New Iraq leader tells US/UK to get out! |
| Posted by: h@ts | | Britain and the US aren't ready to leave Iraq, it is after all far from the country they envisiged - a western friendly oill rich state, but the new Iraqi leader has spoken. How will Britian and the US stop this man from getting his way? Or do we admit failure and leave.
| quote: |
New Iraqi leader reveals more urgent and ambitious troop withdrawal than UK and US had admitted
By Ewen MacAskill
05/23/06 "The Guardian"
Nuri al-Maliki, the new Iraqi prime minister... expected US, British and other foreign troops out of 16 of the country's 18 provinces by the end of the year, a much speedier and more ambitious schedule than the US and Britain have so far admitted to.
Mr Blair was more vague than the Iraqi prime minister. He insisted that there was no timetable and that the handover to Iraqi forces would depend on the prevailing conditions.
continued: http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...1781011,00.html |
Blair can insist all he wants, and and no doubt he will, but if he wants to stop this new Iraqi upstart of a PM thinking that he's the one running Iraq, action is what is needed. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
asantana said this in post #2 :
US and UK are for the oil, they will never ever leave,full stop. |
That must be the suspicion of very many Iraqis, who no doubt NEVER believed the US and UK where there for their benefit.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Optics | | Ohhhh ohhh an artical that completly is the opposite of yours
| quote: |
POSTED AT 7:27 PM EDT ON 22/05/06
Print this article E-mail this article Comments (11) Text Size
Britain out of Iraq in 4 years, official says
THOMAS WAGNER
Associated Press
Baghdad — British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed with Iraq's new leadership Monday that Iraqi security forces would start assuming full responsibility for some provinces and cities next month, beginning a process leading to the eventual withdrawal of all coalition forces.
Mr. Blair and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declined to set a timetable for that withdrawal, but British media quoted an unidentified senior British official travelling with Mr. Blair as saying coalition forces should be out within four years.
The British and Iraqi leaders said “responsibility for much of Iraq's territorial security should have been transferred to Iraqi control” by December. At that point, Mr. al-Maliki said, two of Iraq's most violent provinces, Baghdad and Anbar, may be the last where coalition forces maintain control. |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/International
Something is not jiving here at all between your story and mine.
American and British forces may hand over the provences to Iraq (to provide security) but the troops will stay to assist Iraq for many years to come. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Optics said this in post #4 :
Ohhhh ohhh an artical that completly is the opposite of yours
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/International
Something is not jiving here at all between your story and mine.
American and British forces may hand over the provences to Iraq (to provide security) but the troops will stay to assist Iraq for many years to come. |
What's jiving here and what you miss is that it is us who are deciding whether we stay or leave. We "MAY hand over provences to Iraq." Or of course we may not if we choose not to.
Conclusion: we still control Iraq and we are going nowhere until Iraq becomes what WE want it to be, which is not necessarily the same thing the Iraqi people want.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Optics | | Yea you seem to be on the totaly diffrent side of the bridge. You have it that "we" will not leave until we have Iraq molded into what "we" want.
I think it is that "we" will hand over the provances when the Iraqi security force is properly trained to take over that task. Then "we" will stay to assist the Iraqi security force.
And its Jiving that neither side has a clue when they want the "us" out of their country. Even in your own post it said Blair agreeded with Iraq's new leadership, so the Iraqi government initated the talks not "us". Hence "us" not dictating when things are going to happen. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Optics said this in post #6 :
Yea you seem to be on the totaly diffrent side of the bridge. You have it that "we" will not leave until we have Iraq molded into what "we" want.
I think it is that "we" will hand over the provances when the Iraqi security force is properly trained to take over that task. Then "we" will stay to assist the Iraqi security force.
And its Jiving that neither side has a clue when they want the "us" out of their country. Even in your own post it said Blair agreeded with Iraq's new leadership, so the Iraqi government initated the talks not "us". Hence "us" not dictating when things are going to happen. |
Why the hell would we hand Iraq back to the Iraqis before we're good and ready and unless the place is as close to how we want it as possible? We are the power in Iraq because without us there is no Iraqi government. You think we're going to let the Iranian backed Islamic parties in the South take over? You think we're going to give up all that oil and let the Arabs control it?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Optics | | Is there always some sinister scheme behind everything for you, h@ts. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Optics said this in post #8 :
Is there always some sinister scheme behind everything for you, h@ts. |
The world's complicated with a lot of vested interests. Can you remember a war so clearly started on such falsehoods, misdirection and lies? Why should I start believing anything Bush and Blair say now? Iraq's a political, military, ethical, moral, and strategic, disaster, so their need to lie has never been more pressing.
Oil = power = control = American dominance, clearly something the neocons were hoping to achieve when they ordered troops into Iraq. But Iran also wants dominance in the Middle East (and no doubt it was Saddam Hussein's ambition too). So yes, sinister is a just adjective to place on what's going on in the region right now.
Do you think leaving Iraq to the Iraqis and especially an Iraq allied to Iran seems feasable?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: brochu13 | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #9 :
The world's complicated with a lot of vested interests. Can you remember a war so clearly started on such falsehoods, misdirection and lies? |
Sadly, the Crusades, and look what happened there. 
| | Reply To this Message
|
Iraq Forum: New Iraq leader tells US/UK to get out!
|
