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.
The U.S. refusal to offer a timetable for withdrawing its troops from Iraq threatens the stability of Iraq, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mussa told the Egyptian daily Roz al-Yusef in remarks published Oct 30. He said the Arab League sees "the end of the foreign occupation" as a necessary prerequisite to progress in Iraq.
Source
Originally posted by ArchAngel
At some point we will grow tired and go home.
They already are home.
threatens the stability of Iraq
Originally posted by ArchAngel
American denialists with all of their propaganda cannot change the fact that the resistance is inspired by the continuation of the occupation.
Resistance is not something you can defeat by bombing cities, and killing people.
At some point we will grow tired and go home.
No, at some point Iraq will be ready for us to go home, and then we will.
It seems the Iraqi government disagrees with you
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Maybe you think this, and I would like to believe it myself, but then I remember the 14 long term bases we are building.
Did you really think Bush was going to invade Iraq just so we could give it back to the Iraqi people?
'Liberation' is not achieved until we leave.
US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
.....
A senior US official in Baghdad said yesterday: "It has always been a main plank of our exit strategy to withdraw from the urban areas as and when Iraqi forces are trained up and able to take the strain. It is much better for all concerned that Iraqis police themselves."
Under the plan, for which the official said there was no "hard-and-fast" deadline, US troops would gradually concentrate inside four heavily fortified air bases, from where they would provide "logistical support and quick reaction capability where necessary to Iraqis". The bases would be situated in the north, south, west and centre of the country.
....
A source at the Iraqi defence ministry said: "We expect these facilities will ultimately be to the benefit of the domestic forces, to be handed over when the US leaves."
Source
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Maybe you think this, and I would like to believe it myself, but then I remember the 14 long term bases we are building.
Did you really think Bush was going to invade Iraq just so we could give it back to the Iraqi people?
'Liberation' is not achieved until we leave.
It seems the Iraqi people agree with me according to all polls.
And please note the Iraq government asked that they be allowed to terminate the extended UN mandate at any time, not another year without exception.
Oh yeah, 14 long term bases. The Iraqi military need bases, buddy. I don't believe they have the time or resources do that right now when they could be focusing on helping stop car bombs going off in market places.
When we leave, guess what? The Iraqi military will have 14 brand new permanent bases for them to move right into quickly. That way they don't have to sleep on the ground when we leave.. they can move right in. Just like these...
"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations for the coalition in Iraq, said the military engineers are trying to prepare for any eventuality.
"This is a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East," Kimmitt said. "[But] the engineering vision is well ahead of the policy vision. What the engineers are saying now is: Let's not be behind the policy decision. Let's make this place ready so we can address policy options."
Well, I suppose the Arab League needs to get in touch with the Iraqi leadership/cabinet or the UN?
Try this on for size. About as close to a timetable as it currently is going to get:
Iraq asks U.N. to let U.S.-led Coalition stay another year.
Originally posted by Prodicaliforniason
With the Arab leaders making ignorant threats to Israel, I doubt that America will ever leave.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Did you read the article?
They are not saying they want America to stay for another year.
They are allowing the mandate to be extended so long as they have the right to ask America to leave before the time expires.
It is not a blank check they offered.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
How can what Iran says have anything to do with how long we occupy Iraq?
Originally posted by Seekerof
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Did you read the article?
They are not saying they want America to stay for another year.
They are allowing the mandate to be extended so long as they have the right to ask America to leave before the time expires.
It is not a blank check they offered.
The real question here is did you read the article, ArchAngel?
In your haste, did you mis-interpret what the article said?
Iraq is asking the UN to extend the mandate allowing the US-led Coalition to stay upwards of another year. Now is it not ironic that such was asked, and yet, the ever-clueless Arab League is demanding a timetable?! If the clueless Arab League was up to speed on such an Iraqi requested UN extension, then why-o-why are they, as with you, chanting the need for a timetable? It would seem abundantly clear that a withdrawal timetable depends upon the Iraq government and their need for the US-led Coalition to be maintained in Iraq, now would it not?
The only exception to the UN granted extension to the previous mandate is that there be a clause added that the Iraqi government can terminate such mandate when it deems appropriate or ready to do so, based on the already established [last year, matter of fact] criteria and goals for a US-led Coalition withdrawal timetable.
There is nothing new here, being the US-led Coalition and Iraqi government have stated time and time again what the criteria and goals were for a withdrawal, and there is nothing new in the Arab League, as with anyone else against the US-led Coalition being in Iraq, asking and asserting that they want exact times and dates. Nothing but rehashed verbage, 'a' typical of the esteemed but ever-clueless Arab League, among others.
seekerof
[edit on 1-11-2005 by Seekerof]
Jaafari said the government in Baghdad wanted the right to terminate the mandate before the end of 2006 if it decided to do so. He also asked the council to agree to review the new mandate eight months after its approval or at any other time if asked to do so by Baghdad.