade to move them around and he was a master of deception. The important issue is that Saddam is gone and that the Iraqi people for the first time are really free and will have a government that works for them instead of against them.
Q: Are you surprised by the recent attacks and believe they could get worse?
A: No it is not surprising because they don't want us to be free. I think it is possible these attacks will get worse especially the closer it gets to June 30th.
Q: Do you think the June 30th deadline is too soon taking into account the latest attacks and the possibility of more to come?
A: No, I believe by the time the deadline arrives, we will be ready. It is important for the deadline to be kept.
There was "breaking news" interruption...since todays news wasn't on a normal schedule, there aren't transcripts available on much of the programming. I had made notes of their interview...and while not verbatim, it is for the better part on target of their session.
Q: The Polish President is pulling their troops out of Iraq on June 30th because he feels his country was mislead about going to war in Iraq. Do you feel that you and the Iraqi people were mislead?
A: No, I don't feel that we were mislead. We know better than anyone about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, he used them on his own people and the Kurds. Saddam had almost a decade to move them around and he was a master of deception. The important issue is that Saddam is gone and that the Iraqi people for the first time are really free and will have a government that works for them instead of against them.
Q: Are you surprised by the recent attacks and believe they could get worse?
A: No it is not surprising because they don't want us to be free. I think it is possible these attacks will get worse especially the closer it gets to June 30th.
Q: Do you think the June 30th deadline is too soon taking into account the latest attacks and the possibility of more to come?
A: No, I believe by the time the deadline arrives, we will be ready. It is important for the deadline to be kept.
There was "breaking news" interruption...since todays news wasn't on a normal schedule, there aren't transcripts available on much of the programming. I had made notes of their interview...and while not verbatim, it is for the better part on target of their session.
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 19 2004, 12:27 AM)
The freedom comes from the fact that it is not the Governing Council who is calling for the removal is AJ from Iraq. It is the Shiite Leaders who believe AJ is fomenting Civil War between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis. This is indeed freedom of speech. It is this type of thinking that may enable the Coalition military to leave Iraq years sooner then anyone has a right to expect..
When you say that leading Shi'ites in Iraq have asked al'Jazeera to leave, I assume that you mean al'Sistani? If not, which leading Shi'ites are you referring to? I was unable to find a reference for al'Sistani asking al'Jazeera to leave.
I realize that my nitpicking is peripheral to the main discussion, but I think that al'Jazeera is a legitimate news organization and I think they are somewhat villified in the US, so this comment caught my attention.
What do you think about the concept of making the deadline pencil instead of ink? Is it the right or wrong thing to do? Why?
I think it is a good idea to make the occupation less overt. I have definite concerns, though. I'm afraid that we will use bad judgement when setting up the interim government.
I am bored with the illusion that America is pulling out on the 30th. We certainly are not. Our military isnt going anywhere....it isnt going anywhere for a long, long time. The only thing that is going to happen is a (symbolic only) transfer of power. We are not leaving Iraq we are losing zero capacity in Iraq. Nothing is going to happen. The only difference that instead of Americans calling the shots Iraqis will be calling the shots America tells it too.
Larry King interviewed Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld tonight and here are the portions regarding the June 30th deadline and Iraq's independence. Oh, as a side note, I heard Blitzer interview Bremmer this morning and he said that the June 30th deadline is on schedule.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/19/lkl.00.html
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/19/lkl.00.html
QUOTE
KING: We're about 100 days away from the political handover to the Iraqis.
RUMSFELD: Yes.
KING: Are you optimistic?
RUMSFELD: Well, I am. It's never knowable how things will play out, but Ambassador Bremer and the coalition provisional authority has done a good job. The Governing Council fashioned a good document, the transitional administrative law, or interim constitution, and we'll see how it plays out over the period ahead.
I was struck not only by the document, but I was struck by the process that took place, where we saw people compromising. If you think about it, in a dictatorship, you don't see a lot of compromise.
KING: No.
