Iraq wants US forces removed from combat role

[SUBMAN1]

Image that.

-S

Iraq seeks sharp reduction in U.S. military role


Negotiations to begin on taking American forces out of combat



Read on here - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22825800/

[Skybird]

If they request that, I see no argument why to reject that. It is their country. And isn't that the long awaited opportunity to start pulling out without loosing your face - leaving because the other asks you to step down your military role, so in no way you'd violate anyone's will when leaving?

Or did you plan to stay for another fifteen years, no matter if wnated by Iraqis, or not? :hmm:

If I were the US, I would take that chance to get rid of this unloved haemorrhoids while having a free ride with the media, even more so before the presidential election. Even me would find it difficult to criticise bush for complying with what Iraqis want, and bringing home the troops. "The party that gave back peace to America" - the republican party's government! that could make a difference in the election.

[SUBMAN1]

Don't ever assume the US is ever fully leaving - ever. THis is as long as Iraq allows it.

They want a permanent base for ops against Syria or Iran if the situation warrants it.

-S

PS. I don't doubt the US will step down if asked. This is the moment we have been waiting for. The Iraqis can now handle things themselves. This is exactly what we have tried to accomplish since 2003. :up: But of course, you said back then that we would never achieve this. :p

[Skybird]

Don't ever assume the US is ever fully leaving - ever. THis is as long as Iraq allows it.

They want a permanent base for ops against Syria or Iran if the situation warrants it.

-S

Welcome to the insight into why this war was really fought, and planned for since the early 90s.

Strange to agree with you on something.

[SUBMAN1]

Don't ever assume the US is ever fully leaving - ever. THis is as long as Iraq allows it.

They want a permanent base for ops against Syria or Iran if the situation warrants it.

-S
Welcome to the insight into why this war was really fought, and planned for since the early 90s.

Strange to agree with you on something.I'm sure it was when they kept shooting at our jets and violating the terms of the ceasefire. I don't doubt they planned it since then. This started the moment they started giving the rightfull weapons inspectors the boot.

-S


PS. The US plans all things and all scenarios at all times. DOn't be surprised if their are many scenarios for attacking a country like Germany, Russia, CHina, France, anyone. That is their job. A conflict can arrise at any times and I am sure their is a scenario planned for any country in this entire world. Get used to it. That is how we do business and protect our people.

[FIREWALL]

I'm happyand would like complete pullout if asked by IRAQ.

I also want a complete pullout of present and future U.S.A. MONEY.

Let them run it finacially by themselves too.

[Skybird]

Don't ever assume the US is ever fully leaving - ever. THis is as long as Iraq allows it.

They want a permanent base for ops against Syria or Iran if the situation warrants it.

-S
Welcome to the insight into why this war was really fought, and planned for since the early 90s.

Strange to agree with you on something.I'm sure it was when they kept shooting at our jets and violating the terms of the ceasefire. I don't doubt they planned it since then. This started the moment they started giving the rightfull weapons inspectors the boot.

-S


PS. The US plans all things and all scenarios at all times. DOn't be surprised if their are many scenarios for attacking a country like Germany, Russia, CHina, France, anyone. That is their job. A conflict can arrise at any times and I am sure their is a scenario planned for any country in this entire world. Get used to it. That is how we do business and protect our people.

Yadda-yadda-yadda, all nice, all irrelevant to the topic.

You accepted to be confronted by Iraqi SAMS when you willed to monitor and enforce the no-fly zones (which did not prevent their helicopters to massacre the Shia after they were betrayed by the US), and when you willed to enforce the UN mandate. You had to expect that, and the UN mandate hardly gave you green light for an allout war to remove the regime that you just had saved from falling in 1991 - intentionally.

* You wanted that country as a strategic platform,
* and you wanted your hand at the Iraqi oil pipelines to be able to control who gets what, and US companies and namely Cheney's Halliburton taking the lion's share of the profits.

These were the reasons why this war was planned and wanted. It was not a war of necessity, it was a war of choice and desire. Your shiny propaganda sounds nice and kind in the ear, but has not much to do with the reality.

but some weeks ago you tried to tell me that the developement costs of a fighter program do not proportionally contribute to the overall value of the individual unit in service, so what else could I expect than absurdities. :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

Yadda-yadda-yadda, all nice, all irrelevant to the topic.

