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. But of course, you said back then that we would never achieve this. :p

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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.

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

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.