online dating service

Free Dating Site    

REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES
Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest 100% free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > When You're not Wanted...      Mod Threads Home login  
Page 2 of 2 1, 2
 Author Thread: When You're not Wanted...
 NERO1

Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 23
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 9:06:45 AM
QUOTE: It sounds to me that the Iraqis are just standing up for themselves and that the Bush administration now is having a hard time accepting what they said they wanted... a sovereign Iraq.

^^ Yes. This is basically the case. And in some sense this is reflective of US foreign policy towards the Muslim world in general. "We want the world to have freedom and democracy", so goes American rhetoric. Then, if or when they (and again I'm talking here particularly about the people in the Muslim world ) come across something resembling a free election , they elect officials ranging from "moderate" to devout Islamic and a majority of them want the Qu'ran , etc, to be a key part of any constitution their new nation builds, and so forth. This is then unacceptable to the US (for geo-strategic reasons; oil, Israeli security, etc). That new gov't is either isolated internationally and subject to the economic stranglehold, or in short order replaced (either covertly or nowadays perhaps overtly) by US power. And a more US friendly (or pliable) -- but undemocratic, repressive and corrupt regime -- is put into place and named an official "ally". This (along with the ongoing obvious bias towards Israel, etc) is a main part of the Muslim world's general grievance against US (mis)use of power.

Wait a decade or less. If the situation is relatively stagnated, whether US troops are largely out or have been pulled back to their bases or what have you, and the US cannot get what it wants from a somewhat democratic Iraqi gov't , the CIA will covertly support yet another "regime change" and sponsor a US friendly strongman -- similar to how they were largely responsible for Saddam Hussein's wing of the Ba'athist party taking power there back in '68. This reflects a basic lack of respect for the people of these regions in general, and seems to imply their nations are merely pawns on a US-dominated chess board. Then many here marvel at the resentment and anger so many from the Muslim world seem to feel.
 gtomustang

Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 24
view profile
History
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 9:28:28 AM
If China invaded the US, claiming the only nation to use nuclear weapons was mistreating its minorities during traffic stops, executing prisoners, torturing detainees, and failing to rescue its people after a tidal wave swept a port city...what would Americans do?

Would they accept the invasion, would they refuse to form "gun clubs" and militias to defend their cities from "other groups", would Americans gladly accept a new form of government given to us by the Chinese--that closely represents their own--and would Americans really be willing to give the Chinese and their contractors immunity from their acts in the US, would we be willing to pay for our rebuild of their damage with money raised from our oil wells, and would we be willing to let the Chinese build as many military bases as they wished on our soil?

The Iraqis are absolutely no different from us.

Of course, the neocons hoped Iraq would become a democratic model for the rest of the MidEast to follow...forgetting Turkey and Israel already are democratic models. the Pentagon hoped to make Iraq the base it lost in Saudi Arabia. Even at this late time, those external refugees returning to Iraq are doing it only for the same reasons flood victims go back--not b/c its safe, but b/c your belongings are still there to be plundered. well, unlike flood victims, most Iraqi families have members who have been kidnapped, and some still not found.

Its pretty easy to understand what the Iraqis are doing--go to their homeland, then ask, "sheesh, what would I do?"
 NERO1

Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 25
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 9:33:14 AM
^^ A lot of Americans , especially in certain demographics, are already armed to the teeth and paranoid as it is. Everything from "black helicopters" to "gov't concentration camps" and so on. If there was an actual foreign invasion they'd make the Iraqi "insurgents" look like .... well, like what many of the neo-cons said all the Iraqis would be..... a rose-strewing welcome wagon, pretty much granting the US carte blanche to do what they will to their country. As it turned out , of course, after a certain someone put on his cute jumpsuit and made his dramatic "landing" on that aircraft carrier proudly declaring "mission accomplished" there were clearly many Iraqis were not quite so welcoming or open to a terminal US troop presence there. But of course most if not all Americans would be just as militant, if not even more so.
 glamour6

Joined: 4/7/2008
Msg: 26
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 5:59:39 PM
I never felt the Iraqi's would welcome anyone with open arms.. they were so traumatized by Saddam and his regime.. how could they trust anyone at first. Soon many realized the coalition forces were there to make a better life for them, allow them to vote and to live in a Democracy.. that all takes time.
 Crash1967

Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 27
view profile
History
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 6:01:50 PM
^^^ keep in mind the rest of their history glam, such as the English imperialists who mushed together a country of people who had not been in the same camp before....