You accepted to be confronted by Iraqi SAMS when you willed to monitor and enforce the no-fly zones (which did not prevent their helicopters to massacre the Shia after they were betrayed by the US), and when you willed to enforce the UN mandate. You had to expect that, and the UN mandate hardly gave you green light for an allout war to remove the regime that you just had saved from falling in 1991 - intentionally.

* You wanted that country as a strategic platform,
* and you wanted your hand at the Iraqi oil pipelines to be able to control who gets what, and US companies and namely Cheney's Halliburton taking the lion's share of the profits.

These were the reasons why this war was planned and wanted. It was not a war of necessity, it was a war of choice and desire. Your shiny propaganda sounds nice and kind in the ear, but has not much to do with the reality.

but some weeks ago you tried to tell me that the developement costs of a fighter program do not proportionally contribute to the overall value of the individual unit in service, so what else could I expect than absurdities. :lol:You're not very bright are you? What part of ceasefire under terms do you not understand number one?

And yes, I do not doubt we wanted the country, Iraqies willing, as a strategic platform.

So what you are incapable of fathoming is that the US really isn't looking out for you, they are looking out for me. You are an ally and all, but US interests come first. Germany is somewhere down the spiral. Get used to it.

-S

PS. It is totally relevant to the topic - you brought it up. Not me! :p :D :yep:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Finally, at least a shred of intellectual honesty from American apologism. Now, if we can get everyone to realize that, we might finally be able to get back to a multipolar world...

[August]

Be careful what you wish for. Multi-polar worlds have spawned two world wars.

[Skybird]

You're not very bright are you?
The question goes back to you - you are the one believing and are parroting what the WH wants people to say, not me.

And yes, I do not doubt we wanted the country, Iraqies willing, as a strategic platform.

You never asked the Iraqis, and after 2003 repeatedly defended to ignore what they said. You just took what you wanted, and even had the nerve to demand applause for that.

So what you are incapable of fathoming is that the US really isn't looking out for you, they are looking out for me. You are an ally and all, but US interests come first. Germany is somewhere down the spiral. Get used to it.

To you the whole globe outside american borders is just something "down the spiral".

Did I say american borders? Skip that.

The old rule says: what goes up, must come down. It cannot be prevented, but one can influence if the landing is a soft one, or a crashsite. The arrogance of power hardly raises any sympathies helping to achcieve the first, and will earn gloating only after the latter.

[Skybird]

Be careful what you wish for. Multi-polar worlds have spawned two world wars.
While the blueprints for a just one-polar world did not exactly reduce that risk. And many wpould agree that the world is more instabile today, than it was before 1989, when two mutual counterbalances kept the world in balance. Since then, with one counterbalance temporarily suspended from the show, it became turbulent.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Doesn't suprise me about the US putting the US first, Subman. This country's the precise opposite. Cater for everyone else, and leave our countrymen in the breeze. :roll:

[mrbeast]

I'm sure it was when they kept shooting at our jets and violating the terms of the ceasefire. I don't doubt they planned it since then. This started the moment they started giving the rightfull weapons inspectors the boot.

Since the coalition had been carrying out a low level bombing campaign against Iraq its not surprising that the Iraqis were tempted to fire back every now and then.

PS. The US plans all things and all scenarios at all times. DOn't be surprised if their are many scenarios for attacking a country like Germany, Russia, CHina, France, anyone. That is their job. A conflict can arrise at any times and I am sure their is a scenario planned for any country in this entire world. Get used to it. That is how we do business and protect our people.

Strange how nobody planned for the post war scenario in Iraq though. :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Since the coalition had been carrying out a low level bombing campaign against Iraq its not surprising that the Iraqis were tempted to fire back every now and then. Yes, if a violation of the ceasefire were to happen, a tank might be bombed for crossing a line. Most flights were SEAD flights however, so at the time, no one was getting bombed. Saddam was simply being defiant.

Strange how nobody planned for the post war scenario in Iraq though. :hmm:Oh I think they did, but it didn't turn out the way they planned. It is easy to take over a country when you have the power of the USA, but what you do then is never so easy no matter who you are. Then you had Rhumsfield go in there and create mega-bases instead of keeping boots on the ground. Only the reversal of that policy has resulted in the article you see above. This should have been accomplished years ago.