RUMSFELD: And so the Iraqi people didn't have a lot of experience of understanding that you can have a discussion, a debate, you can disagree, and then at some point you come to some conclusion that isn't really what anybody wanted, but it's close to what everybody would accept. And that compromise, that process of compromising, I think was important and instructive for the rest of the world to see because it was a good omen. It was a good suggestion that they're going to be able to sort through this.
KING: Does that provisional government have a say in how long the United States stays?
RUMSFELD: Well, of course the Iraqi people will make that decision. We've met with the Governing Council, the current people with responsibility, and they'd indicated that they do want us. They recognize the fact that the coalition forces from our country, and 34 other nations that are good enough to send their folks there, are important to providing security and seeing that the nation of Iraq is not threatened from external neighbors, and also that the internal situation is reasonably secure.
Now, as Iraqi security forces continue to grow and they become better trained and better equipped, our hope is that they will then take over that responsibility.
RUMSFELD: Well, it's going to be fascinating watching it play out. I think one thing we can say with certainty is that whatever they do, it will be an Iraqi solution. It won't be a cookie mold that's pressed down by the United States or the United Kingdom or the United Nations or the coalition. Whatever they do, they're going to figure it out for themselves, and it'll be something that's appropriate to them, and that's a good thing.
The only real constraints that exist, the ones the coalition leadership have put forth, one is that it stay a single country, that it not break up into pieces. That would not be good for that part of the world.
Second, that it be respectful of all the people in the country, that it not go back to a repressive regime where one element rules over all the others in a vicious way, but that the women and the men as well, and the religious and ethnic groups all have the right to live there with protection for their interests and their circumstance.
And another -- third one really was that the country not be a threat to its neighbors. And the Iraqi people are intelligent, they're industrious, they're free, they have been liberated, and the effect that it could have in that part of the world, and on the economies of those neighboring countries, if that country for the first time in many decades is able to actually have the benefit of freedom, not just political freedom but economic freedom, and improve the circumstance of literally millions and millions of people, not just in Iraq, but in all the neighboring countries, it would be a wonderful thing.
RUMSFELD: Yes.
KING: Are you optimistic?
RUMSFELD: Well, I am. It's never knowable how things will play out, but Ambassador Bremer and the coalition provisional authority has done a good job. The Governing Council fashioned a good document, the transitional administrative law, or interim constitution, and we'll see how it plays out over the period ahead.
I was struck not only by the document, but I was struck by the process that took place, where we saw people compromising. If you think about it, in a dictatorship, you don't see a lot of compromise.
KING: No.
RUMSFELD: And so the Iraqi people didn't have a lot of experience of understanding that you can have a discussion, a debate, you can disagree, and then at some point you come to some conclusion that isn't really what anybody wanted, but it's close to what everybody would accept. And that compromise, that process of compromising, I think was important and instructive for the rest of the world to see because it was a good omen. It was a good suggestion that they're going to be able to sort through this.
KING: Does that provisional government have a say in how long the United States stays?
RUMSFELD: Well, of course the Iraqi people will make that decision. We've met with the Governing Council, the current people with responsibility, and they'd indicated that they do want us. They recognize the fact that the coalition forces from our country, and 34 other nations that are good enough to send their folks there, are important to providing security and seeing that the nation of Iraq is not threatened from external neighbors, and also that the internal situation is reasonably secure.
Now, as Iraqi security forces continue to grow and they become better trained and better equipped, our hope is that they will then take over that responsibility.
RUMSFELD: Well, it's going to be fascinating watching it play out. I think one thing we can say with certainty is that whatever they do, it will be an Iraqi solution. It won't be a cookie mold that's pressed down by the United States or the United Kingdom or the United Nations or the coalition. Whatever they do, they're going to figure it out for themselves, and it'll be something that's appropriate to them, and that's a good thing.
The only real constraints that exist, the ones the coalition leadership have put forth, one is that it stay a single country, that it not break up into pieces. That would not be good for that part of the world.
Second, that it be respectful of all the people in the country, that it not go back to a repressive regime where one element rules over all the others in a vicious way, but that the women and the men as well, and the religious and ethnic groups all have the right to live there with protection for their interests and their circumstance.
