• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What??? Withdrawl??? Timeline????

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Read this first then see my question below:



The Iraqi Cabinet on Sunday approved a security pact that would set the terms for U.S. troops in Iraq.


Negotiators had been working for months on a deal that will set terms for U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

The agreement sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The date for all troops to leave Iraq will be December 31, 2011, he said.

These dates are "set and fixed" and are "not subject to the circumstances on the ground," he said.



Question: Ok, since according to the Iraqi this IS NOT related to the ' on ground' status as we seems to be so dependent upon....what happens when it's time to leave and we don't see the ' situation on the ground' as ready for us to leave?

What then?

Do we have ANOTHER war with that Iraqi gov't then as they'll want us O-U-T...but we'll wanna stay?
 

Texan

Well-known member
The date for all troops to leave Iraq will be December 31, 2011, he said.
This date should be a non-issue. I remember clearly the President-elect stating that he would have all of the troops out in 16 months. If we wait until he gets into office to start that timetable, January 20, 2009 plus 16 months would have all of our troops out of Iraq and back home by May 20, 2010.

So - if we are to believe our new President - I'm sure if the Iraqis want our troops to stay past May 2010 they'll have a big fight on their hands. :wink:
 

Triangle Bar

Well-known member
Well, on it's surface it sounds as if the Iraqi's feel confident in their ability to solely defend their own cities, starting in 7 months......and by the end of 2011 their entire border and country

Isn't that what Bush has said all along, "as the Iraqi's step up we will step down", and that any quote unquote timeline would be based on the Iraqi's ability & confidence to defend themselves.

Perhaps your question should be, How long will the Iraqi's be able to keep their democracy and their new found freedoms from tyranny?

That's a question that's been asked by Americans about America since her beginning.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Triangle Bar said:
Isn't that what Bush has said all along, "as the Iraqi's step up we will step down", and that any quote unquote timeline would be based on the Iraqi's ability & confidence to defend themselves.
Not sure, but I think that was kola's whole point. That the Bush/Cheney plan is now working, and seems to be working well. I think she was finally so proud of her President and her Country that she just had to brag a little. :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
IF the Iraqi government gets this agreement approved, it requires that the US get prior approval for most operations. If they have to do that, then the chances of them finding or catching any bad guys goes way down. If we're not able to actually pursue bad guys, why do we need 100,000+ troops in country? We won't.

A series of bombings struck Baghdad and a neighboring province Monday, killing at least 10 people and wounding 40, including a deputy oil minister who was injured when a bomb went off in front of his house as he was leaving for work.

Most of the six blasts occurred in Baghdad, reinforcing U.S. military warnings that extremists remain capable of launching attacks in the capital despite an overall improvement in security.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Read this first then see my question below:



The Iraqi Cabinet on Sunday approved a security pact that would set the terms for U.S. troops in Iraq.


Negotiators had been working for months on a deal that will set terms for U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

The agreement sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The date for all troops to leave Iraq will be December 31, 2011, he said.

These dates are "set and fixed" and are "not subject to the circumstances on the ground," he said.



Question: Ok, since according to the Iraqi this IS NOT related to the ' on ground' status as we seems to be so dependent upon....what happens when it's time to leave and we don't see the ' situation on the ground' as ready for us to leave?

What then?

Do we have ANOTHER war with that Iraqi gov't then as they'll want us O-U-T...but we'll wanna stay?

That's the bad thing about telling the world you have a departure date. "I" just sit and wait on you to leave and then it's business as usual..
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
But my question was..... What if the US commanders say the situation on the ground IS NOT conducive for us to leave....but yet the Iraqi gov't says GO....then what?


We stay against their wishes...and risk more war??
 

fff

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
But my question was..... What if the US commanders say the situation on the ground IS NOT conducive for us to leave....but yet the Iraqi gov't says GO....then what?


We stay against their wishes...and risk more war??