...and again, if something is so good, like democracy, people steal it, we don't have to shove it down their throats....
 NERO1

Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 28
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 6:14:33 PM
QUOTE: Soon many realized the coalition forces were there to make a better life for them, allow them to vote and to live in a Democracy

^^ And many didn't realize, evidently...

Baghdad Car Bombing Kills Over 50, Wounds 75
QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA | June 17, 2008 04:15 PM EST |

BAGHDAD — A car bomb ripped through a busy commercial street in a Shiite area of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing at least 51 people and wounding scores more in the deadliest blast in the capital in more than three months.

Many victims were trapped in their apartments by a raging fire that engulfed at least one building, according to police and Interior Ministry officials, who also said about 75 people were wounded. Stunned survivors stumbled through the rubble-strewn street, which was filled with the smoke from burning vehicles, witnesses said.

The attack shattered the relative calm in the capital since a May 11 cease-fire ended seven weeks of fighting between U.S. and Iraqi forces and Shiite militants in the Sadr City district. Ironically, it came the same day the Iraqi parliament announced plans to move outside the U.S.-protected Green Zone.

Angry survivors blamed the army and police for failing to protect them.

"The blast occurred because there wasn't any security presence by the Iraqi army or police at the scene, not even any checkpoint," said Khalid Hassan, 40, who suffered shrapnel wounds and burns. "People were confused, upset and running in all directions. We are all victims of terrorism and carelessness."

The bomber struck about 5:45 p.m. near a market and bus stop in the Hurriyah district of west Baghdad, scene of some of the most horrific sectarian massacres during the wave of Sunni-Shiite slaughter in 2006.

Kamil Jassim, a witness, said the blast set fire to a generator used by residents and shopkeepers to supplement city power. The fire quickly spread to a two-story building containing both shops and apartments where many of the victims were found.

Haider Fadhil, a 25-year-old metal worker, said he was shopping with two friends when the blast hurled him to the ground.

"When I regained consciousness, I found that my left hand and leg were broken," Fadhil said from his bed in a nearby hospital, where anguished families wept as they jammed the waiting rooms. "Thanks be to God for saving me and thanks to those who carried me in their pickup truck to the hospital."

The blast was the deadliest attack in Baghdad since March 6, when a pair of bombs detonated in the mostly Shiite district of Karradah, killing 68 people and wounding about 120.

No group claimed responsibility for Tuesday's blast, and both Sunni and Shiite militants have used car bombs in their attacks.

U.S. officials said American soldiers were attending a meeting of a neighborhood action committee about 150 yards from the blast site but it was unclear if they were the target.

"This is a senseless and tragic event," said Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a spokesman for the U.S. military's Baghdad command. "What's to gain by terrorizing the population? ...This is simply an evil act."

U.S. commanders have warned repeatedly that the relative peace in Baghdad is fragile because extremists, including al-Qaida in Iraq and Shiite militant groups, remain capable of high-profile attacks.

The Americans hope that security measures are enough to prevent extremists from mounting a sustained campaign of bombings against civilians that could provoke a return to sectarian reprisal attacks.

Despite the uncertainty, Iraqi officials have been eager to promote a sense of confidence among the war-weary Iraqi people after months of declining bloodshed in the capital.

