home

Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Troops

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is in Iraq. At a joint meeting with Iraqi PM Ibrahim al-Jaafari today,

Jaafari said it is time to work on acoordinated transition of military control in the country from Americans to Iraqis. "Firstly, we should quicken the pace of training the Iraqi security forces, and secondly, there should be a close coordination in planning between the US-led coalition and the Iraqi government on security transition," Jaafari said. "We do not want to be surprised by a withdrawal that is not in connection with our Iraqi timing," he added.

For his part, Rumsfeld said there is no exact timetable for the US troops withdrawal, but he also said "we confirm and we desire speed in that regard."

< John Roberts' Financial Status | Who Was Novak's Second Source? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#1)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    The draft states no law will be approved that contradicts "the rules of Islam" a requirement that could affect women's rights and set Iraq on a course far different from the one envisioned when U.S.-led forces invaded in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein. "Islam is the official religion of the state and is the main source of legislation," reads the draft published in the government newspaper Al-Sabah. "No law that contradicts with its rules can be promulgated."
    LINK Yep, looks like our work there is done.

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Soccerdad, I don't like it other, but note that: 1. It's a draft document; and 2. It's their country and their democratically elected govt can write their constitution as they see fit. TL, Actually, it sounds more like the Iraqi PM was requesting that the US not leave too quickly, vis:
    We do not want to be surprised by a withdrawal that is not in connection with our Iraqi timing," he added.
    The US will prob begin drawing down troops soon - "soon" meaning in the next year or two - tho I suspect it will have a presence of some sort, albeit smaller, for many years. Oops, there goes the draft rumor. Oh well, it was never taken seriously anyway.

    Ras, totally disingenuous: "2. It's their country" Which is why the invasion was ILLEGAL. Which is why the GENOCIDE is illegal. Which is why what Kissinger let slip: "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories" is the obvious real policy: DISMANTLEMENT, by civil war. "and their democratically elected govt can write their constitution as they see fit." Sure! Too bad the election was rigged, ras. Don't you read the news? As for 'writing their constitution,' Iraq used to have one back before the CIA installed Hussein. Having one written by US-installed gov't is not the same thing as democracy. When will Chalabi be installed as territorial leader? "I suspect it will have a presence of some sort, albeit smaller, for many years." Gee, do you think that's why USPNAC has installed 15 airbases and moved the USAF down from Germany? Wow, you really do take the bait with a full bite on the hook. What a heroic credulity you pretend to.

    'Kissinger let slip: "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories"' I'm sure you have a link for this one PIL (and not a link to you posting this on other blogs)?

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#6)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    Paul in LA: I give up. What is USPNAC? I must be getting too close to retirement to figure this one out. When did they close the airbases in Germany? It must have been last month because I was at one two months ago.

    I happen to agree with you SD, but I can find no reference to the supposed Kissinger quote except PIL's repetitive bleating on various blogs.

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    Wile, LOL, the only reference to USPNAC through google is Paul in lala land using it in at least four other blogs. Damn, he's got time on his hands. So I dunno what it is either. He seems to be the type we should humor though.

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    "...I can find no reference to the supposed Kissinger quote except PIL's repetitive bleating on various blogs." A while back, Sailor was nice enough to point to this as maybe possibly (I'm trying not to put words in Sailor's mouth) referring to PiL's source. If so, then the Kissinger "quote" is at least grossly out of context and used to contradict Kissinger's intended message.

    Thanks Roy, no wonder I couldn't find the quote - Kissinger flat-out never said those words. Closest I could find is this from the BBC: "[Dr. Kissinger] said that although not desirable it was certainly possible that the country could disintegrate: "If these groups cannot absolutely work together then maybe the country will break up as Yugoslavia did but our effort will be to try to hold it together."" Of course PIL's multiple blogger activities could explain why some of his posts seem only barely pertinent to the discussion and are so long - I imagine he writes something and then just cuts and pastes it from blog to blog to blog...

