It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Putin Calls For Withdrawal Timetable For Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Moscow, 19 August 2005 (RFE/RL) -- Speaking to reporters in the Black Sea resort of Sochi after a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah, Putin first reiterated his call for an international conference on Iraq.

Putin disapproves of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and insists such a conference might help bring peace to the strife-torn country.

Then the Russian president went one step further. He said it is imperative to draw up a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq.

“We deem it necessary to work out a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq," Putin said. "Many Iraqis, we know this well, still consider these forces to be occupiers."

Encouraging Iraqi insurgents to take part in their country’s political process, he added, is another argument in favor of a swift pullout.

“Resolving this task will enable a significant part of the armed Iraqi resistance to be brought into the process of creating a state," Putin said.

President George W. Bush has consistently rebuffed international calls to set a schedule for withdrawing the 138,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. Putin's plea was no exception.

A few hours after the Russian president's statement, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told a news briefing in Washington that Iraq was not yet ready for a withdrawal of foreign troops.

source


I don't think we should pull out yet, I think maybe in like a year we should set a timetable to pull out. But defintly not yet, we've already spent billions of dollars, and around 2,000 American lives have been lost. It would be stupid to pull out know, especially with all the progress were making.




posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
progress??..
Ah.. yes.. democracy and constitution and all that jazz..



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
progress?!?!..wow I would hate to see what your perceptions are

I suppose all in time we will see what happens with all this...I'm sure there are plenty of reasons we aren't really aware of either going on behind the scenes



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I find the timing interesting of Russia's President Putin insisting on a timetable to exit Iraq. Suppose the joint Russian/China War games, then the proposed Joint venture with the EU for a joint reusable Space Vehicle. Now the above.

Wondering if the moves are just working with other Countries or something else.

Dallas



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
This brings to mind the prophecies of a Russian led invasion of the USA. (see Trumpetersmission.com, it wont let me post, under chronology of events)
Has putin ever threatened us before? Hmmm



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Withdrawal Timetable? What Withdrawal Timetable?!?

I Think that there will be NO Withdrawal at all - it's just something to calm people down at Home. US and Coalition Forces can Never leave the Gulf Area from now on. Not as long as the "Democratic Process" is Happening in countries like Iraq.

And lets Not forget all the OIL Reserves that must be Protected at All Cost!



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I had thought US forces were welcomed and are building a huge base in Qatar and when done will leave Saudi Arabia altogether. If that is true they can remain in the Gulf indefinately. So leaving Iraq's land doesn't put US Forces outside the area really.

Dallas



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

I had thought US forces were welcomed and are building a huge base in Qatar and when done will leave Saudi Arabia altogether. If that is true they can remain in the Gulf indefinately. So leaving Iraq's land doesn't put US Forces outside the area really.

The US Presence in the Gulf is only getting Stronger through the years - and since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Defeat of the Soviet Union, the Influence of United States is just getting bigger and bigger.

Alot of Soldiers and Bases all over the Globe - not just Middle East.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
oil oil thats all this mini little police action is about.gotta keep the gas pump prices down.putin and others are right timetable needed.a direction needed for the sight of many young men giving there lives for oil is a unworthy and foolish.its been done before and never really lasts.sort like peace it sits around for a few but when the meal is over with its back to shooting each other.solution end the use of oil products worldwide change worldwide needs to different source of energy.simple idea but look at those who do not wish to change it.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I guess people expect a country to go from dictatorship to world thriving democracy in 2 years right?
Well I guess you really cant please people who have those views with a general elections and an impeding constitution in 2 years.

By the way even when Iraq is independant and can function on its own the US will probably have bases in it just like we do in England, Germany, Japan, South Korea and so on, so what's the big deal?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
West Point:

I agree with what you're saying. 2 years is simply not enough time for a country to get it's legs. The problem I think people are having is that the US presense there is hindering progress not helping it.

If it is true that the insurgents are there for the US soldiers, then doesn't it fellow that the fewer soldiers, the fewer insurgent's? It is like refusing to argue with someone who has a heated alternate view from your's. You instently deflate them.

I think that is the difference.. but I have been wrong before....



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

If it is true that the insurgents are there for the US soldiers, then doesn't it fellow that the fewer soldiers, the fewer insurgent's?


You really think that if the US soldiers reduce their numbers that the Insurgents and terrorists are going to pack their bags and go home? I’m sorry but I think that is really naive and foolish. The Insurgents want to control Iraq and make it another Afghanistan where they can do what they want undisturbed.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

If it is true that the insurgents are there for the US soldiers, then doesn't it fellow that the fewer soldiers, the fewer insurgent's?


You really think that if the US soldiers reduce their numbers that the Insurgents and terrorists are going to pack their bags and go home? I’m sorry but I think that is really naive and foolish. The Insurgents want to control Iraq and make it another Afghanistan where they can do what they want undisturbed.


