Quick withdrawal

  1. Iraq's Neighbors Seek US, British Troop Withdrawal
    VOA News
    19 Apr 2003, 07:21 UTC


    Iraq's neighbors are calling for U.S. and British forces to establish security in Iraq, then leave the country as soon as possible.

    Foreign ministers from Iraq's neighbors, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey, along with Egypt and Bahrain, which currently chairs the Arab League, say occupying forces are obliged by international law to maintain security and stability in Iraq.

    The ministers said in a joint statement issued early Saturday that foreign troops are then obligated to withdraw and let Iraqis run their own country, including making decisions on how to use their natural resources. Iraq has the world's second-largest known oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.


    http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...75FD85CFF88287

    Um, I don't think these countries were too concerned about the audacity of the previous Regime but they are quick to want us out of there.... I think that is our mission to get out of there quickly but not too quickly or we will be criticized for leaving too soon. Also some of these countries who want us out of there may be harboring terrorists and we all know how the US and UK feel about terrorists.
    •  
  2. 9 Comments

  3. by   WashYaHands
    I agree with you. If we leave too soon, we'll be criticized for not doing enough. We are obligated by international law to establish and maintain security and stability in Iraq, which is what the coalition is trying to do. It is going to take time to re-establish basic services for the country as well as address security issues. All of this is going to take time. I think the coalition governments need to reassure the Arab states that we have no intention of occupying Iraq any longer than is needed to accomplish the above goals.

    Linda
  4. by   Mkue
    I agree too Linda, I don't think our troops want to be there any longer than they have too either..

    (I like your signature line)
  5. by   jnette
    Originally posted by WashYaHands
    I agree with you. If we leave too soon, we'll be criticized for not doing enough. We are obligated by international law to establish and maintain security and stability in Iraq, which is what the coalition is trying to do. It is going to take time to re-establish basic services for the country as well as address security issues. All of this is going to take time. I think the coalition governments need to reassure the Arab states that we have no intention of occupying Iraq any longer than is needed to accomplish the above goals.

    Linda

    I agree with this as well. These next months could prove to be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry eeeeeeeentersting !!!
  6. by   sbic56
    I can understand why the mideastern countries would not want us there for any longer than it takes to rebuild the most very basic infrastructure. Sure, we should get their electrical grids up and running again, help with rebuilding as they see fit and give humanitarian aid along with the help of the UN, but the governing should be left up to them. I don't believe they think the US gov't trusts them to run their own country. With SH gone, we need to allow them to decide what kind of government they want without being too heavy handed about what we think is best. We also have no place benefitting from what their oil fields produce. Even policing their criminals can be offensive to them. I understand totally where they would love to see up leave the country ASAP. We need to be more trusting of their capability to run their own country.
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    Very complicated balance needed between rebuilding, humanitarian actions, diplomacy, and the many dirrering views of the people there.
    The old "rock and a hard place" analogy could apply.
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
    http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/html/new.html


    Waging peace is the next step in Iraq. It is in everyone's best interest that the Bush administration take steps now to protect Iraqi civilians. The U.S. should ensure the following:

    Civilian-Directed Relief and Reconstruction. The U.S. should turn over the administration of humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Iraq to civilian authorities. The United Nations--not the U.S. military--should play a leadership role as soon as possible. Military involvement can compromise the effective delivery of humanitarian aid and threaten the security of civilian aid workers.

    Adequate Funding for Humanitarian Aid. The U.S. has a moral obligation to pay for humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction in Iraq. The $2.4 billion for relief and reconstruction efforts that Congress recently allocated is far less than what is needed.

    Members of Congress will be in their home districts during Congressional recess, April 12-27, holding town meetings and visiting with constituents.

    > Contact your representative and senators at http://capwiz.com/wa/dbq/officials/ and urge them to ensure that the U.S. turn over relief and reconstruction to civilian authorities and provide adequate funding for humanitarian aid.
  9. by   molecule
    http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...=Iraq+US+bases

    we plan to keep four bases, one in Baghdad and others in the south, north and west. we are already planning for the new emerging government to have a long term military relationship with us.......just a question; what if the 'democracy' doesn't want us?????? hmmmm.....
  10. by   pickledpepperRN
    Changes by the hour. Listen to morning news then hear conflicting facts and/or opinions in the afternoon.

    http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=2598654

    Rumsfeld: No Discussions of U.S. Bases in Iraq

    Mon April 21, 2003 03:18 PM ET
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E26038,00.html

    http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...940050,00.html
    Sunday April 20, 2003
    The Observer

    Plans to set up a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Iraq could be scuppered by a row between the Pentagon and the State Department over how to try war criminals and members of Saddam Hussein's regime suspected of human rights atrocities.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...940335,00.html
    Ba'athists slip quietly back into control
  11. by   maureeno
    spacenurse: Changes by the hour. Listen to morning news then hear conflicting facts and/or opinions in the afternoon.

    ever play the baby game
    'round and round and round we spin
    where we'll stop nobody knows?'
    you move your hand in circles above the baby's belly and then come in for a tickle


    >>>While Rumsfeld was forceful and animated in his denunciation of the newspaper article, he did not explicitly rule out any U.S. interest in such a military relationship -- although he described it as unlikely.<<<
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/21/spr...gon/index.html
    Last edit by maureeno on Apr 21, '03

close