Putin Calls For Withdrawal Timetable For Iraq

Passerby I was merely pointing out that things will take time.

I again point to the reconstruction of Germany and Japan, they did not happen in 2 years time. Would they have succeed as well as they have if not for the effort put in by "outside forces". Would the USA even exists if not for the "interference in internal matters" that the French did during the War of Independence?

I hear where you are comming from, it just seems that you would rather they just destroy themselves and start fresh from there. Isn't it better that we attempt to do it by active cooperation with them rather than the "if they are stuck with a dictator than thats their own fault" attitude that you seem to display. Would it make you feel better if it was the UN "Imposing" its will on Iraq. What good does it do in the grand scheme of things to leave Iraq halfway through its attempt at reconstruction and experiment with democratic ideas? It will take time, effort and stamina to see that Iraq has a chance without even more bloodshed.

I see what you are saying Pavil, and I am sure it is a very good point. It seems many agree with that. I don't really think it is a matter of "if they get stuck with a dictator it is theri fault", but what else are you given? Any involvement from any outside source will be seen as a problem by them. I think this is shown by history, and that there is a fundimental difference in how we preceive the world.

I understand how Germany was rebuilt, but Germany was still western European and as such shared many similarities to the victor's. I don't say that to diminish the incredible resolve it took to acheive getting Germany back up and running, but it must be said that the job was easier with the comman grounding. As it would be hard for an American to step in and understand Canadian issues and culture, but not impossible(although I am sure it would seem that way) and vice versa. Because we fundimentally look at the world through very similar eyes. This is simply not the case in the middle east.

It is a very complex problem and I am sure I really don't "know" what will happen one way or another. It is just that when I think about how I would react given the situation I would want the invaders, no matter how well intentioned, to leave. The actions from Iraq would seem to say that others feel as I figure I would feel. It would seem that, if the invaders left, the reason to fight would be gone. Unless we are talking about those really crazied nutso's, in which case they have always stated it is Western involvment that causes them to be that way, so you at least find out if what they say is true.

It is a win win from my perspective. Iraqi's get Iraq to do with and run as they see fit. The terrorists loose a major reason for thier anger, which would also cut down on enrollment(People aren't really all that willing to die over some made up evil once they find out they are just made up) which is good for the future and the only risk is whether people are willing to fight for their freedom? Seems like a pretty good gamble to me..

Let me ask you this, where is the problem that you see? Not that we have always done it "this" way before, or look at this case or that case - where do you see the problem here? An imploding Iraq? Civil war? Death destruction? Don't we already have that?

Cheers.

Are you sure that if we pull out then the Iraqi's will get Iraq?
I highly doubt that would be the case. Remember the large number of foriegn fighters? Remember that the neighbors do NOT welcome a country ruled by the people over there? I doubt there attempt at self-rule would last a month if we pulled out now.
Speaking of Vietnam, remember how fast the South fell?

Crowne;

You seem to hold the same beleif as the others. I really do seem to be the lone gunman on this one huh?

No, I really don't "know" for sure what will happen, and what seem to be your concern may in fact happen. Maybe those people that came from outside Iraq to disrupt and fight the US occupation will stay there...

but if they moved to fight the US once, isn't there more of a chance they will move again instead of staying in a foriegn land with no enemy to combat?

Isn't it also, at that point an internal Iraqi matter for them, and not the outside foriegners(Whether that is terrorists, or the US/K)?

Is there not some evidence that at least some of the attacks on the US come from actual Iraqi's? If they will fight an invasion from the AMerican's, then isn't it logical to assume they will fight other invaders as well once the Americans leave?

I have been very good not to point out the reason none of this, IMO< will happen and that is because this has never been about the people of Iraqi, nor about Saddam, nor about WMD's... it is a lie as evidensed by the actions of the forces there.

Putin Calls For Withdrawal Timetable For Iraq

And Putin plans on pulling out of Chechnya on a timely "withdrawal" exactly when? We'll leave the day after Russia withdrawals from there, among a few other occupied places [Georgia, Moldova, etc].

All this coming from a man who represents a country that occupied Afghanistan in the mid-1980s with a loss of over 15,000 Russian troops; the US lossing less than 200 in nearly 4 years of being in Afghanistan and 1850+ in Iraq.

Must be making him look bad, thus his call for a Coalition "withdrawal timetable".






seekerof


[edit on 21-8-2005 by Seekerof]

That must be it Seekerof...

Silly rabbits, deflection of issue is for kids.

Hey why stop there, let any country that has had a blemish on it's history keep it's mouth shut? Would be great,, never have to hear from any country ever again...

Or, maybe Putin wants to know because it is unstabilizing the entire world? Nah, must be jelousy...

And Putin wants to know for what distracting reason?
Putin is a ex-KGB snake talking and acting with fork-tongue.

The hypocrite has no validity whatsoever to demand, entertain, or request a US and Coalition "withdrawal timetable" when his own nation is occupying a number of countries.

If you think I am "deflecting from issues", Putin is doing far more, but hey, they tell me that even a seeing man can be blind when he so chooses to be...thus preventing one who normally has adequate vision from seeing such. Goes hand-in-hand with the horse blinders theory.





seekerof

Yes Seekerof, it is Putin that is deflecting the issue, not those that aren't answering the simple question..

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I guess people expect a country to go from dictatorship to world thriving democracy in 2 years right?

Yes, since that was the goal. American, British and Australian news was inundated with the excuse that a reason for this war was to remove a dictator and install democracy which the Iraqs would welcome.

Two years later, they have not only not welcomed it, but a major delay with regard writing a constitution has to do with the Shia fighting to set in place a religious state.