And another -- third one really was that the country not be a threat to its neighbors. And the Iraqi people are intelligent, they're industrious, they're free, they have been liberated, and the effect that it could have in that part of the world, and on the economies of those neighboring countries, if that country for the first time in many decades is able to actually have the benefit of freedom, not just political freedom but economic freedom, and improve the circumstance of literally millions and millions of people, not just in Iraq, but in all the neighboring countries, it would be a wonderful thing.
Safron - "When you say that leading Shi'ites in Iraq have asked al'Jazeera to leave, I assume that you mean al'Sistani? If not, which leading Shi'ites are you referring to?"
I apologize, I didn't save the piece and like you I cannot find it anywhere. It must be buried in some article.
Safron - "...but I think that al'Jazeera is a legitimate news organization and I think they are somewhat villified in the US, so this comment caught my attention."
Although I agree with news organizations having free speech, I think you are missing the point I was attempting to make. That is, in Iraq for the first time in decades the Iraqi people are exercising their right to free speech in calling for the ouster of AJ. Just as news orgaqnization have a right to free speech, so do the people.
Safron - "I think it is a good idea to make the occupation less overt. I have definite concerns, though. I'm afraid that we will use bad judgement when setting up the interim government. "
As I understand it, the Coalition will not be setting up the intrim government, the Iraqis will. I could be wrong. Also, why the concern about the Coalition using bad judgement at this time? We seem to have done very well with the Governing Council and setting up elections on the local level in Iraq.
kalabus - " The only difference that instead of Americans calling the shots Iraqis will be calling the shots America tells it too."
Is this your opinion, or do you have some proof to back up this claim? It seems to me the Coalition Plans are to remain in Iraq until the nation is secure or the Iraqs tell us to leave. Whichever comes first.
1SG
I apologize, I didn't save the piece and like you I cannot find it anywhere. It must be buried in some article.
Safron - "...but I think that al'Jazeera is a legitimate news organization and I think they are somewhat villified in the US, so this comment caught my attention."
Although I agree with news organizations having free speech, I think you are missing the point I was attempting to make. That is, in Iraq for the first time in decades the Iraqi people are exercising their right to free speech in calling for the ouster of AJ. Just as news orgaqnization have a right to free speech, so do the people.
Safron - "I think it is a good idea to make the occupation less overt. I have definite concerns, though. I'm afraid that we will use bad judgement when setting up the interim government. "
As I understand it, the Coalition will not be setting up the intrim government, the Iraqis will. I could be wrong. Also, why the concern about the Coalition using bad judgement at this time? We seem to have done very well with the Governing Council and setting up elections on the local level in Iraq.
kalabus - " The only difference that instead of Americans calling the shots Iraqis will be calling the shots America tells it too."
Is this your opinion, or do you have some proof to back up this claim? It seems to me the Coalition Plans are to remain in Iraq until the nation is secure or the Iraqs tell us to leave. Whichever comes first.
1SG
I just learned recently in the news that the troops stationed in Baghdad's airport are to be relocated in a new station north of the city that has just been built. Can anyone confirm?
If it's true, then I wonder why the army build a new site if it's departing at the end of June this year.
Or it could mean that the government is handed back to the Iraqi on July the 1st, but that the American army is going to stay in the country to serve other American purposes.
If it's true, then I wonder why the army build a new site if it's departing at the end of June this year.
Or it could mean that the government is handed back to the Iraqi on July the 1st, but that the American army is going to stay in the country to serve other American purposes.
QUOTE(Horyok @ Mar 28 2004, 06:48 PM)
I just learned recently in the news that the troops stationed in Baghdad's airport are to be relocated in a new station north of the city that has just been built. Can anyone confirm?
If it's true, then I wonder why the army build a new site if it's departing at the end of June this year.
Or it could mean that the government is handed back to the Iraqi on July the 1st, but that the American army is going to stay in the country to serve other American purposes.
If it's true, then I wonder why the army build a new site if it's departing at the end of June this year.
Or it could mean that the government is handed back to the Iraqi on July the 1st, but that the American army is going to stay in the country to serve other American purposes.
That is exactly what it means. I believe the vast majority of Americans have known all along that the turning over of governmental responsibilities to the Iraqi Intrim Government in July has nothing to do with the Coalition military or rebuilding efforts.