-S


PS. Rhumsfield was an idiot. He only did things the way he did them to minimize US casualties. All this did in the end is create more casuaties since we have been in theatre much longer.

[SUBMAN1]

The question goes back to you - you are the one believing and are parroting what the WH wants people to say, not me.You know very well my opinions are of my own. Don't ever accuse me of someone elses opinion. Thats a pretty stupid argument too by the way.

You never asked the Iraqis, and after 2003 repeatedly defended to ignore what they said. You just took what you wanted, and even had the nerve to demand applause for that.Hardly. Yawn. THere is even no way we won't comply with this latest request. Skybird Fantasyland again.

To you the whole globe outside american borders is just something "down the spiral".

Did I say american borders? Skip that.

The old rule says: what goes up, must come down. It cannot be prevented, but one can influence if the landing is a soft one, or a crashsite. The arrogance of power hardly raises any sympathies helping to achcieve the first, and will earn gloating only after the latter.Probably, but only after our PC matches yours - PC will be our downward spiral if we let it continue in its crazy form. Good thing Germany and Europe as a whole will be first since we will have the oppurtunity to learn from your mistakes.

-S

[Zayphod]

Image that.
-S
Iraq seeks sharp reduction in U.S. military role
Negotiations to begin on taking American forces out of combat
Read on here - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22825800/

Well, it's pretty obvious that they've got everything under control now, and US forces are no longer needed. We know the Iraqi forces will keep the peace from now on, and do a great job of it, too.

Thank you and goodnight all. We'll be heading back to the USA tomorrow. Glad we could help.

[Redbrow]

The Shiite controlled Iraqi govt wants to chase out the US army? Wow! Iran really must be worrying that an attack is imminent. Looks like they also figured out that the US is slowly moving toward reinstalling the Sunnis.

:|\\

[GlobalExplorer]

PS. The US plans all things and all scenarios at all times. DOn't be surprised if their are many scenarios for attacking a country like Germany, Russia, CHina, France, anyone. That is their job. A conflict can arrise at any times and I am sure their is a scenario planned for any country in this entire world. Get used to it. That is how we do business and protect our people.

Yes (all countries do that). I just find it strange that you said "we", because these decisions usually are made by people a lot brighter than you :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

PS. The US plans all things and all scenarios at all times. DOn't be surprised if their are many scenarios for attacking a country like Germany, Russia, CHina, France, anyone. That is their job. A conflict can arrise at any times and I am sure their is a scenario planned for any country in this entire world. Get used to it. That is how we do business and protect our people.
Yes (all countries do that). I just find it strange that you said "we", because these decisions usually are made by people a lot brighter than you :yep:I'm not sure what you are getting at, but yes, their are many people out there much smarter than me. We means us, as a Nation, my Nation.

-S

[GlobalExplorer]

Certainly those are people brighter than me, too. You just sounded like a complete fool who thinks he can boast because he's American.

Though I agree with the essence of your statement, it's still something that could turn against your country one day.

[SUBMAN1]

Certainly those are people brighter than me, too. You just sounded like a complete fool who thinks he can boast because he's American.Well then, I won't tell you what you sounded like in your statement either then since we are on the same page! :D But I get where you are coming from.

Though I agree with the essence of your statement, it's still something that could turn against your country one day.Anything can turn against anything. To not prepare for war against any country is to be caught unaware and conquered at some point. A president needs to be able to call the pentegon and get an instant plan of action for any country in the world at any time. Iraq to even Canada, a plan most definetly exists in many different variations. At least they better! I pay my tax dollars into that damn pentegon yearly, so they better have a plan! :)

-S

[GlobalExplorer]

Well then, I won't tell you what you sounded like in your statement either then since we are on the same page! :D But I get where you are coming from.

A man with sensitivity! ;)

At least they better! I pay my tax dollars into that damn pentegon yearly, so they better have a plan! :) -S

Do you really think they have a plan, at least at this very moment?

I mean I can understand why the war in Vietnam was pursued, at least in the first years, and I was cheering when you kicked Saddams ass out of Kuwait, but Iraq is 100% pointless and regretable.

[SUBMAN1]

Do you really think they have a plan, at least at this very moment?