Deputy parliamentary speaker Khalid al-Attiyah told lawmakers Tuesday that they will move from the convention center in the Green Zone to the Saddam Hussein-era National Assembly building for their next legislative term, which begins Sept. 1.

The move could help parliament affirm its independence from the Americans and shed its public image as an institution isolated from its people inside the U.S.-protected enclave.

"There is progress in the security situation and the reconstruction has been completed of the new building," al-Attiyah said, adding the new accommodations will be large enough for the full 275-member legislature and staff members.

The National Assembly building was used by the Iraqi parliament under Saddam and is located in the Allawi district, a religiously mixed area about 500 yards from the blast walls that form the perimeter of the Green Zone on the west side of the Tigris River.

It was looted and burned during the chaos that followed the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces in April 2003. But al-Attiyah said its reconstruction has been completed.

Also Tuesday, an Iraqi state television journalist, Muhieddin Abdul-Hamid, was shot to death near his apartment in the northern city of Mosul, officials said.

Colleagues said the 50-year-old journalist was a local anchor for the TV station in Mosul, the focus of an ongoing U.S.-Iraqi operation against the last major urban stronghold of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Excluding Abdul-Hamid, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 129 journalists and 50 media support workers have been killed since the U.S. invasion in 2003.

In other violence Tuesday, a suicide bomber on a motorcycle struck a Baghdad checkpoint manned by U.S.-allied fighters, killing one and wounding four, officials said.

Another suicide car bomber attacked a police checkpoint in Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad, killing one policeman and wounding 19 other people, officials said.

Gunmen also killed a senior police officer and two of his guards near Aziziyah, a Shiite area 35 miles southeast of Baghdad.
 Crash1967

Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 29
view profile
History
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 6:34:12 PM
... you know, another thing that comes to my mind is the fact that whenever there is an attack of any kind that it benefits both AQ and GB.......kinda weird isn't it?
 Spring Genesis

Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 30
view profile
History
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 6:49:19 PM
You failed to answer my question.. where does the Iraqi Parliment state that we have overstayed our welcome and they want us out now? Usually if someone is accused of overstaying they are asked to leave immediately.. I don't see that happening in the article.. perhaps you could enlighten

^^
These people are not Americans and do not comprehend liberty. After all, they are still under the queen with limited freedoms. America liberated Iraq and will stay until the Iraqis get it together as we did in Japan, Korea, Europe, and still in Europe.
When Iraq says that they can survive without U.S security, that's the day withdrawal begins. Bush followed American policy despite being hated more than the terrorists by our liberals here and the socialists abroad.
 Always Smiling37

Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 31
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 6:54:12 PM

Bush followed American policy despite being hated more than the terrorists by our liberals here and the socialists abroad.


I might suggest he is hated by a lot more then the Liberals there and the "socialists abroad".
Why do Bush supporters always throw in the partasain slant on something like this? Oh thats right, because you really have no argument or defense for GWB, the man is a horrible mess who should be in jail. And it doesn't matter if he is a rep or a dem, he is a tool.
 Crash1967

Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 32
view profile
History
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 6:57:20 PM
^^^ another right winger who doesn't understand history... i'm seeing a pattern....

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public


By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A22

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

The stark assessments, among the most negative attitudes toward U.S.-led forces since they invaded Iraq in 2003, contrast sharply with views expressed by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Last week at the United Nations, President Jalal Talabani said coalition troops should remain in the country until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."

"Only then will it be possible to talk about a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq," he said.

Recent polls show many Iraqis in nearly every part of the country disagree.

"Majorities in all regions except Kurdish areas state that the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) should withdraw immediately, adding that the MNF-I's departure would make them feel safer and decrease violence," concludes the 20-page State Department report, titled "Iraq Civil War Fears Remain High in Sunni and Mixed Areas." The report was based on 1,870 face-to-face interviews conducted from late June to early July.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes poll, which was conducted over the first three days of September for WorldPublicOpinion.org, found that support among Sunni Muslims for a withdrawal of all U.S.-led forces within six months dropped to 57 percent in September from 83 percent in January.

