| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:41 pm Iraqis Say There Should Be Troop Timetable |
|
| Quote: | Iraqis Say There Should Be Troop Timetable
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:30 a.m. ET
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, seeking common ground for their political future together, agreed Monday there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops, and that resistance was the right of all -- but that acts of terror should be condemned.
After hours of negotiations at the Arab League, the participants in a national accord conference reached a final statement aimed at showing the points of agreement between the communities.
The three-day gathering was held to prepare for a wider conference due to be held in February in Iraq, part of a U.S.-backed league attempt to bring the communities closer together and assure Sunni Arab participation in a political process now dominated by Iraq's Shiite majority and large Kurdish minority.
The participants in Cairo agreed on ''calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation'' and end terror attacks.
''The Iraqi people are looking forward to the day when the foreign forces will leave Iraq, when its armed and security forces will be rebuilt and when they can enjoy peace and stability and get rid of terrorism,'' the statement said.
Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time -- reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.
On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council earlier this month could be the last.
''By mid next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready,'' he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.
The conference's final statement also stated that ''resistance is a legitimate right for all people'' -- a nod to Sunni Arab leaders who have sought to distinguish Iraqi insurgents they say are resisting the U.S. presence in Iraq from terrorism.
But the statement added, ''Terrorism is not legitimate resistance and thus we condemn terrorism and the acts of violence, killings and kidnappings that target Iraqi citizens; civil, governmental and humanitarian organizations; national wealth and houses of worships. We ask that they be immediately confronted.''
It also condemned the declaring of some Iraqis infidels -- an ideology advocated by some of the Islamic militants in Iraq's insurgency to justify some of their attacks.
The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times and at one point saw Shiite and Kurdish delegates storm out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans.
A major goal of the conference was to resolve who can attend the wider gathering in February. Shiites have been skeptical of the conference from the start and strongly opposed participation by Sunni Arab officials from the former Saddam regime or from pro-insurgency groups.
The statement also stressed the participants commitment to the Iraq's unity. It called for releasing all ''innocent detainees'' who have not been convicted by courts and asked that allegations of torture be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.
The statement also demanded ''an immediate stop to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order.''
Participants asked the Arab countries to support Iraq by eliminating or reducing its debts and strengthening the Arab diplomatic presence in Baghdad.
|
Now Iraq wants us to set a timetable for withdrawl, are we going to deny the country we are occupying that right?
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:53 pm |
|
If more than just these few leaders say that there should be a timetable, then a general timetable should be established. But it's just a (relative) few leaders.
Now, I think that putting forth a timetable would be absolutely detremental and that the mission would be in vain and that Iraq would descend back to what it once was--only, in terms of terrorism, worse. That's why I question this, and I question whether or not these Iraqis really know how much their military forces are ready to take over, like the US trainers and commanders on the field know.
I think it's one thing for politicians to sit around and say, "Okay, we want this to happen" but it's another for it to actually be practical.
I say that if they call for a timetable, it should not be an absolute schedule listing dates and what have you, but it should be a list of specific tasks that we wish to complete, how we're going to go about them, and when we EXPECT to have these certain tasks acomplished, however leave room for more time.
Setting a true timetable would only embolden the terrorists and allow for a sharp propaganda tool for them as well, and allow for a terrorists state to return. And so I question whether or not these Iraqis really know what they're saying. However, it is good to know that they're taking control of their own country and are meeting to do different things themselves, taking action. I really don't think it wise to set a true timetable, or doom will come. We should simply do something similar to it, like I said above. I think that that might be acceptable of the Iraqis as well. (Remember, these are leaders that have power now and I think that part of it is that they want the US out so that they can really really assume their power, while those regular ordinary Iraqis know that they're not yet secure enough and that a timetable would be detrimental to them.)
List out some goals and some LOGICAL, HOPED times for them, as well as how to go about it. I think that that's acceptable and would fit the call for a "timetable" while at the same time not embolden the terrorists and have a really negative effect.
I've heard from many troops on the ground, too. They know what would happen if a timetable occurred to soon. I'd advise caution to these Iraqis when developing such calls.