Such is not democracy.

Originally posted by Passer By
I really do seem to be the lone gunman on this one huh?

Just so you know, you're may be a lone gunman, but you're not alone. I support your viewpoint 100%. I'm simply sick to death of arguing something that I think is so very obvious!

I just finished watching Dead Wrong on CNN about the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. It's about the intelligence that was misrepresented, twisted, buried and made up so that we could 'reasonably' go to war. And by the way, a "democracy in Iraq" was never mentioned, so although we supposedly went to war for several other reasons, "democracy in Iraq" wasn't one of them. Not even close. Not ever.

Right now, I'm taping Inside 9/11 on National Geographic. It's about the intelligence leading up to 9/11. The intelligence we ignored, swept under the rug, lied about and played down that made our country vulnerable to the attacks of 9/11.

Like I said, it's just all so obvious to me, I can't really see any purpose in arguing about it with people who are determined to believe the official policy line. But we're here, cheering you on! You go, Passer By!

These Putin affirmations could be just show-off, for now.

But think of the consequences if, 10 years from now, the whole middle-east oil and gas reserves belong to the Americans, along with: space weapons, the biggest military in the world, etc.

This unbalance of power would cause unberarable discomfort for some other countries.

Passerby, sorry for the spelling.

Is there ever a time when it is ok to interfere in the internal affairs of a nation?

For example, was it right for Nato to interfere in the Balkans?
I sure there was some resistance there, should we have just packed up and left them to their fate? What do you think would have happend?

What about in the Sudan or Liberia?

I know the US went into Iraq and effected changes, should we not try to assist the people of Iraq with the rebuilding. If not us then who should do it? It seems plain to me that Iraq is going to need some help to stablilze and have a chance. Who is going to help them? The UN? The Arab League, Germany? Talk is cheap as they say, actions speak volumes. While you may or may not have opposssed the war at the start, do you oppose helping Iraq when then obviously NOW need assistance the most.



[edit on 21-8-2005 by pavil]

PAVIL: (Never worry about spelling with me bro, I am the world worst!! Seriously, I have spelt my own name wrong once...)

Good point. Is it OK for nation to interfer in the processes of another country? I supposed if they were asked would be an obvious one, but that doesn't really happen.

No, unfortunately the problem is never going to be that obvious. So really the question that is being asked is when is it OK for someone else decide what is right for you without your consent.

I can make a pretty compelling case that the divide in America right now, along with the military and political might, along with the news about ID tags, the recent documents on plans the US is spying on it's own citizens, and possible military diploment(or some such tripe) within it's boarders, the obvious friction between the "ruling class" and the "average anti-war" guy that some outside country should step in and teach America how to act and run a country.. In fact there is more global danger in the States than anywhere else when you consider the arsonal the States have... But fundimentally isn't the American's in charge of America? Wouldn't the invading Country's military merely add more damage to an already damaged country(From the possible perspective of another country, maybe acting through bungled information)...

No, I am afraid I simply can not see a scenerio where the addition of an invading, or occupying force truly helps any place. America's problems are for the Americans to deal with. Canadian problems are for Canadians to deal with, and by logical extention Iraqi problems are for Iraqi's to deal with.

In the end they may need someone's help, but let them ask for it before anyone starts to assume we know better than they.

If there is a problem after a full withdraw from Iraq, let the Iraqi's deal with it.
If they don't want to deal with it, then it isn't a big problem for the Iraqi's then and thus we should stay out of it.
If they can't deal with it, then they can ask for help.
If they don't ask for help , it must be assumed they don't want the help.

This isn't really that hard to understand. Put yourself in the average person's place and ask yourself if you would feel better or worse with forgien troops on your soil. If you wouldn't like it, what would make anyone think anyone else would?

But really - does anyone think the US is there because of the Iraqi people?


[edit on 21-8-2005 by Passer By]

Realistically, every day it looks more like retreat at this early point would cause Iraq to be carved up by its neighbors.
It could become a focus for regional war.
Putin and China could be manoeuvering for destabilization and planning to pick up the pieces, but there are no signs of military buildups.
They could also be manoeuvering for destabilization by itself, since this would severely affect the US (and Europe) economically.

But this kind of speech could be rhetoric intended to prepare the climate for a deployment of russian and chinese peace-keepers in oil-producing Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, etc. They can't rely on the locals for the stability of oil supplies (just as the Americans can't rely on the Saudis).

Originally posted by Passer By
No, I am afraid I simply can not see a scenerio where the addition of an invading, or occupying force truly helps any place. America's problems are for the Americans to deal with. Canadian problems are for Canadians to deal with, and by logical extention Iraqi problems are for Iraqi's to deal with.

In the end they may need someone's help, but let them ask for it before anyone starts to assume we know better than they.

If there is a problem after a full withdraw from Iraq, let the Iraqi's deal with it.
If they don't want to deal with it, then it isn't a big problem for the Iraqi's then and thus we should stay out of it.
If they can't deal with it, then they can ask for help.
If they don't ask for help , it must be assumed they don't want the help.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Passer By]

The Iraqi's that now form the new government of Iraq have not requested that the coalition forces leave. In fact they have said that until Iraqi forces are up to the task:
Iraq's P.M. asks U.N.to extend its authorization for U.S. forces to stay

Passer By, it seems lraq has asked for help. What would you do now? Turn our back on them? Just because a minority (Sunni/Baath) oppose the new government does not mean that there are those in Iraq who see the need for the coalition to stay until Iraq can be in the postion to successfully take care of itself. What is the sense of leaving Iraq now, letting chaos happen, and then comming back to assist them if they then ask for the help? Your statements just don't seem to flow logically.