PDA

View Full Version : June 30, US military handover Iraq to Iraq



g0zer
26-06-2009, 09:32 AM
Iraqis have second thoughts over June 30 date for US troops to leave - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6579162.ece)


In line with the status of forces agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, which came into effect at the beginning of this year, all US troops will cease patrolling Iraqi cities from June 30.
Despite the spike in violence Mr al-Maliki has insisted that the withdrawal will go ahead as planned.

MADOGA
26-06-2009, 11:28 AM
Typical yanks, the jobs only half done, but I guess there's no more money to be made out of that war, they'll have to start another one.

HotelBushranger
26-06-2009, 11:44 AM
This'll be violent. Had to be done sooner or later, and Obama had to keep his election promises (which is rare for a polly). As long as Ruddy doesn't fill the gap with Aussie diggers.

g0zer
26-06-2009, 11:46 AM
i wonder how long the new iraqi govt will last

HotelBushranger
26-06-2009, 11:48 AM
Coupla days?

http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/46053/June-30--US-military-handover-Iraq-to-Iraq/162px-Comedy-company-con.jpg

g0zer
26-06-2009, 11:53 AM
it seems to me things will become increasingly unstable and brutal as the various insurgencies and the US installed govt battle for control.

HotelBushranger
26-06-2009, 11:54 AM
I'm interested to see if this will have any effect on what's happening in Iran, assuming the protests are still continuing by next week.

thro
26-06-2009, 11:56 AM
Heh.

Typical

Go in, remove dicator
Fuck civilian population hard.
leave job half done

any surprise that there will be saddam v2.0 taking power within the next decade or so?

HotelBushranger
26-06-2009, 11:58 AM
Just see what happened in COD Modern Warfare 2, kill the baddy and his right hand man takes over ^_^

g0zer
26-06-2009, 12:07 PM
the way i see it Iran, Iraq and Afgansitan are dying civilisations.

the cradle of civilisation remained tangled up with their gods and now been left so far behind by secular modern society they will just be left further and further behind as time goes on.

and they will always hate us for it.

re: the US going in and wrecking the place.

since they hate us, it stands to reason to keep them in the dark ages.

Infusi0n
26-06-2009, 12:33 PM
Stephen Colbert to then president George Bush at some press dinner "It is often said that the government that governs least, is the government that governs best. In that case sir, we are doing a hell of a job in Iraq"

Green_Ant
26-06-2009, 12:56 PM
Al-Q will probably grow again in Iraq and increase the Talibans fighting force in Afghanistan

Shogun
26-06-2009, 01:10 PM
i coudl see the us pulling out, Iraq falling into civil war, then iran doing a land grab/pay back.

g0zer
26-06-2009, 01:24 PM
i coudl see the us pulling out, Iraq falling into civil war, then iran doing a land grab/pay back.

'US withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous for Israel' | Israel | Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193516026&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)


Heller also suggested that the resulting instability would make Iraq vulnerable to Iranian influences, which could in turn affect the entire region.


Despite the abundance of doomsday scenarios, Brown suggested that the most likely situation would be similar to that of the 1962 Yemenite Civil War.
"Like with Iraq, Yemen was divided into different factions. One was backed by Egypt, and the other was backed by the Saudis," Brown said. Although Egypt poured half of their army into Yemen and used chemical weapons, "you didn't see a regional war break out."

Shady7/8
26-06-2009, 01:29 PM
You guys can be so hypocritical and one eyed...

US government has been under fire since they first went in, under pressure from everyone to pull out and leave the Iraqis to do it themselves, now they are and you bleat oh woe is Iraq you haven't finished your job you can't leave them like that...

Make your minds up people...

g0zer
26-06-2009, 01:40 PM
not sure what you mean?

i think its high time the US withdrew.. i dont think there is anything more to be achieved by extending their occupation.

irrespective of whether the country moves forward into a new era of peace and prosperity, or descends into complete anarchy and civil war after they withdraw, i cannot see how another 12 months of occupation is going to change the outcome.