And finally, with regards to the US on this, we have a great stake in Iraq. We need to be SURE that Iraq is secure enough before we pull out, or the UNITED STATES and our allies could be HURT by a failure in Iraq. The US should have a say in this, I really do think, in all seriousness.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:04 pm |
|
Well I do hope that we are going to get out of Iraq sometime. Eventually, they do need to sit down and plan out a timetable. I personally think that now would be a good time to start planning our withdrawal. I don't think that we need to withdraw all at once, but beginning a slow, steady withdrawal in the near future is what I am hoping for.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:06 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | Well I do hope that we are going to get out of Iraq sometime. Eventually, they do need to sit down and plan out a timetable. I personally think that now would be a good time to start planning our withdrawal. I don't think that we need to withdraw all at once, but beginning a slow, steady withdrawal in the near future is what I am hoping for. |
We're not ready for that, and it would only embolden the terrorists and hurt everyone, except the terrorists. We should wait AT LEAST six months before we start to consider withdrawing troops and really planning out a timetable. It's way too soon to begin doing that. I would like to see the US almost entirely out by mid- to late-2007. But we have to wait until we're really ready to start planning withdrawal.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:07 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I've heard from many troops on the ground, too. They know what would happen if a timetable occurred to soon. |
Get them to let you use their names, or don't use this as a "source" anymore, ty.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:08 pm |
|
Ever thought that maybe it would embolden the Iraqis, and make them want to get ready to take on their new government? As it is, no one can see where the end is. That can't really help.
...just a thought, though, play with it as you will.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:11 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Puck wrote: | | Well I do hope that we are going to get out of Iraq sometime. Eventually, they do need to sit down and plan out a timetable. I personally think that now would be a good time to start planning our withdrawal. I don't think that we need to withdraw all at once, but beginning a slow, steady withdrawal in the near future is what I am hoping for. |
We're not ready for that, and it would only embolden the terrorists and hurt everyone, except the terrorists. We should wait AT LEAST six months before we start to consider withdrawing troops and really planning out a timetable. It's way too soon to begin doing that. I would like to see the US almost entirely out by mid- to late-2007. But we have to wait until we're really ready to start planning withdrawal. |
You say six months now, but I don't know why six more months is going to magically make a difference. Supposedly we have already been victorious in Iraq and have seen the end of major combat now. I really don't think us staying there, is going to do anything except for maintain the current situation. We have to pull out sometime. Of course it is not 100% safe, but it will never be.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:19 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | I've heard from many troops on the ground, too. They know what would happen if a timetable occurred to soon. |
Get them to let you use their names, or don't use this as a "source" anymore, ty. |
I don't know them, because I've heard it on the TV (Oliver North in Iraq and on other shows) and on talk radio, also hearing parents of troops still in there who know what they're kids are telling them, as well as parents of fallen soldiers there. They've given first-hand accounts, so it's not like it's Hannity simply reading what they're saying but troops calling into him, Rush, and other saying these things.
| Puck wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Puck wrote: | | Well I do hope that we are going to get out of Iraq sometime. Eventually, they do need to sit down and plan out a timetable. I personally think that now would be a good time to start planning our withdrawal. I don't think that we need to withdraw all at once, but beginning a slow, steady withdrawal in the near future is what I am hoping for. |
We're not ready for that, and it would only embolden the terrorists and hurt everyone, except the terrorists. We should wait AT LEAST six months before we start to consider withdrawing troops and really planning out a timetable. It's way too soon to begin doing that. I would like to see the US almost entirely out by mid- to late-2007. But we have to wait until we're really ready to start planning withdrawal. |
You say six months now, but I don't know why six more months is going to magically make a difference. Supposedly we have already been victorious in Iraq and have seen the end of major combat now. I really don't think us staying there, is going to do anything except for maintain the current situation. We have to pull out sometime. Of course it is not 100% safe, but it will never be. |
Good point. Perhaps saying six months isn't right, good point, but we should wait until we really see a decrease in the amount of attacks there and Iraqis truly ready to fight and take over in more numbers than are ready. That's why I say that we should have a general idea of tasks to complete, how we'll complete those tasks, and a hopeful time for those tasks to complete, and using that HOPEFUL time as a guide can GUESSTIMATE when we should be ready to leave. A definite timetable isn't good. It could only do harmful things, with mild good things. But a general IDEA timetable is something I'm fine with. It doesn't give the terrorists something to work around, but it gives a general idea to the American people and Iraqis--something that I would agree this administration is not giving us and we should have, and I don't think that giving such a general list of tasks, etc. would help the terrorists like a full-fledged timetable would be.