"There is a kind of softening of Sunni attitudes toward the U.S.," said Steven Kull, director of PIPA and editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org. "But you can't go so far as to say the majority of Sunnis don't want the U.S. out. They do. They're just not quite in the same hurry as they were before."

The PIPA poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percent, was carried out by Iraqis in all 18 provinces who conducted interviews with more than 1,000 randomly selected Iraqis in their homes.

Using complex sampling methods based on data from Iraq's Planning Ministry, the pollsters selected streets on which to conduct interviews. They then contacted every third house on the left side of the road. When they selected a home, the interviewers then collected the names and birth dates of everyone who lived there and polled the person with the most recent birthday.

Matthew Warshaw, a senior research manager at D3 Systems, which helped conduct the poll, said he didn't think Iraqis were any less likely to share their true opinions with pollsters than Americans. "It's a concern you run up against in Iowa or in Iraq," he said. "But for the most part we're asking questions that people want to give answers to. People want to have their voice heard."

The greatest risk, he said, was the safety of the interviewers. Two pollsters for another Iraqi firm were recently killed because of their work.

The State Department report did not give a detailed methodology for its poll, which it said was carried out by an unnamed Iraqi polling firm. Lou Fintor, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said he could not comment on the public opinion surveys.

The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal. Eight-five percent of Sunnis in that poll supported an immediate withdrawal, a number virtually unchanged in the past two years, except for the two months after the Samarra bombing, when the number fell to about 70 percent, the poll director said.

"The very fact that there is such a low support for American forces has to do with the American failure to do basically anything for Iraqis," said Mansoor Moaddel, a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who commissioned a poll earlier this year that also found widespread support for a withdrawal. "It's part of human nature. People respect authority and power. But the U.S. so far has been unable to establish any real authority."

Interviews with two dozen Baghdad residents in recent weeks suggest one central cause for Iraqi distrust of the Americans: They believe the U.S. government has deliberately thrown the country into chaos.

The most common theory heard on the streets of Baghdad is that the American military is creating a civil war to create an excuse to keep its forces here.

"Do you really think it's possible that America -- the greatest country in the world -- cannot manage a small country like this?" Mohammad Ali, 42, an unemployed construction worker, said as he sat in his friend's electronics shop on a recent afternoon. "No! They have not made any mistakes. They brought people here to destroy Iraq, not to build Iraq."

As he drew on a cigarette and two other men in the store nodded in agreement, Ali said the U.S. government was purposely depriving the Iraqi people of electricity, water, gasoline and security, to name just some of the things that most people in this country often lack.

"They could fix everything in one hour if they wanted!" he said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis.

Mohammed Kadhem al-Dulaimi, 54, a Sunni Arab who used to be a professional soccer player, said he thought the United States was creating chaos in the country as a pretext to stay in Iraq as long as it has stayed in Germany.

"All bad things that are happening in Iraq are just because of the Americans," he said, sipping a tiny cup of sweet tea in a cafe. "When should they leave? As soon as possible. Every Iraqi will tell you this."

Many Iraqi political leaders, on the other hand, have been begging the Americans to stay, especially since the February bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, which touched off the current round of sectarian reprisal killings between Sunnis and Shiites.

The most dramatic about-face came from Sunni leaders, initially some of the staunchest opponents to the U.S. occupation, who said coalition forces were the only buffer preventing Shiite militias from slaughtering Sunnis.

Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the outspoken Sunni speaker of parliament who this summer said that "the U.S. occupation is the work of butchers," now supports the U.S. military staying in Iraq for as long as a decade.

"Don't let them go before they have corrected what they have done," he said in an interview this month. "They should stay for four years. This is the minimum. Maybe 10 years."