Please refrain from calling me names and I promise to refrain from doing the same? Deal


Ofcourse it isn't going to be the terrorist one day noticing there are no more american's so they start to pack their bags.. But by removing the troops there you let what you say you want happen. You let the Iraqi's deal with them.

Lets approach this from a different angle - if you refuse to let the Iraqi's stand on their own, you will forever have to hold their hands. And if they don't want to stand up for themself's and allow themself's to once again be taken over by a dictator or worse - then they get what they get.

Removing Saddam could go either way, but if these people do not have the free will to excersize their freedom, then removing Saddam was as pointless as the rest of the mission.

Regardless of which - America is not the Middle east's baby sitter(or the rest of the worlds for that matter, although your friendship is always appreciated
), nor do they have any real reason to be there. So by removing the troops, you get them out of harms way, you allow the Iraqi people to excersize their freedom and stand on their own two feet while at the same time lessening the reasons for the anamosity that is driving this thing...

Why is this a bad thing again? Where do you see the problem?

Cheers.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
By the way even when Iraq is independant and can function on its own the US will probably have bases in it just like we do in England, Germany, Japan, South Korea and so on, so what's the big deal?

Hmmm...

Vietnam?

AHhh, I remember that did not go very well....



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Please refrain from calling me names and I promise to refrain from doing the same? Deal


I most certainly will, but I did not call you an names. I was talking about your assumption not you.


But by removing the troops there you let what you say you want happen. You let the Iraqi's deal with them...

...you allow the Iraqi people to excersize their freedom and stand on their own two feet while at the same time lessening the reasons for the anamosity that is driving this thing...



We are, the number of Iraqi Army personnel has increased drastically from last year to this year. Most of the new Iraqi army brigades are not yet bale to operate totally independent of US Forces but a small number are. So as more Iraqi Army units are able to take control for the US then our troop numbers go down. But they are not yet ready to take control for most of Iraq. One must crawl before he can walk.


Hmmm...

Vietnam?


Souljah what has that got to do with Vietnam? You remember after WWII when Japan was rebuilding and setting up it government and country again? Yes, well that took 10 years and the US was there for those 10 years to help out. After they rebuilt their country and had a stable government the US pulled its forces out but kept bases there that remain to this very day. Why should Iraqi be any different?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Please refrain from calling me names and I promise to refrain from doing the same? Deal


I most certainly will, but I did not call you an names. I was talking about your assumption not you.


I see, well then, let me give you another one - refrain from saying my assumptions are naive, for that is the same as saying my thinking is naive. I am trying to be polite, refrain from using your doublespeak, or I will point out that those that wish war in public are cowards in private. Keep in mind, I am not calling you a coward, merely people that act like you.. Fair?



Originally posted by WestPoint23

But by removing the troops there you let what you say you want happen. You let the Iraqi's deal with them...

...you allow the Iraqi people to excersize their freedom and stand on their own two feet while at the same time lessening the reasons for the anamosity that is driving this thing...



We are, the number of Iraqi Army personnel has increased drastically from last year to this year. Most of the new Iraqi army brigades are not yet bale to operate totally independent of US Forces but a small number are. So as more Iraqi Army units are able to take control for the US then our troop numbers go down. But they are not yet ready to take control for most of Iraq. One must crawl before he can walk.



Come on, spare me the press releases. The facts are that the US has no interest in leaving if it did it would. There is nothing stopping it. As for the Iraqi force you are trying to build up, I underline the problem that is seemingly missed is "you are building them", they are not Iraqi they are American and so they do not have the respect of those required. In the end, you are playing the shell game. Leave, let them deal with it.

As long as American forces are there, the catalyst is there. Remove the catalyst and you remove the reaction.

Or are you saying that the insurgency is not there because of the American envolvement?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Come on, spare me the press releases. The facts are that the US has no interest in leaving if it did it would.

So say you, the US would have left if the Iraqi's were able to develop their forces up to par with the US forces in two years. Quite a daunting task don't you think? And that's not a press release its reality.


As long as American forces are there, the catalyst is there. Remove the catalyst and you remove the reaction.

Or are you saying that the insurgency is not there because of the American envolvement?


They will not leave if the US leaves, they will remain there until what they want is accomplished. And what they want in my opinion is a Islamic theocracy in Iraq where they have total control and rule. They do not want a democracy in the middle east. Also the US may be the excuse of why they are in Iraq but not the reason.


I see, well then, let me give you another one - refrain from saying my assumptions are naive, for that is the same as saying my thinking is naive.


If you see it that way, they of course I will refrain form further comments.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Come on, spare me the press releases. The facts are that the US has no interest in leaving if it did it would.

