Iraqi government warned US against hasty troop withdrawal
Middle East News
May 19, 2008, 14:20 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
page: 1
The Iraqi 'government' knows that it can not exist without US military backing because it does not represent the people of Iraq. It represents US interests.
I thought the Iraqis voted. It was rigged by the US military just like the moon landing.
The mess in Iraq will never be any different, so the U.S. does need to get out. If the government won't or can't take care of their own country, so be it. Saddam seemed to be doing a better job than is being done now. People are getting slaughtered one way or another. Same things only different.
The American electorate now has a choice - a perpetual conflict in Iraq bogging our military down indefinitely with no pressure on the Iraq leadership to move forward (McCain), or a chance at better cooperation with other countries to wind this down gradually (Obama).
The Russian Ambassador to Israel made some good points (below), and Russia clearly does not want Iran off on their own with nuclear weapons, as it jeopardizes the entire region. Neighboring countries are already exploring the nuclear option to buffer against Iran and the Shiites. Per what the Ambassador says in his speech, Obama would be a far better choice for the diplomacy needed, and improved U.S. relations with its European allies, who have been endlessly pressed publicly by Bush for support for Iraq, both military and diplomatic, that the people of those nations are unwilling to give, particularly in difficult economic times.
Bush's latest trip to the Mideast has lowered his popularity there even further, as he comes off as far more of a 'scold' than a mediator.
======================
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668678206&pagename=JPost%2FJPAr ticle%2FShowFull
A nuclear Iran is as much 'a nightmare' for Russia as it is for the US and Israel, and Moscow doesn't differ with Washington and Jerusalem on the need to stop Teheran, only on the way to do it, Russian Ambassador to Israel Petr Stegniy said Monday.
Stegniy remembers talks he had with the Americans while he was posted in Tripoli - a period that witnessed the bombing of a disco in West Berlin that prompted US air raids on Libya, and the Lockerbie bombing - and shared advice with the US at the time about how to get Libya to change its behavior.
The best advice, he said, was to 'get Gaddafi's name off the front pages, leave him alone with his domestic problem, because he won't be able to stand them.' 'Regimes like that, Gaddafi and [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, use outside threat as inner consolidation of the society. I am convinced of that,' he said.
Rather than pushing Iran into a corner, Russia's position, Stegniy said, was designed to keep Iran at the negotiating table, and to keep the Intentional Atomic Energy Agency inside Iran.
well it seems that the oil keeps humming along nicely (exceptfor the price of course). i can see it now , U.S. pulled out , kaos in da middle east , oil supply cut off for U.S. , economy calapses dragging down about 3/4 of the world economy with it . isn't this thing that bin-lawdin keeps saying he wants to happen ?? DDuuuhh.. now what do we do !? don't stand to close to me in the Soup-Line Pal !! thanks a bunch Dems... American troop levels will come down , way-down , naturally . it'll take awhile. longer than most people would want (me included.) don't screw around with this situation . there's to much at stake ; unless you're john kerry or some such .
I wish that president Bush, with his infinite wisom, would explain why the proper response to a gang of box-cutter wielding, plane hijacking terrorists, is to invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with those terrorists. Now that the US has achieved setting up of a puppet government in Iraq, instead of accomplishing the destruction of al qaeda and osama bin laden, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is totally in the interest of certain Iraqis that the US protect them for an indefinite time into the future. However, it does not seem to be in the the US interest to have created such a dependency, rather than sticking to the mission of going after the 9/11 terrorists and the countries that harbor them. Heaven help us if we believe that having our armed forces thousands of miles away in the desert is our basic deterrent to preventing another terrorist attack on our homeland. Instead of box cutters and hijacked airplanes, they may come at us on rowboats carrying biological WMD, or any other number of ways. Maybe they haven't come again because there is no reason. They were 110 percent successful in terrorizing us already, and they don't have to do anything more, because we are so paranoid now that we are effectively terrorizing ourselves. I've been told that Iraq is not about oil, and I do understand that we certainly don't care what type of government we get our oil from. The Saudis have one of the world's most oppressive, extremist friendly theocracies, and yet we love them.
RE: 'i can see it now , U.S. pulled out , kaos in da middle east , oil supply cut off for U.S. , economy calapses dragging down about 3/4 of the world economy with it .'