Particularly in mixed neighborhoods here in the capital, some Sunnis say the departure of U.S. forces could trigger a genocide. Hameed al-Kassi, 24, a recent college graduate who lives in the Yarmouk district of Baghdad, worried that rampages by Shiite militias could cause "maybe 60 to 70 percent of the Sunnis to be killed, even the women, old and the young."

"There will be lakes of blood," Kassi said. "Of course we want the Americans to leave, but if they do, it will be a great disaster for us."

In a barbershop in the capital's Karrada district Tuesday afternoon, a group of men discussed some of the paradoxical Iraqi opinions of coalition troops. They recognized that the departure of U.S.-led forces could trigger more violence, and yet they harbored deep-rooted anger toward the Americans.

"I really don't like the Americans who patrol on the street. They should all go away," said a young boy as he swept up hair on the shop's floor. "But I do like the one who guards my church. He should stay!"

Sitting in a neon-orange chair as he waited for a haircut, Firas Adnan, a 27-year-old music student, said: "I really don't know what I want. If the Americans leave right now, there is going to be a massacre in Iraq. But if they don't leave, there will be more problems. From my point of view, though, it would be better for them to go out today than tomorrow."

He paused for a moment, then said, "We just want to go back and live like we did before."
 Shawhan

Joined: 12/2/2006
Msg: 33
view profile
History
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 9:33:40 PM
You all got it wrong except for Springgen's post. For years the Iraqi people want all and any foreign troops out. But they also make it clear and their polls show it, Americans to remain until they can manage on their own. It's current events and history. Liberals should make an effort to be open-minded. All threads about Iraq and America's goals have been very ignorant and quite the same. Read this recent article which covers current articles worldwide and we all know the press is pretty much slanted towards the left. LA times is no exception. This article is not from 2006 and back then, Iraq's leaders were concerned the Democrat lead in Congress was going to order the troops out of Iraq. Bush reassured them that it was not going to happen. That they will not be abandoned, cut and run as liberals have a history of doing. Maliki and the Iraqi people were very worried about withdrawal of American forces in 2006.



By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 11, 2008
BAGHDAD -- Officials in Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's ruling coalition are questioning whether Iraq needs a U.S. military presence even as the two countries press forward with high-pressure negotiations to determine how long American forces will remain.
Some officials in Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party and his larger Shiite United Iraqi Alliance bloc, which has cooperated with the U.S., have spoken in favor of imposing severe restrictions on U.S. forces after the United Nations mandate authorizing their presence expires at the end of the year.
Maliki and President Bush last year outlined goals for an agreement covering military, trade and cultural relations. They pledged to return Iraq to full sovereignty and said the agreement was expected to be finalized by July 31.
According to Iraqis, Americans supported a draft of the agreement that called for allowing U.S. forces to detain Iraqis and conduct missions without the government's permission. They have also said the Americans required up to 58 permanent bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity for troops and contractors.
American officials have refused to disclose their negotiating stance and have accused their critics of deliberately distorting U.S. positions.
David Satterfield, the State Department's senior advisor on Iraq, said Tuesday that the U.S. remained committed to an agreement by late July. He denied that the U.S. was pushing demands that infringed upon Iraq's independence.
"We want to see Iraqi sovereignty strengthened, not weakened," he said.
U.S. forces are scaling back from a massive troop buildup last year known as "the surge," which helped put the brakes on Iraq's civil war. U.S. troop levels are expected to drop to an estimated 140,000 by July as the Americans evaluate the effect of their military reductions on Iraq's security. It remains to be seen whether the fragile peace between the country's Shiite majority and onetime Sunni elite will hold if the Americans quickly leave the country.
United Iraqi Alliance lawmaker Sami Askari, who is considered a member of Maliki's inner circle, said the changes in opinions in many cases are gradual.
"There is the camp who still believe that we need the Americans to stay and the other camp that says we don't need them anymore," Askari said. "You can't draw a line, even within the Dawa Party, even within" the alliance, he said.
Shiite officials like Askari have warned there is no way any Iraqi politician could back the current U.S. security agreement proposals.
"If I'm from the group that believes in the need for the Americans to stay, and then they face me with such a draft, then I'll say, look, I'd rather go with the others," Askari said.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, has defended the agreement. "The recent statements you've heard, the recent politicking you heard by different groups has really been very unhelpful," he said. "There has been no agreement yet.
"Secondly, most of the statements are coming from people who are unaware or not involved in the heart of this negotiating procedure. It has really been used for political brinksmanship," Zebari said.
Senior Iraqi politicians and Western officials confirmed the friction and debate within the alliance about an agreement.
"Of course there are some people who are against it, no doubt," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, who is a leading negotiator on the Iraqi side. Salih vowed that the Kurds, Maliki and the country's presidency council would get approval for a bilateral agreement despite any opposition within the alliance.