    Posted by sarcastic unnamed one: "I'm sure you have a link for this one PIL (and not a link to you posting this on other blogs)?" Do you deny that is the policy? Then why are the airbases PERMANENT? Why are we spending billions to pour polymer concrete runways for the Iraqis? Posted by soccerdad: "Certainly there is a real possibility of there being 3 "territories"." Yeah, duh. That's the policy. That has been the policy. And Kissinger outed the policy in early 2004. Posted by Wile E. Coyote: "I give up. What is USPNAC?" You know what the PNAC is, I presume. USPNAC is Centcom plus the PNAC. It is the illegal invaders and their secret policy. It is NOT the US military, just as Bush is NOT the US government. It is a faction, a conspiracy, a theft of the Senate's Constitutional role in setting America's foreign policy. "When did they close the airbases in Germany?" I didn't say they did. But if you're unaware of the shift from Germany to Qatar and Iraq, you'll have to do your own research into Rumsfeld's variously revealed redeployment of the military. Posted by Patrick: "using it in at least four other blogs. Damn, he's got time on his hands." Yeah, wow. Imagine all the time I'm saving from having to go to the queen's balls you guys spent your time at. Posted by roy: "...I can find no reference to the supposed Kissinger quote except PIL's repetitive bleating on various blogs." Gee, that's surprising. Why don't you try looking for the photograph of Bush with his underwear sticking out of his zipper in Peru. I have a copy of the AP photo that was on Yahoo!, but it is GONE on the internet. The BBC quote is not it.

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#12)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    PiL,
    Posted by roy: "...I can find no reference to the supposed Kissinger quote except PIL's repetitive bleating on various blogs."
    Actually, I was quoting Sarc. But it's exactly the sort of thing I would say, so no harm done.
    The BBC quote is not it.
    Then what is your source? You obviously think it's important, you post it even more than the 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians figure. You berated me for not doing the research to find the source. Now you say the broadcast Sailor referred to isn't it, which puts us back at: You made it up. It's real easy to prove me wrong on that. Provide a link. Name a TV show and broadcast date, or a newspaper or a magazine or a research paper or a book and a page number. If you do it, you'll have proven that yes, Kissinger really is out to split Iraq! You'll have won! Or, keep repeating the quote with no support other than repetition. Miss the chance to have a shred of credibility.

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    PIL, You are not the sole arbiter of the truth. Your stridency is reducing you to the left's version of PPJ. I don't think it was the policy and I've yet to see where Kissinger said so, not that I would trust anything he said anyway. The reason I dont think it was the policy, at least originaly, is that it would have given up too much control. What the neocons wanted IMO was a strong central government that they controlled. Maybe with civial war on the horizon and everything going in the toilet they've lowered their expectations.

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#14)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    SD - Well, at least PIL has not yet agreed with OBL's description of our government, which you did. So, cut the guy some slack. Pick on someone your own size. et al - Three separate states has been an option from Day One, and could be a viable one.

    Roy: "You made it up." HARDLY. How do you think you'll be able to keep 15 permanent bases in a sovereign country? Or 4 huge bases? The only way is illegal invasion by force. Furthermore, the PNAC players specifically stated that a primary reason for invading Iraq WAS TO INSTALL AIRBASES for the domination of that region. Then there's Afghanistan, where Bush's underdeployment of US power failed to get the target, but did succeed in installing ten or so airbases, a number of holding facilities (prisons), and ... surprise, OIL PIPELINES. Convenient. And even more convenient when the Pak minister overheard the US envoy tell of the "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" threats in July 01, and the Pak minister who, in the same pre-9i1 month, heard in Berlin the US envoy say that Afghanistan will be invaded in October. That's some fancy effect of 9i1 -- it continues to affect events that took place before it. Amazing. Posted by soccerdad: "The reason I dont think it was the policy, at least originaly, is that it would have given up too much control." Given up control? To what? Three territories surrender their sovereignty over Iraq. The No Fly Zones were just a precursor to a plan that was hatched in the early 90s. "What the neocons wanted IMO was a strong central government that they controlled. Maybe with civial war on the horizon and everything going in the toilet they've lowered their expectations." No, read the PNAC statements. They were quite blunt about wanting to install airbases in Iraq.

    Jim: "et al - Three separate states has been an option from Day One, and could be a viable one." Which is GENOCIDE. "Article 2: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..."