-------------------------
pakobserver.net/200805/19/news/topstories07.asp
You need to check WHERE we import oil from. Chavez' mouth is a bigger problem right now, as he despises Bush personally, and they provide about 10 percent of our imported oil. Renegotiating of NAFTA would create a bigger problem with both Mexico and Canada, which is why it won't happen. We urgently need development of alternative sources - which includes wind energy (available now), solar energy (research is well along, and we have the empty deserts), and coal gasification (further away, but eventually doable, and we have LOTS of coal). The Alberta Tar Sands in Canada will become another source at these prices. Mexico is 'drying up' as a source in the future, and needs some investment. Russia has become very wealthy as a supplier to other nations, so they can now invest in their military.
The catalyst for all of this was Bush's interference in Iraq, after we supported that same despot for over 2 decades - because Bush's own father understood the risks of removing him, and letting Iran and the Shia gain political power.
=====
www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080422/cusm_summit_08042 2/20080422?hub=CTVNewsAt11
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday that re-opening NAFTA would actually help the Canadian economy, because Canada is the biggest supplier of oil and gas to the United States. That is of critical importance to the future of the United States, and if we had to look at this kind of option I think that would put us in an even stronger position than we were 20 years ago,' Harper said at the North American Leaders' Summit in New Orleans. But he added that his preference 'is not to renegotiate what we discussed in the past, and to talk about the future.'
=====
baltimorechronicle.com/2008/051908Cederholm.shtml
The top eight sources of Uncle CRUDE OIL imports for March 2008 were: Canada (1.727 Million barrels per DAY—MBPD) down 3%,Saudi Arabia (1.535 MBPD) up 26%, Mexico (1.232 MBPD) down 24%, Nigeria (1.138 MBPD) down 12%, Venezuela (0.858 MBPD) down 17%, Iraq (0.773 MBPD) up 48%, Angola (0.375 MBPD) down 46%, and Algeria (0.232 MBPD) down 54%.
Uncle top eight sources of TOTAL PETROLEUM imports for March 2008 were: Canada (2.303 MILLION barrels per DAY—MBPD) down .1%, Saudi Arabia (1.542 MBPD) up 24%,Mexico (1.351 MBPD) down 23%, Nigeria (1.158 MBPD) down 14%, Venezuela (1.015 MBPD) down 21% , Iraq (0.773 MBPD) up 48%, Algeria (0.427 MBPD) down 41%, and Russia (0.394 MBPD) down 13%.
'why the proper response to a gang of box-cutter wielding, plane hijacking terrorists, is to invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with those terrorists.'
It really is simple and I'm surprised you haven't figured it out. Try to think big picture.
The US could not allow a proven rogue dictator who:
1. everyone thought had/was pursuing wmd;
2. not complying with UN disarmament terms;
3. not complying with cease fire terms;
4. was a bad sort in general;
5. used wmd;
6. supported terrorist groups;
7. etc., etc...
...set an example in post 9/11 world. There are lots of bad actors out there and they had to learn that if you crossed the line, you were finished. Unequivocally. Interesting to note that Kaddafi turned over a new leaf right quick...
The Dems have worked hand in hand with our enemies to undermine this strategic deterrant. Its pretty amazing when you think about it.
Have any of them made any suggestions on how the US could more efficiently achieve victory? Or is US defeat (=electoral victory for them) their only goal???
What a tragic shame...
what you are saying is that the 9/11 terrorists have been totally successful. We think of it as our grand strategy, to be indefinitely committed to a nation-building crusade in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, when the al qaeda strategy is to keep us bogged down exactly where we are. It is questionable who has the 'winning' strategy. If we just kill enough people we might win something. Conservative republicans were always against unilateral foreign nation building efforts until the neo-cons hijacked their party.
In regard to understanding strategies evolving from 9/11 terrorism,
I have to chuckle, sadly, when an advocate for those who mucked it up, suggests to keep it simple. In your big picture, everything was based upon belief, not facts. Some people, not nearly 'everyone', 'believed' that Iraq had all sorts of WMD, when they did not. The UN and our own WMD specialists were right after all. Some people 'believed' that Iraq was not complying with terms of disarmament, when in fact their were, etc. Now you offer up such faulty assumptions as excuses for not staying on task after 9/11.
we have set an example to the world of what not to do after a crisis.Our country would be better served with leaders who stick to the facts, not knee-jerk reactions based upon mere beliefs.
'what you are saying is that the 9/11 terrorists have been totally successful.'
