Should the Newly Elected Iraqi Government ask the US to Leave.

The cost of this election is too terrible a price too have paid for the results.

US Casualties Since War Began : 1492 (1100 in Combat)
US Casualties

Iraqi Civilian Casualties: 7,350 (Possible counts between 15563 and 17789)
Iraqi Civilian Casualties

The US claims that the Iraqi government won't be able to get its military and police and government officials in place to successfully run the country any time soon and that Iraq would be committing Suicide if it kicked the US out of Iraq after the election. But I think that would be the True Test of Bush's reasoning behind the attack on this Sovereign Nation. IF the newly elected Political party government were to provide evidence to the UN that they can sustain themselves and was to ask the US to withdral its troops from Iraq, what would the US do?

Phae

Originally posted by Phaethor
IF the newly elected Political party government were to provide evidence to the UN that they can sustain themselves and was to ask the US to withdral its troops from Iraq, what would the US do?

Phae

President Bush said U.S. forces would be withdrawn if Iraq's leaders ask, but he doesn't expect that request until Iraqi forces are better prepared.

Bush said requests from the new Iraqi government would be honored.

Bush would honor Iraqi withdrawal request


The current election was to elect representitives who will go on to write a new constitution ahead of a general election coming this December.

18 more months for a large withdrawal is what I'm hearing.

Bush said requests from the new Iraqi government would be honored.

"Absolutely," Bush told The New York Times. "This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."

We already know that Bush is notorious for not keeping his word and has no clue what sovereign means.

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st century at a gathering of minority journalists he responded:

"Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a ... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."


The quote I see as the Bush campaign catch all that will keep the US forces in Iraq even past the 18 Month point and after a request by the Iraqi government is:

"However, the time is not right for U.S. withdrawal, either."

That will be his mantra in 6 months, 9 months, 12 months 18 months, 2 years... and so on. There will be other trumped up reasons to keep our trrops out fighting a war for oil money.

Phae

Time dates with fluctuate with varying situations and requirements, but as of yesterday, this is what was said:
U.S. troops out of Iraq within next 18 months? Interior minister believes new government can handle security situation by mid 2006


IMHO, the problem that many, including yourself, have is that you expect a US withdrawal yesterday, last week, last year, now, immediately, etc.
Join the club, Senator Kennedy does too.





seekerof

Originally post by Phaethor

There will be other trumped up reasons to keep our trrops out fighting a war for oil money.

During the debates in congress about Iraqi funding Bush explicitly said his policy was to not use the Iraqis oil income as a form reparations because the country needed these funds to service its foreign debt and rebuild its military and industrial infrastructure.

Phaethor can you provide a link to a legitimate news article that backs your claim that the war is/was for oil.

The only reason to stay beyond 18 months is an inability of the Iraqi military to hold its own against the foreign backed and funded terrorist's. I believe that they will be holding their own much sooner though.

We already know that Bush is notorious for not keeping his word and has no clue what sovereign means.

No Bush is not "notorious" for not keeping his word - rather he is known for just the opposite, Saddam can attest to this quite well heh heh.

If you were refering to the oft mentioned campaign promise of no nation building - 911 changed that irrevocably.

If on the otherhand you meant the WMD question then you have to also condemn many world leaders, United Nations and Democratic candidates for president, they were all wrong due to bad information by intelligence agencies gutted by the previous adminstration. Or Saddam simply destroyed what could'nt be moved and tranported the rest to neighboring countries in the long leadup to the war.

Bush did give Saddam ample oppurtuinity to accept full inspections, Saddam was the one that refused - and Bush did indeed keep his word.

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st century at a gathering of minority journalists he responded:

"Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a ... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."

What this has to do with Iraqs current situation I don't know, it appears to be a cheap shot in order to connect two very different things.

Felix Cohen explains tribal sovereignty as follows:

as a consequence of the tribe's relationship with the federal government, tribal powers of self-government are limited by federal statutes, by the terms of the treaties with the federal government, and by restraints implicit in the protectorate relationship itself. In all other respects the tribes remain independent and self-governing political communities.

Bush was correct but not eloquent, Lack of eloquency does not translate to lack of understanding.

I'm sure the success of the election is sticking in Bush bashers craws at the moment and it would appear that in an effort to grasp at straws - the timing of troop withdrawal is the last hope of the unrepentant sore loser group of folks such as John Kerry, his performance on the sunday news show circuit attested to this fully.










[edit on 31-1-2005 by Phoenix]