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.

 

Arab League: US Refusal to Offer Iraq Withdraw Timetable Threatens Stability

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

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


The Arab League Secretary General has joined The Shaghai Group [Including Russia, and China] in calling for an Iraqi withdraw timetable.

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.

They already are home.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by ArchAngel]




posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

At some point we will grow tired and go home.

They already are home.


who is they? can u be more specific? y make a time table wen u are not sure. dat be like saying ill be home at midnight but u still have to stay to finish yer assignment or somthing because of some problems dat just came up.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   


threatens the stability of Iraq


That's just funny to read now isn’t it…as if the country isn’t already unstable?



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

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.


It seems the Iraqi government disagrees with you, because they pleaded for the US to stay another year while they get their military/security forces to the point where they can deal with the problem.


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.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   

No, at some point Iraq will be ready for us to go home, and then we will.


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 government disagrees with you


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.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
With the Arab leaders making ignorant threats to Israel, I doubt that America will ever leave.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

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.


So, when were you over there, ArchAngel? Or are you just reading this stuff off the Internet and not sure whats really happening. Are you just listening to what others write on their websites?

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...

U.S. hands over some military bases to Iraqis
American forces hand over Al-Dibs military base to Iraqi Army in Kirkuk



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


27 bases turned over to Iraq

I guess if you were in charge you would just leave them with nothing.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by andpau66]

[edit on 1-11-2005 by andpau66]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Arab League: US Refusal to Offer Iraq Withdraw Timetable Threatens Stability

Evidently, the Arab League, as par, remains clueless?
First of all, the US-led Coalition has laid down withdrawal timetables, based upon certain goals and criteria to be achieved. As such, apparently, what the Arab League is looking for is exact and specific Times and Dates?

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.







seekerof

[edit on 1-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
What i want to know is what does russia and china want US troops withdraw... don't they want the US be weaken? plus what the hell do they care anyway? lol



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

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?


Yes. Just as we invaded Germany and Japan and numerous other nations and gave it back to their people... Or do you believe that those nations are under US control?


'Liberation' is not achieved until we leave.


I do not agree. We were liberating them from Saddam, admitedly because he posed a potential threat to us, and gave the US no reason to believe otherwise.

We still have bases in Japan, Germany, etc etc etc and those nations are not under US control. The fact is our presence does not mean they are under US control.



It seems the Iraqi people agree with me according to all polls.


Again, the wording of such a poll has more to do with this then anything else. They do not want the US running their cities as we do now (with out military presence). But they also don't want the US to just leave. They understand that they need the US there - at least for the forseeable future.


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, I agree. In the case that the nation is stable within a year to the point where the US can leave without repercutions, they will certainly ask us to do so.

In which case, one must say Bush has done a pretty damn good job, eh? Taking out Saddam and restabilizing that nation within a 5 year time span is one hell of a feat!

If not, we will continue to help them, because the US will not 'get tired and leave' a nation we came to help.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

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...


The bases we are 'handing over' to the Iraqi forces were already there before we invaded.

The 14 enduring bases being constructed are for the American forces.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

"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 a. 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."


and remember wat happened after the Iraq threat was over after the removal of Saddam? all American forces left Saudi Arabia. we move on to the next threat and so on. until Iraq is stabilize and the Iraqi forces able to deal with both external and internal threats, American troops will stay, it says 2006. i believe they expected it.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prodicaliforniason
With the Arab leaders making ignorant threats to Israel, I doubt that America will ever leave.



How can what Iran says have anything to do with how long we occupy Iraq?

It was out of place, but it was only words, and it was not coming from the Iraqi government.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

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]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
How can what Iran says have anything to do with how long we occupy Iraq?


Uhhh, I am pretty poor at geography, but even I knew this:




Notice where Iraq is located in relation to Iran? Now notice what other nations boarder Iran?

Iraq - has US forces
Turkey - has US forces
Afghanistan - has US forces
Kuwait - I am not sure on this one, but I think there are US forces there too

It is pretty clear that if the US were preparing for a showdown with Iran, they would like to surround Iran (as much as possable) before taking any action. This is not to get into the ethical side of it, but from a strategic view, it is obvious why the US would want to stay in Iraq if it were to confront Iran.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

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]


I just read it again and did not see what you are speaking of.

Lets paste the important part here so there is no more confusion from you, or the others.


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.


I believe this supports what I said, and I do not believe what you said is supported by the article.

Maybe you should work on your reading skills.....



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join