It appears the majority of Iraqis do not want the US Military out of Iraq until the Iraqis can insure their own security and we have stated we will not leave until they can do so. IMO, When the Lawful Iraqi government asks us to leave we will be gone.
1SG
I am missing something right. How do we hand power over to a country that cant even agree with itself, support most of its own infrastructure and generally has people dying at a constant rate. These deaths can be attributed to violent and non-violent means but the overall chaos that reigns right now is rather persuasive for many a different psychological front. The longer the u.s forces stay and the more "help" that we give them the more it could look like a political move by the u.s in the rest of the worlds eyes and an occupation by crusaders in the average persons eye in the middle east.
To just go along with the current lack of proof two years later in a preemptive attack, the forces we face in Iraq seem to fall under a nice generalization of insurgents, or maybe terrorists, not some guy trying to steal mres. That is something you will not here in the news either. The current strategy if i remember correctly is to keep around 110,000 soldiers in Iraq, set up a technocrat government, and not make any laws or vote on anything for x amount of time. The longer we stay to fight the more our "enemy" can make the case for jihad in and occupation, the more help we give will only fuel that fire.
I have spoken with many soldiers coming back, some did not even know they were in the sunni triangle. The lack of any intelligence most these guys have on the local culture is amazing. I doubt that this helps the situation. Overall anyone that thinks we are pulling out of Iraq anytime soon is smoking something powerful. With the fact we cant really gain world help short of blackmail with oil contracts, the impact such a operation will have on our economy is great. with the lack to pinpoint terrorist
or find out or care about why some become terrorists 
the economy will be a prime target again for another attack.
Bottom line is the June 30 deadline is a pr stunt for people all over the world, heck i know of a burger king moving to Baghdad in June, say hello to western culture with Mickey mouse on the textbooks.
To just go along with the current lack of proof two years later in a preemptive attack, the forces we face in Iraq seem to fall under a nice generalization of insurgents, or maybe terrorists, not some guy trying to steal mres. That is something you will not here in the news either. The current strategy if i remember correctly is to keep around 110,000 soldiers in Iraq, set up a technocrat government, and not make any laws or vote on anything for x amount of time. The longer we stay to fight the more our "enemy" can make the case for jihad in and occupation, the more help we give will only fuel that fire.
I have spoken with many soldiers coming back, some did not even know they were in the sunni triangle. The lack of any intelligence most these guys have on the local culture is amazing. I doubt that this helps the situation. Overall anyone that thinks we are pulling out of Iraq anytime soon is smoking something powerful. With the fact we cant really gain world help short of blackmail with oil contracts, the impact such a operation will have on our economy is great. with the lack to pinpoint terrorist
or find out or care about why some become terrorists the economy will be a prime target again for another attack. Bottom line is the June 30 deadline is a pr stunt for people all over the world, heck i know of a burger king moving to Baghdad in June, say hello to western culture with Mickey mouse on the textbooks.
*blink*
nileriver, would you care to back ANY of that up? Because, well it's nothing like what I've seen, heard, or know about what is really going on.
We are transferring authority on June 30th because it is the best way to reduce terrorism. Look - as long as we are "occupiers," the AQ splinters have a recruiting tool. After June 30the, we are here for three reasons - one, to defend the country against foreign threats until their army rebuilds. Two, we'll be tracking down the AC sympathizers in the country, because their police/intelligence capailities aren't capable of handling it yet. And three, we'll be helping out on a very limited level on police matters.
If we are not the omnipresent police force, if we are not "the guys in charge" of having no power, water, etc (for whatever reason). The IDea is we can hunt down the bad guys without having to worry about doing all the police jobs we're doing now. That's why we're moving out of the cities - we don't want to be in everyone's face all the time.
Yes there will be diplomatic problems, but as long as Europe doesn't decide to stomp it's little feet anymore and actually help out, we should be able to find some middle ground diplomatically.
Yes, we'll be moving out of BAP, because a big part or returning to normalcy will be to reopen the airport.
nileriver, would you care to back ANY of that up? Because, well it's nothing like what I've seen, heard, or know about what is really going on.
