Iraqis Demand U.S. Withdrawal Timetable!!

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080708/ts_nm/iraq_dc;_ylt=AnXIUTrOM5LpcTs0hGfwkNBZ.3QA

take that neo-con/republicans!!

the iraqis themselves want us to have a timetable to leave their country.

what are we gonna do..tell them "no..we will not have a timetable. we will leave when we choose to leave"????

[Darth Rotor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080708/ts_nm/iraq_dc;_ylt=AnXIUTrOM5LpcTs0hGfwkNBZ.3QA

take that neo-con/republicans!!

the iraqis themselves want us to have a timetable to leave their country.

what are we gonna do..tell them "no..we will not have a timetable. we will leave when we choose to leave"????
While premature celebrations have been the hallmark of Operation Iraqi Freedom for five years, this sounds like very good news. I'll let it settle down for a few days and see what else arises.

Some good points to examine critically, from your link, rather than with the emotional bent of the OP:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.
Highly placed official, so this is good, not just some "source."
But the government's spokesman said any timetable would depend on security conditions on the ground.
Words from the Bush administration playbook.
Their differences underscore the debate in Baghdad over a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to remain when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
UN mandate not being renewed means the US needs to go, in a general sense, though the UN can't back it up, for the usual reasons.
But Washington played down calls from Baghdad for a firm withdrawal deadline, saying both sought greater Iraqi security.
Gee, there's a surprise. :rolleyes:
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday he expected to pull more U.S. troops from Iraq and stressed any decision to withdraw would be based on the ability of Iraqi troops to take responsibility for security and combat.
Standard Bush administration policy statement.
On Monday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki suggested for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.
Finding his feet, and his voice, so good for him.
National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie appeared to go further on Tuesday.

"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," he told reporters in Najaf after meeting Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Note, and note well, where he was and who he was talking to here. Al Sistani is big medicine.

Maybe not home by Christmas, but events seem to be moving forward.

Let's see how fast they can move.

DR

[Policenaut]

I'm fine with a timetable that the Iraqis decide on. Then it's all on them since they clearly now want us to leave.

[mrbaracuda]

When they leave it's going to be interesting times.
Anyone think a merger of Iraq / Iran would be possible? :eek:

[geni]

When they leave it's going to be interesting times.
Anyone think a merger of Iraq / Iran would be possible? :eek:

A persian state merging with an arab/kurd state? Very very unlikely.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Don't you mean timetable for surrender?

[kallsop]

Cr*p, we might be out of there before Obama can surrender.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Cr*p, we might be out of there before Obama can surrender.

Beatcha to it!

And I am amazed at your ability to make posts that are just attacks Obama even in threads outside of the 2008 Election forum.

[Thunder]

Don't you mean timetable for surrender?

if the iraqis want us out...we are obliged to get out.

unless, we make Iraq the 51st state.

[quixotecoyote]

if the iraqis want us out...we are obliged to get out.

unless, we make Iraq the 51st state.

I'm pretty sure the Iraqis wanted us out before we came in.

[Texas]

I'm pretty sure the Iraqis wanted us out before we came in.
I think the Shia and Kurds would laugh at that but I am not surprised that the Shia are now wanting a free hand.

[quixotecoyote]

I think the Shia and Kurds would laugh at that but I am not surprised that the Shia are now wanting a free hand.

Don't get me wrong. I think they'd have loved us to drop a bomb on Saddam or plant a bullet in his brain, but that's not really the same thing, now is it?

[mrbaracuda]

A persian state merging with an arab/kurd state? Very very unlikely.

What about parts of it?

[Darth Rotor]

I think the Shia and Kurds would laugh at that but I am not surprised that the Shia are now wanting a free hand.
Now?

Tex, the Shia were pushing for "it's our turn to be in charge now" dating from shortly after Saddam unassed Baghdad. That was in 2003. Sadr was trying to become the big fish in the pond as early as the Summer of 2003, as were other Shiite factions, which is part of why, IMO, the car bomb attack against the UN HQ went down in August of 2003. The appearance was, to many Sunni (and doubtless a few Kurds) that the Shia were going to be "the chosen ones" of the coalition/international community. The Sunni weren't going down without a fight. When one considers how majorities handle minorities, Hutu/Tutsi comes to mind, or Turks/Armenians, one can understand their fears.

DR

[SDC]

Well, it's a welcome report, though heaven only knows how it is going to work out. For example, hasn't the Kurdish region been operating as essentially autonomous for some years now, back into the early '90s?

I have no special knowledge or anything like of the case. My guess would be that the Bush Admin has been counting on longterm bases in Iraq, and the central government is unlikely to agree. After 4,000+ US and British (and small numbers of others) deaths, there has to be a sense of "what was it all for?"

[E.J.Armstrong]

It's going to be difficult for the US to justify usurping another country's sovereignty but I still expect them to try, after all Bush and Cheney and Rice (the well known torturers that run the US) in their quaint have already insisted the US military be above Iraqi law.

[Radrook]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080708/ts_nm/iraq_dc;_ylt=AnXIUTrOM5LpcTs0hGfwkNBZ.3QA

take that neo-con/republicans!!

the iraqis themselves want us to have a timetable to leave their country.

what are we gonna do..tell them "no..we will not have a timetable. we will leave when we choose to leave"????


Isn't that what we told the Philipinos when they began demanding that we leave imediately after we ousted the Spaniards?

I think the Cubans also had to wait until we were good and ready before we honored their request that we leave.

So if it happens now it's nothing new it seems.

[Beerina]

Kahn: I never forget a face, Mr....Chekov, isn’t it! I never thought I’d see your face again. You are in the position to demand nothing, sir! I, on the other hand, am in a position to grant nothing.

[Radrook]

It's going to be difficult for the US to justify usurping another country's sovereignty but I still expect them to try, after all Bush and Cheney and Rice (the well known torturers that run the US) in their quaint have already insisted the US military be above Iraqi law.

That would be unusual since the USA has never found it difficult to justify its actions in relation national sovereignties.

For example, as with the taking of native American land via the constant false promises and breaking of treaties backed by military force was easily declared justified.

The taking of more than half of Mexico was easily declared justified via claiming provocation. International condemnation of it was simply ignored.

Military intervention in the political affairs of Haiti has repeatedly been declared justified despite their right to national sovereignty.

Military occupation of the Philippines was declared justified despite demands that we immediately leave.

So I really don't see the USA having difficulty explaining anything it decides to do. Maybe because it considers itself beholden before no one it is tempted to exceed in this way. As President Jackson said when the Supreme Court ordered him to respect Cherokee lands. He had control of the military and the Supreme Court couldn't force him. Same mentality today on a national-foreign policy scale.

BTW
Its a human trait common to all human beings and by extension to all governments not just the USA.

[Ziggurat]

the iraqis themselves want us to have a timetable to leave their country.

Apparently the original story isn't quite correct.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7504571.stm