THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Hey Bush, why not tell your buddy Maliki:
Fail to establish by 8/31/2008 a uniform distribution of Iraq profits to the Iraqi people from Iraq crude oil, and we're outa here by 12/31/2008.

But, Bush doesn't want to leave. Surely you understand this?

Cycloptichorn

Bush has frequently declared the USA military will leave Iraq when the government of Iraq asks us to.

Is he stating what he truly believes or is he lying?

I don't have any evidence he's lying about that. Until I have such evidence I'll believe he is not lying.

On the otherhand you have provided a preponderance of evidence that either you do not know what you are talking about or you are a fraud.

Well, we'll have to wait and see.

But I am highly skeptical that the Right Wing of America, whose leadership sits in the WH, is looking to leave Iraq any time soon, whether they ask or not. After all, we have Interests to Protect, right?

Cycloptichorn

Wrong!

Now our interests are best protected by the Iraq government asking us to leave and our leaving.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Hey Bush, why not tell your buddy Maliki:
Fail to establish by 8/31/2008 a uniform distribution of Iraq profits to the Iraqi people from Iraq crude oil, and we're outa here by 12/31/2008.

But, Bush doesn't want to leave. Surely you understand this?

Cycloptichorn

Bush has frequently declared the USA military will leave Iraq when the government of Iraq asks us to.

Is he stating what he truly believes or is he lying?

I don't have any evidence he's lying about that. Until I have such evidence I'll believe he is not lying.

On the otherhand you have provided a preponderance of evidence that either you do not know what you are talking about or you are a fraud.

Well, we'll have to wait and see.

But I am highly skeptical that the Right Wing of America, whose leadership sits in the WH, is looking to leave Iraq any time soon, whether they ask or not. After all, we have Interests to Protect, right?

Cycloptichorn

Wrong!

Now our interests are best protected by the Iraq government asking us to leave and our leaving.

MANY of your fellow Conservatives disagree with you strongly on this point. I suggest you explain to them that it doesn't matter if we leave after spending all that money to build the embassies, bases, and oil infrastructure.

Cycloptichorn

In September 2007, 17 Iraqis died as a result of unjustified and unprovoked shooting at the Nisour Square. Personnel of Blackwater Worldwide, a private agency contracted by the U.S. to operate in Iraq, were involved in the shooting. A week later the Iraqi Government revoked the license of Blackwater to operate in the country. In the last week of September, Blackwater received a contract worth up to $92 million from the U.S. State Department. In April 2008 the assignment to provide personal protection for diplomats in Iraq by Blackwater has been renewed for the third year. The FBI is still investigating the killings at Nisour Square; more than 30 witnesses have been questioned and three Iraqis have testified before the Federal Grand Jury in May 2008. Neither the lives of the ordinary Iraqis nor the decisions of the Iraqi Government were taken into consideration while renewing the contracts for Blackwater.

"This is bad news," Sami al-Askari, advisory to Prime Minister Maliki said, "I personally am not happy with this, especially because they have committed acts of aggression, killed Iraqis, and this has not been resolved yet positively for families of victims." The neglect of such crucial Iraqi concerns by the U.S. has in fact prompted the demand for withdrawing foreign troops from Iraqi soil.

The Nisour Square killing is not an isolated incident. In February 2007 a Blackwater sniper shot three Iraqi guards, without provocation, ironically from the terrace of the Iraqi Justice Ministry. In October 2007 a Blackwater personnel was so heavily drunk that he killed the bodyguard of the Iraqi Vice-President. In the same month an Iraqi civilian was shot for simply driving too close to the State Department convoy.

The Iraqi Government has come to realize that the U.S. is attempting to run the Iraqi state through private contractors who cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds. The Report from the American Congressional Research Service in July 2007 clearly indicated that the Iraqi government has no authority over private security firms contracted by the U.S. Government. A shocking incident in the Green Zone in 2006 has demonstrated that the Blackwater personnel have gained greater impunity than the regular U.S. armed forces. A SUV driven by Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee. The Blackwater guards disarmed the army soldiers and forced them to lie on the ground at gunpoint until the vehicle was recovered.

The Nisour Square killing is not an isolated incident. In February 2007 a Blackwater sniper shot three Iraqi guards, without provocation, ironically from the terrace of the Iraqi Justice Ministry. In October 2007 a Blackwater personnel was so heavily drunk that he killed the bodyguard of the Iraqi Vice-President. In the same month an Iraqi civilian was shot for simply driving too close to the State Department convoy.