Others warned that some Dawa members were seeking to sabotage a long-term deal.

"There is a lot of misrepresentation. It is deliberate. Some people don't want this on principle. Some people may have ideological problems with this. Now they are showing their true colors," said a senior Iraqi official who did not wish to be identified because it could endanger his position.
He warned that even Maliki's backing was not a given. The prime minister is faced with pressure within his party. In the past, officials have described Maliki as flip-flopping on government decisions.
The official described Dawa members as having become overconfident after successful military campaigns this spring in the southern port of Basra, Baghdad's Sadr City and Mosul that relied heavily on U.S. air support to defeat Sunni and Shiite armed groups.
"It has given this false image we are strong enough and we can stand on our own feet, that there is no need for any foreign presence," the official said.
A Western official who works closely with the Iraqi government said the wave of offensives had encouraged Maliki's advisors to dismiss U.S. demands as not worth the price.
"When faced with the question, 'Do we need the Americans?' they are inclined to say, 'No, what do we need them for? We can do just fine,' " said the official, who was not authorized to speak to reporters.
Maliki's advisors are now asking aloud whether the American presence creates more trouble for Iraq with its Arab and Iranian neighbors or whether it safeguards the country's sovereignty, the Western official explained.
During Maliki's trip this week to Iran, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Iraq against such a deal with the Americans. Tehran's protests have been echoed in Lebanon by the armed Shiite political movement Hezbollah and by Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.
Within the two biggest parties in the alliance, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Dawa, there are those who also have long viewed America with mistrust.
"Some never supported a sustained U.S. presence from the Coalition Provisional Authority onwards. Some were willing to accept a limited U.S. presence that brought them to power and then defeated Sunni forces, but oppose lasting ties with a non-Islamic and non- Arab state," said Iraq expert Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Senior members of the alliance say U.S. forces should be called into action only by the Iraqi government. They argue Iraqi forces should be in charge of cities next year and the American troops ought to wait on bases to serve in a backup role.
"If the Americans insist that they have their own mission in Iraq, then an agreement will be difficult to reach," Askari said.
If there is a failure to compromise, Iraq has two options: It can ask for a six-month or yearlong extension of the U.N. mandate, which will allow Iraq time to build up its army and buy weapons, Askari said. The other choice is to go it alone.
Officials like Askari think Iraq could gamble on parting with the Americans and survive.
"For sure we need them [the Americans], but not at any price," Askari said. "I feel we are more secure now. There isn't any chance that civil war will happen. . . . If we feel we have enough power, enough forces, to defend our country, there is no need for friendly troops."
 glamour6

Joined: 4/7/2008
Msg: 34
When You're not Wanted...
Posted: 6/17/2008 9:39:58 PM
Crash.. the Iraqi's as you know walked willingly to voting polls "on their own" several times and much of the voting was done when there was a lot of terrorist activity in Iraq.. no one forced the Iraqi's out to vote so there was no shoving down their throats. they didn't have to leave their homes and walk to voting polls. If Saddam and his regime were still in power they might have been forced or worse, murdered.
Page 2 of 2 1, 2
 
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > When You're not Wanted...