No, we won't stay against their wishes. The only reason they signed the agreement was because they trust the Obama Administration to honor it and get out by 2011. They didn't trust Bush to do that. No matter what the conditions are in Iraq by the end of 2011, unless they ask to change the agreement, we're out of there. I'd like to have seen the Bush Administration ask for money to help support our military operations while we're defending Iraq and training their military. But I haven't seen anything like that reported. :shock:

I have doubts they'll get this thing approved. And I don't see how the US will be able to operate effecively if they have to get approval from the Iraqi government to manuver. But, hey, the Iranians approve of it. :roll:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
But my question was..... What if the US commanders say the situation on the ground IS NOT conducive for us to leave....but yet the Iraqi gov't says GO....then what?


We stay against their wishes...and risk more war??

Wouldn't think US forces could stay unless specifically asked to do so by the Iraqi government, regardless of what US commanders think. Course if it gets bad and they yell come back I'd probably tell them to "F... Off".
 

nonothing

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
kolanuraven said:
But my question was..... What if the US commanders say the situation on the ground IS NOT conducive for us to leave....but yet the Iraqi gov't says GO....then what?


We stay against their wishes...and risk more war??

Wouldn't think US forces could stay unless specifically asked to do so by the Iraqi government, regardless of what US commanders think. Course if it gets bad and they yell come back I'd probably tell them to "F... Off".

texas be careful what you write. I did a very similar thing one time and Officer Steve from the ranchers net moral police started a whole thread about how children read here and even the insinuation of a word was to much .....You are lucky in a sense as you are a conservative and Steve has yet to take any conservative to task on here for thier negative behavior.......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff, "The only reason they signed the agreement was because they trust the Obama Administration to honor it and get out by 2011."

Your rationale makes no sense, fff. As per the Liberal custom, you’re ignoring reality in order to shape the world as you want it to be. The Iraqis have a choice on who they sign an agreement with; Bush or Obama. If they thought Obama was going to be better to work with, they would of waited to sign a deal with him. By signing before he got in office, it’s obvious they wanted ink on paper while Bush was still in the White House.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff, "The only reason they signed the agreement was because they trust the Obama Administration to honor it and get out by 2011."

Your rationale makes no sense, fff. As per the Liberal custom, you’re ignoring reality in order to shape the world as you want it to be. The Iraqis have a choice on who they sign an agreement with; Bush or Obama. If they thought Obama was going to be better to work with, they would of waited to sign a deal with him. By signing before he got in office, it’s obvious they wanted ink on paper while Bush was still in the White House.

My "rationale" is based on what high ranking Iraqis say:

Barack Obama may have been elected only days ago, but his victory is already beginning to shift the political ground in Iraq and the region.

Iraqi Shiite politicians are indicating that they will move faster toward a new security agreement about U.S. troops, and a Bush administration official said he believed that Iraqis could ratify the agreement as early as the middle of this month.

"Before the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011," said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. "If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama."

Obama has said that he favors a 16-month schedule for withdrawing combat brigades, a timetable about twice as fast as that provided for in the draft American and Iraqi accord.

Many Shiite politicians had been under intense pressure from Iranian leaders not to sign a security agreement. Iran, which has close ties to Shiite politicians, has feared the agreement would lay the groundwork for a permanent U.S. troop presence in Iraq that would threaten Iran.

The agreement that keeps us in Iraq runs out at the end of the year. If there's not a new one by then, US forces have to withdraw. Iraqi couldn't wait until January 20th and sign one with Obama. What if he refused to sign one and they were left high and dry to protect their own borders? Bush has been working for a new agreement since March of this year. The Iraqis have been reluctant to sign one; now, with Obama elected, they say they'll sign it. The Iranians are even supporting it, probably because it forbits the US from invading another country (like Iran) from within Iraq.