The Iraqi Government has come to realize that the U.S. is attempting to run the Iraqi state through private contractors who cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds. The Report from the American Congressional Research Service in July 2007 clearly indicated that the Iraqi government has no authority over private security firms contracted by the U.S. Government. A shocking incident in the Green Zone in 2006 has demonstrated that the Blackwater personnel have gained greater impunity than the regular U.S. armed forces. A SUV driven by Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee. The Blackwater guards disarmed the army soldiers and forced them to lie on the ground at gunpoint until the vehicle was recovered.

If our government disagrees with the Iraqi government's assessment and demands, we'll work around them to continue our uninvited occupation of their country. It's the Bush doctrine as a superpower.

A question, Ican - why is it a failure and a sign of retreat for us to leave without them asking, but not one to leave if they ask? In real terms their armed forces and hold upon the country will be no different.

If the IG (i.e., Iraq government) asks us to leave that means they think they are able to protect their nation without our help. I don't want us to leave until the IG thinks that.

I think that "in real terms their armed forces and hold upon the country" will be better able to defend their country by the time they ask us to leave than they are now. The IG is more likely to ask us to leave when they, not us, are convinced that "in real terms their armed forces and hold upon the country" will be better than it was before they asked us to leave.

If the Iraqis are able to support themselves without our help, then we shouldn't wait for them to ask us to leave; if they are not, then why does it matter if they ask or not?

The Iraqis will be more likely "able to support themselves without our help," when they think they are "are able to support themselves without our help,"

The IG is more competent to make that decision than we are, especially now that it is clear they are in a hurry to get to the point when they can safely send the USA home.


I think that CI is exactly right; that Bush et others will claim that the Iraqis are not ready to defend themselves, and therefore we shouldn't leave, and abandon the country to teh tewworists!

I think CI is exactly wrong "that Bush et others will claim that the Iraqis are not ready to defend themselves, and therefore we shouldn't leave, and abandon the country to teh tewworists."

Those that think otherwise are paranoid about Bush etc.. I think these paranoids are desperate to prove Bush is no damn good and did not believe he invaded Iraq for any of the reasons he originally gave. Bush made lots of serious mistakes, but one mistake he won't make is staying in Iraq more than the time it takes to pack and leave after the USA is asked to leave.

Cycloptichorn

It's any wonder that Bush earned an MBA from Harvard; in business situations, one's word is their bond. If a businessman says something, others should be able to depend on what he says. If not, that is fraud.

Bush said "we'll leave when they ask us to leave," but now sets conditions beyond the meaning of his original statement. Oh, we'll leave when "we" think we're ready to leave.

Here's a simple problem with a simple solution, but leave it to our government to make it much more difficult than it really is. As soon as Bush sends more soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan, guess what's gonna happen in Iraq?
**************************

9 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Attack in Afghanistan

By CARLOTTA GALL
Published: July 14, 2008

KABUL, Afghanistan, July 13 ?- Taliban insurgents mounted a large-scale attack on an American forward operating base in eastern Afghanistan in the early hours of Sunday, killing nine soldiers of the NATO security force in Afghanistan in fierce fighting that continued through the day.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Here's a simple problem with a simple solution, but leave it to our government to make it much more difficult than it really is. As soon as Bush sends more soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan, guess what's gonna happen in Iraq?
**************************

9 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Attack in Afghanistan

By CARLOTTA GALL
Published: July 14, 2008

KABUL, Afghanistan, July 13 ?- Taliban insurgents mounted a large-scale attack on an American forward operating base in eastern Afghanistan in the early hours of Sunday, killing nine soldiers of the NATO security force in Afghanistan in fierce fighting that continued through the day.

And that is what many have been saying all aolng, and you have denigrated them for that.

Others, including myself, have said that a reduction in US troops in Iraq, RIGHT NOW, will lead to more and deadlier attacks on the troops still there.

Now you are saying the same thing?
What changed?

Baghdad: US and Iraqi negotiators have ended efforts to reach a formal security pact before President George W. Bush leaves office in favour of an interim deal, the Washington Post said on Sunday, citing senior US officials.

The two sides had been negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement that would provide a legal basis for US troops to remain when a UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

But in the past week Iraqi leaders have spoken of only agreeing what they call a memorandum of understanding. Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has also raised for the first time the idea of setting a timetable for US troops to leave Iraq.

The Washington Post quoted one US official close to the negotiations as saying "we are talking about dates", even though Bush has previously rebuffed calls for a timetable.

Withdrawal timetable

Iraqi Vice-President Tareq Al Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, added his support for a withdrawal timetable.

"Iraqis must know when the American and other forces will leave Iraqi land. It is our right to know, and know the truth of where the situation stands, if there is an intention for American forces to leave or not," Al Hashemi told Iraqiya state television in an interview broadcast late on Saturday.