So say you, the US would have left if the Iraqi's were able to develop their forces up to par with the US forces in two years. Quite a daunting task don't you think? And that's not a press release its reality.


West point, IMO you are missing the forrest for the tree's. The Iraqi wouldn't need to match the US, because those that are there causing trouble are causing trouble because the US is there. Remove the US, and the crime that the Iraqi forces will have to deal with will be back to a normal level(At least normal for the middle east), they wouldn't have to deal with a war zone.

The reality is the problem people are there from all over the place(Not just Iraq) because the US is there - that is the reality of it. Remove the US, and you and those that are there for the US - those insurgent non-Iraqi's will leave as well. Why? Because they are not Iraqi, unless you are saying the majority of them are Iraqi - in which case shouldn't you leave, that is unless you are saying it is an "invasion" and not a "liberation"?



Originally posted by WestPoint23


As long as American forces are there, the catalyst is there. Remove the catalyst and you remove the reaction.

Or are you saying that the insurgency is not there because of the American envolvement?


They will not leave if the US leaves, they will remain there until what they want is accomplished. And what they want in my opinion is a Islamic theocracy in Iraq where they have total control and rule. They do not want a democracy in the middle east. Also the US may be the excuse of why they are in Iraq but not the reason.


If they do, that is there business but if what you are saying is true, isn't it their chioce and not yours or the US's? I thought it was about freedom? Freedom means to make up your own mind, not to cow tow to what some forgien nation wants. Once again, this goes back to the reason why the US is disliked in many places because they seem to feel that everyone should do it their way, and that is simply not the case my friend. However, I don't think you have to worry about it, even if they did get that what is the harm? What are you so frieghtend of? They are Islamic's, not reapers.



Originally posted by WestPoint23

I see, well then, let me give you another one - refrain from saying my assumptions are naive, for that is the same as saying my thinking is naive.


If you see it that way, they of course I will refrain form further comments.


Thanks my man. I know it probably wasn't meant that way, but these things have a funny way of escalating and then neither side gets their point through.

Back to the topic though. let me ask you this. Why do you suppose that people are worried about an Islamic theocracy? What is the difference between what their government thinks, they can't hurt anyone but their own people, and it is up to those same people that will, if you pardon the expression, "reap what they sow"..

What is it that is so worrisome about it? Please help me out with this, I don't get it.

Cheers mate,



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By

West point, IMO you are missing the forrest for the tree's. The Iraqi wouldn't need to match the US, because those that are there causing trouble are causing trouble because the US is there. Remove the US, and the crime that the Iraqi forces will have to deal with will be back to a normal level(At least normal for the middle east), they wouldn't have to deal with a war zone.

The reality is the problem people are there from all over the place(Not just Iraq) because the US is there - that is the reality of it. Remove the US, and you and those that are there for the US - those insurgent non-Iraqi's will leave as well. Why? Because they are not Iraqi, unless you are saying the majority of them are Iraqi - in which case shouldn't you leave, that is unless you are saying it is an "invasion" and not a "liberation"?



So you are 100% sure that if the US leaves the fighting will stop?

All of a sudden the Sunni's that are the main part of the insurgency will lay down their arms and join the political process right?

They (Sunnis/Baathists) are mainly fighting because they are no longer in power. It's not that the US is there ( I'm sure that is a part ), it is that they got kicked out of power and most of Iraq was happy for that. Now they are the minority and do not like how it feels to no longer be in control. To make the assumptions you are making in my opinion are not realistic. Again I point to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan, these things take time to build and then to take hold. I know that sounds silly in our ADHD society but you can't rush some things no matter how much you want to.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
PAVIL:

Ofcourse I don't know what will happen as a for sure. The only thing I could say for sure, is that if the US leaves, they will no longer be fighting because of the western influence? They have their own reasons to dislike each other within Iraq, but those reasons are their own and an internal matter. That is it is up to the Iraqi's, if they mess it up then they mess it up, it is the right and responsiblity of every free person.

Iraq has a lot of internal problems, they are not going to be easy under the best of situations to solve. There is a lot of distrust and friction between the factions. All of those things though are internal and have to be solved by the Iraqi's themself's. WHy is this hard to see? What am I missing here?

Where you live, I am sure there are problems. Republicans, or Democrates, French sepertists, or Mobsters, young gangs, or gun crimes. Any big city, any place where there are people together will have their problems and friction - but it is up to those living their, and not some forign participation. Would you think it would be cool to have some Russian troops oversee's how you get along with your brother? Trying to change 1000's of years of history and culture because "they" have a hard time with it? How much worse would that feeling be, if because of the foriegn involvement your community was now a breeding ground for more violence?

Seriously guys and gals, Do unto others, as you would have others do to you. It really does work.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join