Only if they are encouraged and allowed to succeed. We lost more people on a bad day in WWII than we have lost in 5 years in Iraq. WWII sucked up almost 40% of gdp. Iraq and Afghanistan (or is it all US defense spending?) is around 4% gdp. I may be off a bit, but I think the general rule holds. Please remind us how the sky is falling. You really do think that the US has been defeated.
'keep us bogged down exactly where we are.'
If people (like you) were so worried about not getting bogged down, why would they hamstring our military, demoralize our citizens, and encourage our enemies to even contemplate the option that they could possibly succeed?
Other than whining and whacking at everyone's knee caps, I haven't heard many positive proactive suggestions from dems on how to succeed.
'those who mucked it up'
Most wars/conflicts are big muck ups (if you've ever cared to study them). Pretending otherwise is just ignorant. As I mentioned above, I'm still waiting on suggestions for improvement. I am totally in favor of improving efficiency, fighting capability, leadership, etc.
'Some people, not nearly 'everyone', 'believed' that Iraq had all sorts of WMD, when they did not.'
There was 100% UNSC consensus that Iraq was not in compliance with disarmament requirements, support for terrorists, etc. Read the resolutions. Also, look at what top dem leadership had to say in late 90's and leading up to war. Saddam's threat was not invented by Bush.
'Some people 'believed' that Iraq was not complying with terms of disarmament, when in fact their were, etc.'
You are wrong. It turns out Saddam deliberately obfuscated and bluffed in an attempt to retain the perceived capability as a deterrant to internal and external enemies. The wmd he did destroy, he did so outside of UN control. That in itself was a deliberate violation. He was busted dozens of times throughout 90's for non-compliance and concealment of prohibited programs. Be honest here. The dispute at the last minute was not about his compliance, it was about what to do about his non-compliance.
'Now you offer up such faulty assumptions as excuses for not staying on task after 9/11.'
Nice talking points. Do you support the overthrow of the Taliban? Did they attack us?
The main existential threat to US was and is wmd attack from terrorists who were supplied by our enemies, and not guys crashing planes into buildings - however horrible that is. 9/11 was a wake up call that we have enemies who will do anything to kill us. I'm not hyping anything here. Its just a fact. If we take care of the former, then the latter will take care of itself.
'we have set an example to the world of what not to do after a crisis.'
You are correct. Do not show weakness when faced with mortal enemies. Do not be divisive and undermine your own leadership. Do not betray your commitments to people/governments who take risks in the hope of your support.
Remember, the flashpoints in the world are not belgium and holland. Let their barefoot patchouli stinking youth whine all day long. The flashpoints are developing countries where brutal leadership and rogue groups can usurp power and threaten stability. The only thing standing in the way are the peaceful middle of the road locals who have no hope in hell if the US is unwilling to back them. they will make their decisions accordingly. They will bend to the will of the local brutes because if they resist they will die.
That is the precedent you want to set. History will prove you wrong again.
'Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness. [W.C.]'
That would be the worst case of coitis interruptis in history. The US ain't finished screwing things up over there.
let's keep it simple, stupid. the mountaineer set off to climb the highest mountain of the range. He believed that he knew the way, and he did not need no stinking map or compass to get there. He set out climbing and worked real hard at getting to the top of a the peak, certain he had taken the right trail. When he reached the summit, he looked across, only to view his longed for destination several miles away, and only then realized that he had climbed the wrong mountain, based solely upon his belief that he knew the way to the right one. Since he could not fly, or have a helicopter to air lift him to the right place, the only way he could achieve his goal was to back track to the point where he had begun, and change his direction.
Likewise-
A shrewd investor knows when he made the wrong investment, and he has to get out to cut his losses.
When a politian makes political decisions defy simple logic it is time to question the decisions, not give blind faith support to the politian.
@Forest/Trees
Drop the cliches and allegory.
If you are qualified to provide specific suggestions on how to more efficiently achieve a stable democracy in Iraq, please share them.
page: 1
Similar articles
- Two US pilots killed in helicopter crash in Iraq
- US soldiers kill Iraqi man in raid near Syrian border
- Obama urges al-Maliki to hold elections on time
- Al-Maliki in Washington seeking investment (Roundup)
- Al-Maliki in Washington seeking investment
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Peres calls for direct, unconditional talks with Syria
- 2. UN: Ceasefire in southern Lebanon holding well despite violations
- 3. Five Jordan policemen to face trial over death of civilian
- 4. New preservation project for King Tut tomb in Egypt
- 5. Netanyahu calls reports of tensions with US "nonsense"
USA
Your Talkback on this Story