I mean I can understand why the war in Vietnam was pursued, at least in the first years, and I was cheering when you kicked Saddams ass out of Kuwait, but Iraq is 100% pointless and regretable.Not really. I mean, it sends a message that the US won't be pushed around more than anything. Saddam had a ceasefire drawn against him. He agreed to it, and then after it goes into affect, he kicks you out of his country! I was blown away they let it go on for so long! :o They should have been kicking his butt the day the weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country!

-S

[GlobalExplorer]

Do you really think they have a plan, at least at this very moment?

I mean I can understand why the war in Vietnam was pursued, at least in the first years, and I was cheering when you kicked Saddams ass out of Kuwait, but Iraq is 100% pointless and regretable.Not really. I mean, it sends a message that the US won't be pushed around more than anything. Saddam had a ceasefire drawn against him. He agreed to it, and then after it goes into affect, he kicks you out of his country! I was blown away they let it go on for so long! :o They should have been kicking his butt the day the weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country!

-S

You must decide why you wanted that war.

First it was the WMD that we now know did not exist.

Then it was the terrorists that never had more support in Iraq than today.

Now you're saying it was the ceasefire that he broke.

In 1990 a lot of people would have understood if you had gone all the way to Baghdad (including myself). But at the time it was considered insane to go on when the war had been won with so little cost. Because a somewhat intelligent person could have known that it would mean thousands of dead Americans, hundred thousands Iraqi's, decades of turmoil and hatred - and finally more terrorism - exactly what we now have in front of us.

[SUBMAN1]

You must decide why you wanted that war.

First it was the WMD that we now know did not exist. Not only is this a flase statement, it is misleading. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they did exist, and even moved by both the Syrians and Russians! However, simply saying they were not found is not justification to say they weren't there.

Then it was the terrorists that never had more support in Iraq than today. Quite frankly, you aren't up to snuff on latest facts. I don't think there has been a time in Iraq where they had less support! :D

Now you're saying it was the ceasefire that he broke. THis has never changed. I've said it even in this forum since day 1! Don't they give you news over their in Germany? You seem to be lacking a lot of it.

In 1990 a lot of people would have understood if you had gone all the way to Baghdad (including myself). But at the time it was considered insane to go on when the war had been won with so little cost. Because a somewhat intelligent person could have known that it would mean thousands of dead Americans, hundred thousands Iraqi's, decades of turmoil and hatred - and finally more terrorism - exactly what we now have in front of us.Not an accurate picture of what has happened.

For the casualty idea, to enter a foreign country with force always will result in casualities. A tradgedy, but one that can't be avoided. THis time around however, we don't have 50K to 1 million dead.

Anyway, sooner or later, Saddam would have had the ability to threaten neighbors and even the US with some form of mass destruction weapon. THis is not a threat any longer. Well worth the effort on the part of the US and its allies.

-S

[Redbrow]

My favorite Likud man is back in the saddle! Does Zionism rock or what? Go NWO - onward Globalists! Yeeeha!

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/wolfowitz-returns-to-us-government-as-advisor/?hp

"What's wrong with Wolfee, why is he barking?!" "Wolfee's fine, tell me where you're calling from."

"Your Step Mom is DEAD..."

[August]

Be careful what you wish for. Multi-polar worlds have spawned two world wars. While the blueprints for a just one-polar world did not exactly reduce that risk. And many wpould agree that the world is more instabile today, than it was before 1989, when two mutual counterbalances kept the world in balance. Since then, with one counterbalance temporarily suspended from the show, it became turbulent.

The world is no more turbulent today than it ever was Skybird. We are just more aware of it thanks to the wonders of modern communications technology. I don't need to remind you of the propensity for multiple power bases to clash with each other in hugely destructive wars.

[Skybird]

That is not true. The balance of the two superpowers kept a lot of that multinational gobbling in check. after that was gone, the number of local conflicts went up, and steeply. Local nationalism went up as well. The Balkans went into hot mode. The southern republics of the USSR. Former allies of the US or the USSR in africa set sail for claiming more powers: more tribe and civil wars. Islam'S multiple local drives against Christian ethnic groups, sometimes going on since years now. Funding for factions that once were partners of the rivalling superpowers also went up, causing wanted additional internal tensions to create weak spots were western, russian and chinese interests could lock on. Local powers like India, China and Brazil also were suddenly free to dramatically improve their power basis. Stupid pöoltical acts and global strtaegies additionally helped to fuel extremism and terrorism, and making new enemies - today we have more terror-willing people and orgnaizations and terroirst in the world, than years ago. Proliferation has become far more threatening a chance, and less controllable. the number of local wars and conflicts went up, so did the number of terrorist acts and conflicts. nationalism is on the rise on all continents, as is religious fundamentalism.