We are transferring authority on June 30th because it is the best way to reduce terrorism. Look - as long as we are "occupiers," the AQ splinters have a recruiting tool. After June 30the, we are here for three reasons - one, to defend the country against foreign threats until their army rebuilds. Two, we'll be tracking down the AC sympathizers in the country, because their police/intelligence capailities aren't capable of handling it yet. And three, we'll be helping out on a very limited level on police matters.
If we are not the omnipresent police force, if we are not "the guys in charge" of having no power, water, etc (for whatever reason). The IDea is we can hunt down the bad guys without having to worry about doing all the police jobs we're doing now. That's why we're moving out of the cities - we don't want to be in everyone's face all the time.
Yes there will be diplomatic problems, but as long as Europe doesn't decide to stomp it's little feet anymore and actually help out, we should be able to find some middle ground diplomatically.
Yes, we'll be moving out of BAP, because a big part or returning to normalcy will be to reopen the airport.
QUOTE(kalabus @ Mar 20 2004, 07:22 AM)
I am bored with the illusion that America is pulling out on the 30th. We certainly are not. Our military isnt going anywhere....it isnt going anywhere for a long, long time. The only thing that is going to happen is a (symbolic only) transfer of power. We are not leaving Iraq we are losing zero capacity in Iraq. Nothing is going to happen. The only difference that instead of Americans calling the shots Iraqis will be calling the shots America tells it too.
i agree with your post,, but who ever said america was going to leave on the 30th?
Should we leave Iraq no matter what?
Looks like the June 30th deadline may not be one, but contrary to some's misunderstanding of what takes place on June 30th....our troops pulling out is not going to happen.
Two links on the June 30th deadline for updated explanations:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1049455.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C66...F755E68FFE4.htm
Looks like the June 30th deadline may not be one, but contrary to some's misunderstanding of what takes place on June 30th....our troops pulling out is not going to happen.
Two links on the June 30th deadline for updated explanations:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1049455.htm
QUOTE
Even though the 30th of June is locked in as the deadline for the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis, it certainly won't spell an end to the US presence there.
America's Chief Administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, explains how things will work after that date.
PAUL BREMER: There will be hundreds of thousands… ah, a hundred thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Coalition forces still here until such time as the Iraqi security forces are able to assure their own security, which will not be as early as July.
So the major change that happens on June 30th is that the Coalition authority passes sovereignty back to the Iraqi Government, the occupation ends and Coalition forces are no longer occupying forces, they are in partnership with the Iraqi people to protect the Iraqi security.
America's Chief Administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, explains how things will work after that date.
PAUL BREMER: There will be hundreds of thousands… ah, a hundred thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Coalition forces still here until such time as the Iraqi security forces are able to assure their own security, which will not be as early as July.
So the major change that happens on June 30th is that the Coalition authority passes sovereignty back to the Iraqi Government, the occupation ends and Coalition forces are no longer occupying forces, they are in partnership with the Iraqi people to protect the Iraqi security.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C66...F755E68FFE4.htm
QUOTE
US officials have suggested for the first time that the date for handing power over to Iraqis could be negotiated.
Iraq's Arab Muslims have been rejecting the 15 November 2003 agreement between the US civil governor, Paul Bremer, and the then interim chairman of the Iraqi Governing Council, Jalal Talabani.
This agreement stated that another appointed Iraqi council would rule the country from 30 June 2003, with general elections being pushed back to 2005. However, Iraq's Arab Shia population want 30 June to be the date when rule is handed over to a directly elected government.
Arab Sunnis argue that liberation should be achieved before any election, while Iraqi Kurds (who are also Sunni Muslims) favour the 15 November agreement, which would support their hopes for an autonomous state.
Iraq's Arab Muslims have been rejecting the 15 November 2003 agreement between the US civil governor, Paul Bremer, and the then interim chairman of the Iraqi Governing Council, Jalal Talabani.
This agreement stated that another appointed Iraqi council would rule the country from 30 June 2003, with general elections being pushed back to 2005. However, Iraq's Arab Shia population want 30 June to be the date when rule is handed over to a directly elected government.
