Poland talks about leaving Iraq

What about Poland, Mr. Bush? Maybe you shouldn't have reminded them they're dying in Iraq for you.

hosted.ap.org...

Poland Official: Troops Should Leave Iraq

By MONIKA SCISLOWSKA
Associated Press writer

WARSAW, Poland (AP) -- Poland, a key U.S. ally in Iraq, should withdraw its troops from the Mideast nation at the end of next year, Poland's defense minister said in an interview published Monday. It was the first time a Polish official has indicated when Warsaw might end its presence in Iraq.

Jerzy Szmajdzinski argued that 2 1/2 years in Iraq would be "enough" for the Polish military, and said his suggestion was aimed at countering "cheap populism" by opponents of the Polish presence. Prime Minister Marek Belka said he had not been consulted on the remarks and would meet Szmajdzinski later Monday, Poland's PAP news agency reported.

"In my opinion, the deadline (for Poland's mission) should be the date of expiry of the U.N. Security Council's resolution 1546," Szmajdzinski was quoted as telling the Gazeta Wyborcza daily. That resolution provided for the handover of power to Iraqi authorities, with steps that run through the end of next year.

Poland last year took command of a multinational security force in central Iraq that currently includes about 6,000 troops - among them more than 2,400 Polish soldiers. Leaders have previously said they hope to scale down the Polish presence significantly after parliamentary elections in Iraq scheduled for January.

Comments? Is this the beginning of the Coalition house of cards to fall?



[edit on 5-10-2004 by Jakomo]

I don�t know about that. But considering that Poland is not a very rich country and is not as huge as the U.S.A. I think you can�t expect them to keep on being there. After all, their leaders have to be able to explain their voters why they are spending the voter�s $ into a far away war instead of spending it to a better social system, education etc.
Of cours you can start saying now that it is for their good etc. because it is against terrorism, but since Poland hasn�t been hit yet it is probably not in the people�s mind.

Edit: And I doubt that a small country like Poland pulling back could be the end of the so called coalition.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by Calibre]

Originally posted by Calibre
I don�t know about that. But considering that Poland is not a very rich country and is not as huge as the U.S.A. [...] And I doubt that a small country like Poland pulling back could be the end of the so called coalition.

I think only the US, GB, Australia and Poland have actual troops over there no? And the Pol contribution, while obviously not enourmous, is not insignificant either.

Originally posted by Calibre
I think you can�t expect them to keep on being there. [edit on 4-10-2004 by Calibre]

You can't expect them to stay there because they're not reliable allies. Once their government changes, which will happen in autumn or spring, they will move out because all aprties who have chances of creating the governments want PL forces to get out

I think that the countries that have help US in Iraq were not expecting things in Iraq to turn the way they did, I will not hold against them any desired to end their contribution to the coalition. They made their present known alone US forces and UK and now is time to go home. I only wish our troops were given the same choice.

US is a very powerful country like others had said in comparison to countries like Poland.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I think only the US, GB, Australia and Poland have actual troops over there no? And the Pol contribution, while obviously not enourmous, is not insignificant either.

No. A lot of other countries have troops there, I've already said this once, and I woulnd't call significant a help of 2500 guys with only guns and weak cars

Please soften the title of this thread (Poland: "Let's get outta Iraq") to not indicate false quotes attributed to inantimate countries or world leaders.

Call it a pet peeve if you will, but I have the same problem with saying Poland - "Kerry's Debate Stance Immoral" ...which has since been softened and clarified.

On to my personal note:

Poland doesn't know what it thinks. The President facing his own political heat in kinship with Bush is tossing out passive aggressive jabs at Kerry while it's people and the Defense Minister you cite want the hell out of Iraq asap.

There are polls showing the Poles love Bush, while STILL wanting out of Iraq with no looking back. The two aren't even related.

Tons of issues going on here that no one party in American politics truly understands or has ownership over.

Were I "Poland" I'd be ready to say Please Forget Me and leave me out of it.

But as to your point J, yes the "Coalition" is in danger IMHO... though it's never been more than a house of cards anyway.



[edit on 4-10-2004 by RANT]

I think only the US, GB, Australia and Poland have actual troops over there no? And the Pol contribution, while obviously not enourmous, is not insignificant either.

I�ve read here that also Germany has troops inthere. But I can not verify that. Since Poland�s contribution is indeed not enormeous in the eyes of America or UK or so it won�t break any coalition. But for the Polish people, who are not living on the same standards as most of us, this could be insignificant. What is to us a little amount, is for those people a lot. What is for us ONLY 2500 troops with weak cars, is for a country like that a lot. You have to see things in perspective.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Calibre]

You can't expect them to stay there because they're not reliable allies. Once their government changes, which will happen in autumn or spring, they will move out because all aprties who have chances of creating the governments want PL forces to get out

So everyone who is not willing to keep putting money in that war, everybody who does not totally agree with your leaders are not reliable? Lol..
You have to look further than that. You have a pc and it seems you have an internet connection, most of them can�t even afford that. Don�t you think for the people living there, be it politicians or normal guys, there are other ways to spend the money?

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Calibre]

Originally posted by Calibre
So everyone who is not willing to keep putting money in that war, everybody who does not totally agree with your leaders are not reliable? Lol..
You have to look further than that. You have a pc and it seems you have an internet connection, most of them can�t even afford that. Don�t you think for the people living there, be it politicians or normal guys, there are other ways to spend the money?