Head on for the past - that's how it looks for me.

The shortening of fruitful land and spreading of desertification, the shortening of sweet water, energy and food will do their share to detoriate things even more. Not in the far away future - it already is happening right now. One just need to look close enough.

Now people can accuse me of being pessimistic again, if they wish. But that is the status quo: unmasked, and not nice-talked. Pessimism has nothing to do with it.

[August]

That is not true.

Well here is a list of conflicts and wars around the world by year since 1800. It shows no appreciable increase in the number from 1989 compared to before that. They are, as i have said, just more widely known nowadays.

http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/index.htm

[Konovalov]

That is not true. The balance of the two superpowers kept a lot of that multinational gobbling in check. after that was gone, the number of local conflicts went up, and steeply. Local nationalism went up as well. The Balkans went into hot mode. The southern republics of the USSR. Former allies of the US or the USSR in africa set sail for claiming more powers: more tribe and civil wars. Islam'S multiple local drives against Christian ethnic groups, sometimes going on since years now. Funding for factions that once were partners of the rivalling superpowers also went up, causing wanted additional internal tensions to create weak spots were western, russian and chinese interests could lock on. Local powers like India, China and Brazil also were suddenly free to dramatically improve their power basis. Stupid pöoltical acts and global strtaegies additionally helped to fuel extremism and terrorism, and making new enemies - today we have more terror-willing people and orgnaizations and terroirst in the world, than years ago. Proliferation has become far more threatening a chance, and less controllable. the number of local wars and conflicts went up, so did the number of terrorist acts and conflicts. nationalism is on the rise on all continents, as is religious fundamentalism.

Head on for the past - that's how it looks for me.

The shortening of fruitful land and spreading of desertification, the shortening of sweet water, energy and food will do their share to detoriate things even more. Not in the far away future - it already is happening right now. One just need to look close enough.

Now people can accuse me of being pessimistic again, if they wish. But that is the status quo: unmasked, and not nice-talked. Pessimism has nothing to do with it.

In other words we are all doomed. Doomed I say! :arrgh!: :arrgh!:

I'm saving that final cigar for my last moments. ;)

[Konovalov]

That is not true.

Well here is a list of conflicts and wars around the world by year since 1800. It shows no appreciable increase in the number from 1989 compared to before that. They are, as i have said, just more widely known nowadays.

http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/index.htm

Forgive me but I don't think that link shows even remotely the whole picture.

[August]

Forgive me but I don't think that link shows even remotely the whole picture.

Forgive me but I think it does.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Not only is this a flase statement, it is misleading. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they did exist, and even moved by both the Syrians and Russians! However, simply saying they were not found is not justification to say they weren't there.

I agree with this. Weren't there reports of troops finding buried fighter aircraft in the desert?

[mrbeast]

Not only is this a flase statement, it is misleading. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they did exist, and even moved by both the Syrians and Russians! However, simply saying they were not found is not justification to say they weren't there.

I agree with this. Weren't there reports of troops finding buried fighter aircraft in the desert?

Buried fighter aircraft with nuclear bombs attached?

Don't think so.

If there was any hard evidence that Iraq had viable WMDs at the time of the Iraq War Bush and his government would be screaming it from the roof tops (probably the Whitehouse roof top :yep: ).

But there is no evidence and no screaming.

[Skybird]

Forgive me but I don't think that link shows even remotely the whole picture.

Forgive me but I think it does.And I don't, so agreeing with Konovalov I do.

[Skybird]

In other words we are all doomed. Doomed I say! :arrgh!: :arrgh!:


If we are doomed, than not so much becasue of things happening, but because having rejected to react to them while there still was time left. We know what needs to be known, all the needed insight and knowledge is there.

Everybody likes the party, but nobody wants to clean.