I hope that's something that we can agree on.
FYI, if I were Zarqowi or some terrorist leader in Iraq, and I heard of a timetable, I would limit the attacks going on until the withdrawal time and once foreign troops are withdrawn I would go all-out and start taking serious action again, taking over the country. But that's just me, however that's something I would think that the terrorists would plan on doing.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:23 pm |
|
And what if the terrorists do try something then? Iraq would, presumably, have a new, stable government, and their own policing system. Sounds like a ways off to me, but that would be true success, and it seems to me we should leave with a success now that we're there.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:23 pm |
|
Then give the sources in the first place, RM.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:32 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | And what if the terrorists do try something then? Iraq would, presumably, have a new, stable government, and their own policing system. Sounds like a ways off to me, but that would be true success, and it seems to me we should leave with a success now that we're there. |
That's the thing, though. If we have a timetable, then that means that there's the likely possibility that they won't be ready at that time, which is what we can't have. That's why I say that we should have a general, flexible timetable that really allows room for success and the administration to clearly lay out, for the American people, what our goals right now are. We need to lay out our tasks there--what we wish to accomplish--first. Then we need to plan out a hopeful guessing time for when those goals will be accomplished and really work towards it. Then, once those goals are truly being completed, we can talk about withdrawal and slowly withdraw our troops from Iraq.
This way the terrorists can't clearly plan around it, and at the same time we'd be leaving Iraq a very successful, free, and democratic place. All of us agree that we have to leave with success, and that's why I feel that a loose timetable would be appropriate. Especially a lot more so than a definite timetable, which would result in negative effects. This would mean that, yes, they would have a solid, defendable, stable government that would mean that we could get out and they could take over for themselves, because we will have left at the truly appropriate time and they will really be truly ready, not a false ready.
Could you agree with that, Exalya?
EDIT: I think that this would also embolden the Iraqis to help them know that if these goals are completed, then they can fully take over. Therefore, they would work even harder to complete these tasks, take things into their own hands, and win, all while still allowing for true success and not giving something for the terrorists to work around.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:41 pm |
|
We are making progress in freein the Iraqi people. Are you in control of how long to leave the troops over there? I wish Charlie would get online. He has been over there twice. Media is bull. Lies media is.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:56 pm |
|
Nah, the media isn't lies. It does report things biased, but it can't outright lie. There is such a thing as libel.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:03 pm |
|
I feel they need to stay over there just a little bit longer. Not forever though 
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:43 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Exalya wrote: | | And what if the terrorists do try something then? Iraq would, presumably, have a new, stable government, and their own policing system. Sounds like a ways off to me, but that would be true success, and it seems to me we should leave with a success now that we're there. |
That's the thing, though. If we have a timetable, then that means that there's the likely possibility that they won't be ready at that time, which is what we can't have. That's why I say that we should have a general, flexible timetable that really allows room for success and the administration to clearly lay out, for the American people, what our goals right now are. We need to lay out our tasks there--what we wish to accomplish--first. Then we need to plan out a hopeful guessing time for when those goals will be accomplished and really work towards it. Then, once those goals are truly being completed, we can talk about withdrawal and slowly withdraw our troops from Iraq.
This way the terrorists can't clearly plan around it, and at the same time we'd be leaving Iraq a very successful, free, and democratic place. All of us agree that we have to leave with success, and that's why I feel that a loose timetable would be appropriate. Especially a lot more so than a definite timetable, which would result in negative effects. This would mean that, yes, they would have a solid, defendable, stable government that would mean that we could get out and they could take over for themselves, because we will have left at the truly appropriate time and they will really be truly ready, not a false ready.
Could you agree with that, Exalya?
EDIT: I think that this would also embolden the Iraqis to help them know that if these goals are completed, then they can fully take over. Therefore, they would work even harder to complete these tasks, take things into their own hands, and win, all while still allowing for true success and not giving something for the terrorists to work around. |
If you ask me, any timetable the government sets up is loose.  They could change it as they like, they always do. I don't think that being so insufferably vague on this thing is good, though. It feels like we're never going to get out. Setting goals and a reasonable time to shoot for would be nice.