Shady7/8
26-06-2009, 01:59 PM
I agree Gozer :-)

It's like a bandaid - rip it off!! let it happen and get on. Give support if Iraq needs it but let them run their own country and deal with their poliditcal battles like we do ours (Krud and Turnbull)

Cbr1k
26-06-2009, 03:03 PM
Why dont the UN send in a Peace Keeping Force

Shady7/8
26-06-2009, 03:07 PM
Cos UN Peace Keepers only carry weapons for show... mays well give them GI Joe plastic ones...

g0zer
26-06-2009, 03:21 PM
Annan Says No Role For UN Peacekeepers In Iraq (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0421-08.htm)


UNITED NATIONS - UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said he saw no role for UN peacekeepers in Iraq, meaning the Security Council would have to approve an international force after Iraqis begin self-rule.
"There is need for assistance in the effort to create a secure environment," Annan said just hours after 68 people were killed in a series of car bombings in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.
"Some international military presence is going to be required for the foreseeable future. I do not think it can be or ought to be UN peacekeepers. So the council may have to agree to allow a multinational force to do it."
Security is a key concern for Annan, who has pledged to help Iraqis set up an interim government to take sovereignty from the US-led occupation by July 1 and prepare for Iraq's first post-Saddam Hussein elections early next year.
He pulled all international staff out of Iraq in October following a bombing at the UN's Baghdad offices which killed 22 people, including top UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.
Faced with a serious escalation of violence in Iraq, the United States has turned to the United Nations for help in smoothing opposition to its plans for Iraq's future.
But Annan again said any UN role in Iraq will be limited by the bloodshed, and recalled that an earlier council resolution allowed him to use his discretion concerning the return of UN staff.
"We would like to play an important role in Iraq but the circumstances have to allow us to do that," he said. "We hope the attempts to reduce the violence will succeed. Until that is done, security is a constraint for us."
He said the spread of violence to Basra, which has been relatively calm despite the bloodshed elsewhere in the country, was "not comforting" as the United Nations mulls how to proceed in Iraq.
"We have all been anxious to see the attempts to reduce violence succeed, not for it to spread. And of course, the security situation on the ground has a very important impact on our decisions."

Copyright 2004 Agence France Presse

thro
26-06-2009, 03:55 PM
You guys can be so hypocritical and one eyed...

US government has been under fire since they first went in, under pressure from everyone to pull out and leave the Iraqis to do it themselves, now they are and you bleat oh woe is Iraq you haven't finished your job you can't leave them like that...

Make your minds up people...


I was against them going in, in the first place.

I agree that they should get OUT, but the point was that they were going to "stay the course" until things were "fixed".


They haven't even done that.


If you have a foreign policy of sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong (as they do) then don't be surprised if it all turns to shit repeatedly; the US has intervened in both iraq and iran, and look what it's done for them.

Leave regional conflicts the fuck alone for the parties involved to sort out between themselves...

MADOGA
26-06-2009, 04:20 PM
Can anyone name a country the yanks have interfered with that is now better because of it?

PatB
26-06-2009, 04:22 PM
Leave regional conflicts the fuck alone for the parties involved to sort out between themselves...

Which is certainly (IMHO) the best possible policy they could adopt towards the current Iranian situation.

Iraq will be interesting. Now we get to see whether all those Iraqis were right when surveys repeatedly showed them to be of the opinion that a US withdrawal would improve their safety.

I was of the understanding that the US would maintain a presence to provide military support (air cover, heavy firepower etc) for the Iraqi authorities but that overall responsibility would pass to the Iraqis. From today's news reports, though, I'm starting to wonder if I've been wrong.

If the US does largely pull out, I can see Iran having a crack at a weak and divided Iraq. Not so much for strategic gains, but because the Iranian government could probably do with a good, patriotic distraction right now to take some heat off them (common enemy, assisting Shiite brothers and all that).

Which is sad because, of all middle eastern countries, Iran is the one that I see as being best equipped and most likely to evolve into a (sorta) modern democracy. It's prosperous and its people are well educated and politically savvy. Nuclear sabre rattling and current troubles notwithstanding, I maintain some hope.

Iraq, however, is probably screwed. Impressive, considering it was a functioning country only six or seven years ago.

g0zer
26-06-2009, 04:23 PM
Can anyone name a country the yanks have interfered with that is now better because of it?

If you go to war with another country and lose.. the coming out better for it is not something to be taken for granted.

It would be ideal for the US if Iraq became like Japan or Germany, but is that why they went to war with Iraq?

The 'whys' are arguable, but i dont think it was to rebuild Iraq in the image of Japan or Germany.

If Iraq spend the next 20 years fighting each other, thats 20 years they wont be building high technology infrastructure and i guess as far as the US military is concerned thats a limited success.

i think militaries are protectionist first, expansionist second.

chew
26-06-2009, 04:25 PM
Can anyone name a country the yanks have interfered with that is now better because of it?

Japan?

HotelBushranger
26-06-2009, 04:27 PM
That's debatable.

euphoric
26-06-2009, 04:32 PM
Can anyone name a country the yanks have interfered with that is now better because of it?

West Germany/Japan. but nothing comes to mind since then.

magwitch
27-06-2009, 07:15 AM
West Germany/Japan. but nothing comes to mind since then.

South Korea and Kuwait.