Arab Sunnis argue that liberation should be achieved before any election, while Iraqi Kurds (who are also Sunni Muslims) favour the 15 November agreement, which would support their hopes for an autonomous state.
The June 30th deadline is just a date in which the Coalition Provisional Authority will be dissolved and Paul Bremer can come home and write his memoirs
The US might keep some troops in Iraq for a long amount of time to help if we don't have the new Iraqi Army built up or the police force is not built up to 100%
The US might keep some troops in Iraq for a long amount of time to help if we don't have the new Iraqi Army built up or the police force is not built up to 100%
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Mar 29 2004, 02:55 PM)
The June 30th deadline is just a date in which the Coalition Provisional Authority will be dissolved and Paul Bremer can come home and write his memoirs
The US might keep some troops in Iraq for a long amount of time to help if we don't have the new Iraqi Army built up or the police force is not built up to 100%
The US might keep some troops in Iraq for a long amount of time to help if we don't have the new Iraqi Army built up or the police force is not built up to 100%
Exactly. The Brits have already said they might be in Iraq for years. It could be the same for U.S. and other Coalition Forces. Before some get in an upraor, they might do well to remember that we spent 50+ years in Germany, Japan and South Korea after those wars. A few years in iraq is a drop in the bucket. However at the end of the Viet Nam War, we were asked to pull our troops out of Thailand and did so ASAP. The same when France left the military part of NATO and ask for U.S. Forces to leave France. When the lawful Iraqi government requests the withdrawal of American Forces, I am sure we will comply with their wishes.
1SG
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Feb 14 2004, 04:25 PM)
Question for debate
What do you think about the concept of making the deadline pencil instead of ink? Is it the right or wrong thing to do? Why?
Setting a deadline to turn things over to a new government is somewhat akin to having the meaning of life figured out by the time you're thirty!
The administration made an egregious mistake by making such a bold prediction. The administration painted itself in a corner on this one. The administratino should not have made promises that they might have suspected they wouldn't be able to keep. What do I think? Time to call in for the Euros, the U.N., heck!, send Jimmy Carter!!
In response to lonewolf. I am in the middle east pulling guard duty at a camp. I get to speak with large amounts of troops coming and going. The stuff like the mre thing are kind of common really. The worse I get to face in regards to combat are pop shots, the occasional drive buy, depending on where you are, and bomb threats, scares, overall nothing that bad.
My opinion on the war and the topic itself really just lies in the lack of what I would call intelligence by the people in charge, not just politically but in the military side also, its like setting yourself up for failure. The "government" that will be put in place will not make any concrete decisions such as a constitution just on the fact that the many factions in Iraq cannot come to agreement on such. This is stuff from the lips of the guys who are going to be in that "government". I am rather surprised that you have not heard of it.
I feel that with the goals of this terror we face attacking economics, a long expensive war may be something they were looking for. If another attack was to occur generating trillions of dollars lost then I don’t know how much more backing the war in Iraq would get. This then correlates to the topic at hand with the psychological part of this conflict and the moves are command makes.
Sorry about the delay in response, i am not always free to use the computer.
My opinion on the war and the topic itself really just lies in the lack of what I would call intelligence by the people in charge, not just politically but in the military side also, its like setting yourself up for failure. The "government" that will be put in place will not make any concrete decisions such as a constitution just on the fact that the many factions in Iraq cannot come to agreement on such. This is stuff from the lips of the guys who are going to be in that "government". I am rather surprised that you have not heard of it.
I feel that with the goals of this terror we face attacking economics, a long expensive war may be something they were looking for. If another attack was to occur generating trillions of dollars lost then I don’t know how much more backing the war in Iraq would get. This then correlates to the topic at hand with the psychological part of this conflict and the moves are command makes.
Sorry about the delay in response, i am not always free to use the computer.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Mar 30 2004, 02:37 AM)
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Feb 14 2004, 04:25 PM)
Question for debate
What do you think about the concept of making the deadline pencil instead of ink? Is it the right or wrong thing to do? Why?
Setting a deadline to turn things over to a new government is somewhat akin to having the meaning of life figured out by the time you're thirty!
