|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:40 am Post subject: I don't get this about the US in Iraq... |
 |
|
Okay, according to Reuters, the Iraqi government was asking the US to have its troops out by 2009. But the US asked to stay until 2015. So they settled on 2011.
All well and good, but something about this doesn't make sense to me. If the US troops are there to help support Iraqi democracy, and the democratic Iraqi government asks the US to leave, wouldn't the logical thing for the US to do be to honour the government's wishes?
I mean, the rationale for the US sticking around has been "well, regardless of what you think of the original invasion, if we leave now, things will just get worse for the Iraqi people". But now that we've got the actual democratic representatives of the Iraqi people saying they won't be needing the troops after about a year or two, the US asks for six or seven more years?? That's like if a guy on the street asks you for a dollar to take the bus, and you demand that he take three dollars.
And I'm not an American taxpayer, nor do I have relatives in the US military. But if I did, I think I might have a few questions about why, after so much money has been dumped into this particular venture, and thousands of soldiers lives' lost, my government is begging for the right to stay longer than the people we're supposed to be helping want us to be there.
I don't know. Am I missing something here?
http://tinyurl.com/5pa94p |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
U.S. command could rationally want some wiggle room. Nevertheless, I cannot get into the military and administration's head on this one. I am just extrapolating on how I would model a pull-out plan.
The fact that the U.S. has set a horizon/timetable should start to take the sails out of the insurgency. Which is the reason the Iraqi government wanted a timetable from the start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
The Bush administration's plan was to use Iraq as a strategic staging base to replace what Saudi Arabia was earlier to control the region. I do not know the details of the agreement of troop positioning, but theoretically, if U.S. forces pulled out of major cities, they could redeploy to bases near Iran and the Gulf.
Iraqi airspace is also valuable as a conduit for Israel to strike Iran.
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. The real problem is having our troops patrol downtown Baghdad and fighting Iraqis in streets near their homes which have negligable strategic value to us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Iraq has the right, if necessary, to extend the presence of these troops," Talabani said |
That covers the need for any wiggle room should problems arise during the evacuation. The diplomats and negotiators have failed to convince the recognized government of Iraq that a US military presence on their territory is to the advantage of the Iraqi state and people past 2011. To paraphrase Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the US has no right to stay longer that the Iraqi state is bound to respect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Iraq has the right, if necessary, to extend the presence of these troops," Talabani said |
That covers the need for any wiggle room should problems arise during the evacuation. The diplomats and negotiators have failed to convince the recognized government of Iraq that a US military presence on their territory is to the advantage of the Iraqi state and people past 2011. To paraphrase Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the US has no right to stay longer that the Iraqi state is bound to respect. |
Right. Nobody is arguing that the U.S. cannot possibly withdraw between now and 2011. The OP's question was why would the U.S. want to stay until 2015, or even want to stay beyond 2009? I think even the Iraqi government recognizes that 2009 might be pushing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: I don't get this about the US in Iraq... |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Okay, according to Reuters, the Iraqi government was asking the US to have its troops out by 2009. But the US asked to stay until 2015. So they settled on 2011.
All well and good, but something about this doesn't make sense to me. If the US troops are there to help support Iraqi democracy, and the democratic Iraqi government asks the US to leave, wouldn't the logical thing for the US to do be to honour the government's wishes?
I mean, the rationale for the US sticking around has been "well, regardless of what you think of the original invasion, if we leave now, things will just get worse for the Iraqi people". But now that we've got the actual democratic representatives of the Iraqi people saying they won't be needing the troops after about a year or two, the US asks for six or seven more years?? That's like if a guy on the street asks you for a dollar to take the bus, and you demand that he take three dollars.
And I'm not an American taxpayer, nor do I have relatives in the US military. But if I did, I think I might have a few questions about why, after so much money has been dumped into this particular venture, and thousands of soldiers lives' lost, my government is begging for the right to stay longer than the people we're supposed to be helping want us to be there.
I don't know. Am I missing something here?
http://tinyurl.com/5pa94p |
the US probably wants military bases in Iraq . Iraq is right in the middle of the mideast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The OP's question was why would the U.S. want to stay until 2015, or even want to stay beyond 2009? |
I'm extremely suspicious of why the US would even ask. A democratic government has been set up. That government now feels its army is getting close to being able to handle the situation on the ground. Why does an agreement even need to be made? All that was needed was a simple note from Iraq saying, "We're just about there. Thanks for the help. Your lease will be up on Dec. 31, 2010. Please turn out the lights and lock the door when you go." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SirFink
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: I don't get this about the US in Iraq... |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
I don't know. Am I missing something here? |
I think you know why. The US invasion of Iraq was never about democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beeyee
Joined: 29 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. |
Yes the US has only intruded 'a bit' on Iraqi sovereignty. This has to be the understatement of the year!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. |
Yes the US has only intruded 'a bit' on Iraqi sovereignty. This has to be the understatement of the year!
|
HA! They intruded just a tad..barely the tip! That is hilarious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
80% of Iraq's people are glad the US took down Saddam.
Iraq
60% Shia
15% Kurd
15% Sunni |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. |
Yes the US has only intruded 'a bit' on Iraqi sovereignty. This has to be the understatement of the year!
|
No. Come out and say it. America invaded Iraqi sovereignty.
Bullshit. America broke a dictator's hold over slaves. Staying until 2009, 2011, hell, even 2015, is not that much of a difference in the scheme of what Iraq has been through. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. |
Yes the US has only intruded 'a bit' on Iraqi sovereignty. This has to be the understatement of the year!
|
No. Come out and say it. America invaded Iraqi sovereignty.
Bullshit. America broke a dictator's hold over slaves. Staying until 2009, 2011, hell, even 2015, is not that much of a difference in the scheme of what Iraq has been through. |
The US did both. I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. |
Yes the US has only intruded 'a bit' on Iraqi sovereignty. This has to be the understatement of the year!
|
No. Come out and say it. America invaded Iraqi sovereignty.
Bullshit. America broke a dictator's hold over slaves. Staying until 2009, 2011, hell, even 2015, is not that much of a difference in the scheme of what Iraq has been through. |
The US did both. I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. |
Explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
