Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Iraq Prime Minister says Coalition Forces Can Leave If They Want

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on Saturday that Iraq could handle the security responsibili ties in his country and that we can leave if we want.

“We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibili ty completely in running the security file if the internationa l forces withdraw at anytime they want,” he said.

So folks, why are we still there?


Tags: ,
Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Fark
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb

11 Responses to “Iraq Prime Minister says Coalition Forces Can Leave If They Want”

  1. The answer to your question is:  Big Oil and the MIC raid on the national coffers.
     
    Maliki, in a way, is right about one thing while Bush and the fear-mongers are right about another.  The Shi-a have the power to take over the state, crush the Sunni ex-Baathist insurgency, keep peace with the Kurds, and drive out Al Qaeda, with a strong, central government in a "united," contiguous Iraq.  Al Qaeda and Sunni extremists can not take over, as the Bushie liars tell us.  It makes no real sense.  But it will be a blood bath, as the Bushies, and most everyone else, tell us.  There will be a great sectarian purge of the Sunnis, a tragically u nfortunate but seemingly inevitable c ircumstance.   Al Qaeda did not "create" this sectarian divide, as the Bushie liars tell us.  It’s been simmering for over a thousand years.
     
    As for Al Qaeda "following us here," this is also possible.  Afterall, no one wants us to stay in Iraq more than Al Qaeda.  Our invasion and occupation w as the great prize won for 9/11.  But our withdrawl would leave a void in Al Qaeda’s purpose to unite the Sunni world against America.  But again, this too seems inevitable.  It’s all just a question of now or later.
     
    JMJ

  2. There might be several reasons why we are still there. For one, we might not believe that the Iraqi forces are capable of keeping their own peace regardless of what Maliki says. One reason we might think that is that we might fear that the way the Iraqi forces would bring about peace would lead to a broadening of war. That is to say, we might suspect that our leaving would result in genocidal massacres of Sunni, a state of affairs that is unlikely to set well with Sunni dominated nations in the region and that the resulting regional war would be bad for US interests.

  3. Well. My last comment seems to have disappeared into the ether. I’ll try once more and then throw in the towel. One reason we might still be there is that we simply do not believe that the Iraqi forces are capable of achieving peace and keeping it in our absence, despite Maliki’s words. Take one scenario that I think likely. I think that, in the absence of coalition forces, there will be a bloodbath of the majority Shia over the minority Sunni population, a situation that majority Sunni nations in the region are unlikely to just stand by and permit to happen. The result would be Sunni/Shia regional war, a situation that is unlikely to be in the best interest of the West and the US.

  4. So how come my comments keep disappearing  ? Is the comment monitoring function on? I’ve left two comments and…poof!

  5. I do believe, by the way, that the "ter’ists" will hit us soon before the ‘08 election, oddly enough for exaclty the opposite reason they hit Spain at a similar time - to keep us in the "war on ter’".
     
    I believe that’s why they attempted the strike in Britain recently.
     
    JMJ

  6. test

  7. Then there is the next day:
     
    "BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq’s prime minister was misunderstoo d when he said the Americans could leave "any time they want" an aide said Sunday, as politicians moved to end a pair of boycotts that are holding up work on crucial political reforms sought by Washington."
     
    http://apnew s.myway.com/ article/2007 0715/D8QD7CR G2.html

  8. I suggest that the reason we are still there is because we do not believe Mr. Maliki when he says that his police and military force are able to achieve and maintain peace in our absence. Could they do so, they would have already done so with our forces. They have not. Q. E. D. I suggest that, in our absence, the most likely scenario is a bloody, genocidal civil war, Shia vs. Sunni. Shia being approximatel y 60% of the population and Sunni being approximatel y 20% of the population, the outcome, absent interference from outside forces, is beyond doubt but surely there would be outside interference . Surrounding Sunni majority nations would flood Iraq to reinforce the Sunni forces of Iraq and Surrounding Shia majority nations would flood Iraq to reinforce the Shia forces of Iraq. I suggest that leaving Iraq to this would be irrational, inimical to our interests and immoral.

  9. yea and we know how well staying works!so when would you think it would be a good idea to leave.  when we’re there seven years?  ten years?  twenty?  or fifty?Or even a whole century. I bet if we do leave, they will figure their own way out.  There’s always been a civil war of some sort over there.   Hate to say this but there’s nothing we can do.  We can slow the bleeding by putting a band-aid on it but that’s all we can do for the time being.

  10. Froenx, Everything I read says that when we pull out, much worse will ensue. Even those calling for a pull-out seem to understand this. The New York Times said so. Obama has said so. The only one who seems to think that our withdrawal will return Iraq to its pre-war state, where Michael Moore can film happy Iraqi children flying kites and laughing is Murtha. Everyone else understands the appalling consequences of pulling out before Iraq is able to take care of its own security. Think Vietnam, Pol Pot, the killing fields and so forth. Obama acknowledges this, using even the ‘G’ word: Genocide. He just thinks Iraq’s coming genocide is no reason for us to stay. I guess he has a point. No one is sending troops into Darfur to stop their genocide. Some of us just think that leaving Iraq to genocide is an immoral thing to do, given that we created the conditions under which it will have taken place (we broke the china, as Colin Powell put it, so we own it). Well, that means we are responsible for putting things right. You say there’s nothing we can do. I’m not ready to take our band-aids and leave Iraq to bleed out. That’s where we differ. I guess I’m the odd-man-out given the general opinion of the country that we should do exactly that. I guess I’m not realistic enough, or too idealistic. Bush may be able to continue the troop presence until he leaves office but that will be it. McCain seems to be the only candidate too appalled by the consequences to leave to have the balls to stay but there’s no way he’ll be president. You ask when a good time to leave would be. It’s been over sixty years and we’re still in Germany and Japan. It’s been more than fifty years and we’re still in S. Korea, heck, the war is still not officially over in Korea. I’m for staying as long as it takes. Politically, I recognize that that’s pretty hopeless but that’s my answer to your question.

  11. Shouldn’t we be listening to the commanders on the ground in Iraq?

Leave a Reply

Fish.Travel