The administration made an egregious mistake by making such a bold prediction. The administration painted itself in a corner on this one. The administratino should not have made promises that they might have suspected they wouldn't be able to keep. What do I think? Time to call in for the Euros, the U.N., heck!, send Jimmy Carter!!
However, it was not the American administration that wanted this deadline. It was pushed by the leaders of the Iraqi Shiites, who have 60% of the population if the country under their sway.
1SG
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 30 2004, 10:45 AM)
However, it was not the American administration that wanted this deadline. It was pushed by the leaders of the Iraqi Shiites, who have 60% of the population if the country under their sway.
1SG
1SG
Do you have any evidence to back up that the Administration wasn't the first to propose this deadline? Prior to announcing this "line in the sand", the Iraqi Council was floundering and not meeting at all. I think you have your facts backwards.
QUOTE(amf @ Mar 30 2004, 04:46 PM)
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 30 2004, 10:45 AM)
However, it was not the American administration that wanted this deadline. It was pushed by the leaders of the Iraqi Shiites, who have 60% of the population if the country under their sway.
1SG
1SG
Do you have any evidence to back up that the Administration wasn't the first to propose this deadline? Prior to announcing this "line in the sand", the Iraqi Council was floundering and not meeting at all. I think you have your facts backwards.
You are correct. I did have my facts a little muddled. It was Mainly Europe, with our friends the French and Germans leading the way, that demanded an early turnover. The Shiite leaders, against the U.S. turn over power to an unelected govenment, demanded and still demand elections.
http://www.iht.com/articles/111463.html
Friday, September 26, 2003
Powell sets a deadline for an Iraq charter
NEW YORK Secretary of State Colin Powell, responding to demands from France and others for a rapid timetable for self-rule in Iraq, said that the United States would set a deadline of six months for Iraqi leaders working under the American-led occupation to produce a new constitution for their country......
The constitution, which would spell out whether Iraq should be governed by a presidential or parliamentary system, would clear the way for elections and the installation of a new leadership next year, Powell said. Not until then, he added, would the United States transfer authority from the American-led occupation to Iraq itself....
"We would like to put a deadline on them," Powell said Thursday in an interview with editorial writers, editors and reporters for The New York Times, referring to the Iraqi task of writing a constitution....
The United States has resisted a turnover of a month or months as suggested by France, arguing that granting authority to an unelected Iraqi government would undercut its legitimacy in the eyes of the world. On Thursday, Powell went further, saying that remnants of Saddam Hussein's government and his Baath Party would lead a rebellion against such a government.....
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20030930a4.html
Bremer Says Iraqis Not Ready for a Quick Turnover of Power
Civilian administrator in Iraq briefs Sept. 26 .......
1SG
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 30 2004, 01:48 PM)
You are correct. I did have my facts a little muddled. It was Mainly Europe, with our friends the French and Germans leading the way, that demanded an early turnover. The Shiite leaders, against the U.S. turn over power to an unelected govenment, demanded and still demand elections.
That, I believe is precisely correct. I started a thread on just this subject quite a while back (it's a bit dated now but here's a link for reference) in which I document this a bit.
It's Iraqi Sovereignty, Stupid!
The administration, for its part, did cave on this demand. Probably in a misguided attempt to pacify these allies, who frankly have too much to gain politically to be seen agreeing with any US strategy on Iraq. This deadline is one of the biggest mistakes the US has made on the ground (though I still think they can still make good of it...).
Sometimes France is right and sometimes it has ideas like demanding sovereignty be turned over in a single month (back in September no less)
turnea,
I agree. The administration did cave. However, I believe the Iraqi did an excellent job of putting together a draft constitution. An have a good chance of building a new Iraq if they can continue to work together.
All this makes it more imperative that the Iraqi people know we will not leave them until they are ready to take charge of their countryt in full.
1SG
I agree. The administration did cave. However, I believe the Iraqi did an excellent job of putting together a draft constitution. An have a good chance of building a new Iraq if they can continue to work together.
All this makes it more imperative that the Iraqi people know we will not leave them until they are ready to take charge of their countryt in full.
1SG
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.