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#17)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    Paul in LA: I figgered it out. You are making things up. USPNAC is Centcom plus PNAC? Binds all of your conspiracy theories together. By the way, the airbase in Qatar (Al Udeid) was built in order to move out of Saudi Arabia (Prince Sultan). Germany is in a different theater of operations than Qatar, Saudi Arabia or Iraq. There I was able to give you some terms to improve on you theory. Now adjust your tinfoil hat, keep on making up acronyms and get out there!

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#18)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    PIL although strident and shrill sometimes is essentially correct, Anyone who has taken the time to read the PNAC writings knows this. Now the PNAC is important since many of the current members of the admin belonged to it over the years so it reflects accurately their thinking. The invasion of Iraq was motivated by two things the need to ensure a flow of oil and the need to establish a military base of operations for the area given that the Saudis wanted us out of their country. It really is that simple. Look at all the bases that the US is establishing throughout that area. Follow the oil and you will find American troops and bases. Same is true in South America and this has been true for over50 years. Bush is the first president to go to war over oil, the previous presidents where content with covert actions. We even helped the British overthrow the democratic leader of Iran in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry.

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#19)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    PIL writes:
    That's some fancy effect of 9i1 -- it continues to affect events that took place before it. Amazing.
    Yes, the ability to travel back in time would be amazing. SD writes:
    We even helped the British overthrow the democratic leader of Iran in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry.
    Actually the real issue was preventing the Soviets from obtaining a warm water port. Which would have allowed them to easily stage military opereations in that part of the world, extend their sphere of influence, and export oil via jointly "owned" pipelines thru the various countries. The oil exports would have provided a large source of hard currency, which they were always short of. So defense was the issue.

    roy, he made it up.

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    Soccerdad,
    PIL although strident and shrill sometimes is essentially correct, Anyone who has taken the time to read the PNAC writings knows this.
    I'm not (at the moment) arguing about the goals of Bush & Friends, just that one Kissinger "quote". Hopefully I'm not harping on it to the point that I'm helping to derail the thread. As for the Iraq PM's statement, it sounds exactly what Bush has stated as his plan: help the Iraqis get ready to maintain order on their own, and bring the U.S. troops home as soon as that's done, but no sooner.

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    PPJ provide reference for your claim for mine look up Klare who has a number of books out on this subject

    For his part, Rumsfeld said there is no exact timetable for the US troops withdrawal, but he also said "we confirm and we desire speed in that regard."
    I hate when Rummy forgets his talking points...what he meant to say was "We'll stay until the fight against the terrorists is won and not one day more."

    Jim: "Actually the real issue was preventing the Soviets from obtaining a warm water port." Actually, that dog don't hunt. No one believes that, except people who LIE to themselves, like you. The BRITISH wanted to INVADE Iran to address the nationalization of their oil company. Truman wouldn't do it. So MI6 and the nacent CIA arranged a coup. There is no contemporary reference to 'warm water ports,' but that has been an after-the-fact attempt to make it not about oil, but about the Cold War. It's about OIL. It's about money -- screw national security. And that's why Truman wouldn't play. IF it was to prevent the cold water port, then WHY wouldn't Truman have gone along? "it sounds exactly what Bush has stated as his plan" Oh, sure. The building permanent airbases part? Don't look at that, don't talk about that, don't speak about that. Nothing but lying monkeys, thread after thread.

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#25)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    PIL - Who can argue with such a skilled and factual presentation?

    Re: Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Tro (none / 0) (#26)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    PPJ try this. Of course you never provide sources just your delusions.

    PIL is right:
    The U.S. Army's top general said Tuesday that his country would pull troops out of Germany. After rumors had been flying for years, it was only a question of time until a senior official confirmed the moves.
    It seems likely that the US isn't gonna want to have a huge standing army sited within its borders (what's the point of paying for a huge army if you're not gonna use it for something?). So a new location is required - Iraq fits the bill nicely. And as regards the Iran invasion debate - it's a little disingenuous for Jim to claim that the objective was to prevent the Soviets from being able to "easily stage military opereations in that part of the world, extend their sphere of influence, and export oil via jointly "owned" pipelines thru the various countries". Surely this is pretty close to what the US is aiming to achieve by invading Iraq. No?