I didn't ever disagree with you. I was tossing out a thought. Personally, I think we do need a generalized idea of when we can get out. It think it would be nicer both for our troops, and for the Iraqi people. Setting it exactly? I.E.:
WE ARE LEAVING DECEMBER 31ST READY OR NOT.
...uh, no. That's just unreal. No rational schedule is truly inflexible.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:50 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | I've heard from many troops on the ground, too. They know what would happen if a timetable occurred to soon. |
Get them to let you use their names, or don't use this as a "source" anymore, ty. |
Troops do care about being there. My uncle and his best friend are in Iraq right now. His friend recently died from a roadside bomb.
No, I won't put their names down because I care about confidentiality.
Liberals can ignore it all they want, but there are troops who believe they are doing something good.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:53 pm |
|
I know quite a few who disagree with the war, as well. It doesn't really make all that much difference what the troops think in the long run, as long as they're compliant.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:56 pm |
|
I know there are many who disagree. I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing the lie that Liberals made that soldiers are begging to be saved and "hope is on the way" or whatever that stupid phrase Kerry spewed out.
These leaders are either really stupid or corrupt. A timetable is not something you do when fighting a war. I've never even heard of that being done before...
If we lose, the terrorists will simply hide out until the troops leave. Then all hell will break out again.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:01 pm |
|
Well, in all likelyhood a timetable has already been created, it just hasn't been released. It's not as if a government would invest billions and not have such a plan.
And there are soldiers who are talking about how much they hate it there, and how it isn't safe, and that it's an unjust war, essentially "begging to be saved," and quite often it's because of pathetic reasons like them not having body armor, etc.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:02 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Theresa wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | I've heard from many troops on the ground, too. They know what would happen if a timetable occurred to soon. |
Get them to let you use their names, or don't use this as a "source" anymore, ty. |
Troops do care about being there. My uncle and his best friend are in Iraq right now. His friend recently died from a roadside bomb.
No, I won't put their names down because I care about confidentiality.
Liberals can ignore it all they want, but there are troops who believe they are doing something good. |
I do believe I said to give names when using this as a "source", as a main rule in STV is to name the source. So, when using the information as RM did, then yes, you will give sources. Saying you personally know someone who did or thinks w/e, isn't the same as the issue I addressed.
Now. Moving on.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:03 pm |
|
Intrepid, that may be so, but the numbers are far lower than those that do believe in the war or, although they may disagree with us being there, at least think that we have to stay the course. That's what I've seen, and judging from the military in general, that would seem to be the case anyway.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:05 pm |
|
A timetable just makes no sense. I understand we have to leave, but to announce it? In war?
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:08 pm |
|
It's stupidity.
"We are here protecting you until 1/31/06, then after that, we're leaving."
That's not just a message to the Iraqi people, it's a message to the insurgents. Well, if they demand it, go. But it'd be cheaper to just have the troops sit on the carriers off the coast, because no doubt they'll be called back nearly immediately.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:15 pm |
|
I agree. If we gave a solid timetable that would result in detrimental effects. It's pure stupidity. That's why I suggest that we simply lay out the tasks that we need to complete, how we're going to accomplish those tasks, and a true GUESS--and that's it--as to when we HOPE to have those tasks accomplished. I think that's sufficient, and it doesn't send the terrorists the "We'll welcome you, but just wait" message that a timetable would essentially do.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:51 am |
|
I prefer a flexible gradual plan. Like Sen. Bidens
| Quote: | NEW YORK - The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Monday that he shares the frustration of those who support an immediate pullout from Iraq but he is "not there yet" and believes there should be a phased withdrawal.
"I still believe we can preserve our fundamental security interests in Iraq as we begin to redeploy our forces," Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware told the Council on Foreign Relations. "That will require the administration not to stay the course, but to change course, and to do it now."
Biden referred to "respected voices on military matters" like Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, who called for a troop pullout on Thursday. But Biden said he does not support bringing the troops home now. Rather, he said, 50,000 U.S. troops should leave Iraq by the end of 2006 and "a significant number" of the remaining 100,000 should leave in 2007.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_biden |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