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Calibre]

They should have thought of that earlier and now feel the consequences of this choice (this is named responsibility) or prove my these that they're not reliable allies

I really think the only reason they are there is the fact that they are the FNG's (efffing new guys) of NATO. So they can't really say no just after joining now can they? Also you would want to use your lovely new NATO guns.

Originally posted by AtheiX
They should have thought of that earlier and now feel the consequences of this choice (this is named responsibility) or prove my these that they're not reliable allies

This isn't getting through to you, is it? They pitched what they could, and for a former Warsaw Pact country they're doing pretty well.

Next, the word you're looking for is 'thesis'.

Poland has better things to do with its troops, like guard its borders and not watch them die in a losing war. Just because the US and other countries feel that they can afford to throw away lives, time, money, and equipment doesn't mean that Poland hasn't contributed. It did. Now, it's gotten wise and it's jumping off a sinking ship.

DE

It all depends on what they were promised in order to join the Coalition of the Weenies.

Bribed, cajoled, bullied, whatever, they joined for a reason, and none of it had to do with getting rid of Saddam (because honestly, what the heck did Poland have to worry about from Al Qaeda).


To me this sounds the death knell for the Coalition. If countries are pulling out, it will make it incredibly difficult for the US to attract the UN to help out in Iraq.

Of course, military powerhouses like Pulau and the Marshall Islands are still in there, so all is not lost.

They should have thought of that earlier and now feel the consequences of this choice (this is named responsibility) or prove my these that they're not reliable allies

Erm, nope. Do you happen to know what exactly was told to them before they went in? I don�t think so.
Just like other people, they might have NOT known what other people know now. Which is that info was faked or was rewritten to make it look more serious etc. etc.
It is indeed called responability and therefore probably for them a good decision. Now in the first place, who are their responability? The U.S.A. and their coallition, or their OWN citizens? Who voted them exactly in the office? Who is paying their wage? Of course, the U.S.A. helped them out with stuff all ready probably, but that is not the issue. Other countries leaders have a responsability for their own people first IMO, and then for others. You don�t have the right to blame them or call them unreliable because they do not follow your leaders blindly and because they have better ways to spend money. Do you even know Poland and where they come from? If yes, then how come you don�t understand they have other things to do first. They also went allready a long way into a better place, but there is still a lot to do for them.

And just a question: U speak of unreliable, how do you call your President and Intelligence then who misinformed people and still are doing that?

To me this sounds the death knell for the Coalition. If countries are pulling out, it will make it incredibly difficult for the US to attract the UN to help out in Iraq.

The problem IMO here is that @ first the USA did not listen to the UN and invaded anyway, and now are calling the UN for help? What a joke. So first he doen�t listen and we are crap and not needed, but suddenly we are needed when things don�t go as expected.
I don�t think that this is serious. It seems some people did underestimate the situation in Iraq aswell as they underestimated the different problems as there are:
-Huge disagreements and fights between the different Religions.
-Now the Kurds are coming into the conflict with their expectations also.
-The number of people that really dislike the West and what we stand for.
-The not being capable of shutting down the resistance.
-The not being able to shut down the resources of the resistance.
-The difficulties tracking and understanding who in fact the resistance is.
etc. etc.

As it goes now, I think any country being asked to "join" will think twice and say "No thank you" .

Say what Calibre?
You think that any country asked to join will think twice? Really.
Question then for all those anybody but Bush folks, if asked by Kerry to join, would they?
I'm just interested in seeing just how objective your comments really are...




seekerof

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Seekerof]

If I read "The end of next year" right, they means the end of 2005. You know, hoping to have their troops out of Iraq in 15 months isn't a major declaration.

Resolution 1546 declares that by December 2005 a Constitutionally elected government is suppsoed to take over full control from Iraq. The occupation is to end at the same time.

So basically, this is a statement that Poland will leave exactly when it's supposed too. I fail to see how this is news.

10-4 on that one Esoterica.
Resolution 1546



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Say what Calibre?
You think that any country asked to join will think twice? Really.
Question then for all those anybody but Bush folks, if asked by Kerry to join, would they?
I'm just interested in seeing just how objective your comments really are...

You mean suppose Kerry wins and he asks to join the coallition and get troops in? I think those countries will react the same. If you as leader of a poor country get asked to spend a lot of money on something, to send soldiers into war (with of course the chance they might get killed), do you think it makes a difference? Think not.

That I think that they will think twice has nothing to do with a subjective opinion about this or another President. Think logic, would you do it?
Would you send your people into a war that is not yours? Would you spend your money on that while you can do better things at home with it ?
Would you do it for the sake of another country?

And apart from that. I don�t need to take a position, because I am not American so I don�t have to vote. I do not see what it has to do with my answer either, but you are welcome to explain me. Anyway, I will tell you anyway, I do not like Bush and his people no. I think he has done pretty stupid things and I think he is isolating America from other countries. But that was not the issue, was it? And for the record, I have nothing against Americans, an Uncle of me is American, I have American friends..all quite nice.

Edit: And since someone came up with the fact they probably pull out when they where meant to pull out, I have even more questions about the fact that they are called unreliable lol.
And as for your signature Seekerof, I happen to live in a city wellknown to Luther, maybe also to you

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Calibre]