More on the article quoted at this link:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/07/mideast/baghdad.php
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"What if he refuses to sign one"? You're telling us that they signed just because they like Obama, but then you say they signed because he might not sign any agreement? They trust him to enforce an agreement that he didn't sign, but they don't trust him to sign an agreement of his own? :shock: You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
"What if he refuses to sign one"? You're telling us that they signed just because they like Obama, but then you say they signed because he might not sign any agreement? They trust him to enforce an agreement that he didn't sign, but they don't trust him to sign an agreement of his own? :shock: You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

You are so dishonest. :roll: I never said they signed it because he might not sign an agreement. I said "what if". They know he's been opposed to the war from the beginning. Surely that crossed their mind as to whether they REALLY wanted Americans to leave right now. Spin all you want, but they didn't trust the Republicans; apparently they do trust Obama and are willing to sign an agreement that is scheduled to end while he's still president. With the trillions of $$ Bush has spent, with a million or more dead, the Iraqis don't hold him in any higher esteem than I do. And that's not very high.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
"What if he refuses to sign one"? You're telling us that they signed just because they like Obama, but then you say they signed because he might not sign any agreement? They trust him to enforce an agreement that he didn't sign, but they don't trust him to sign an agreement of his own? :shock: You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

You are so dishonest. :roll: I never said they signed it because he might not sign an agreement. I said "what if". They know he's been opposed to the war from the beginning. Surely that crossed their mind as to whether they REALLY wanted Americans to leave right now. Spin all you want, but they didn't trust the Republicans; apparently they do trust Obama and are willing to sign an agreement that is scheduled to end while he's still president. With the trillions of $$ Bush has spent, with a million or more dead, the Iraqis don't hold him in any higher esteem than I do. And that's not very high.

Dishonest my arse. I'm simply calling you on your wild interpretation. I've never seen anybody who can misinterpret facts, bend them and spin them so much in order to come up with the story that they want more than you. If the Iraqis were so wild about Obama as your created world claims, they would hold up on any deals today and work with him tomorrow.

If we had followed Obama's lead and put our tails between our legs and left, Iraq would be in a huge blood bath right now with half a dozen different factions all fighting each other with civilians in the middle. The Iraqis know that. They know he is an idiot when it comes to military affairs and a complete naive fool when it comes to relations in that part of the country. They clearly felt that Bush was giving them a much better deal than Obama would. Actions speak, frankie.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
"What if he refuses to sign one"? You're telling us that they signed just because they like Obama, but then you say they signed because he might not sign any agreement? They trust him to enforce an agreement that he didn't sign, but they don't trust him to sign an agreement of his own? :shock: You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

You are so dishonest. :roll: I never said they signed it because he might not sign an agreement. I said "what if". They know he's been opposed to the war from the beginning. Surely that crossed their mind as to whether they REALLY wanted Americans to leave right now. Spin all you want, but they didn't trust the Republicans; apparently they do trust Obama and are willing to sign an agreement that is scheduled to end while he's still president. With the trillions of $$ Bush has spent, with a million or more dead, the Iraqis don't hold him in any higher esteem than I do. And that's not very high.

Dishonest my arse. I'm simply calling you on your wild interpretation. I've never seen anybody who can misinterpret facts, bend them and spin them so much in order to come up with the story that they want more than you. If the Iraqis were so wild about Obama as your created world claims, they would hold up on any deals today and work with him tomorrow.

If we had followed Obama's lead and put our tails between our legs and left, Iraq would be in a huge blood bath right now with half a dozen different factions all fighting each other with civilians in the middle. The Iraqis know that. They know he is an idiot when it comes to military affairs and a complete naive fool when it comes to relations in that part of the country. They clearly felt that Bush was giving them a much better deal than Obama would. Actions speak, frankie.

BS. Actions do speak and so do words. If the Iraqis want us to stay, they have to sign an agreement by the end of this year. They can't wait for Obama to be installed in the Oval Office. Just because you keep ignoring that tiny, little fact doesn't make it go away.

And words also are important. From my link:

[quote]"Before the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011," said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. "If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama." [/quote]

Again, you're dishonest. What a shock! I never said they were "wild" about Obama, but they don't trust Bush. They were not willing to sign an agreement to allow American forces to stay, but now that Obama will be in office, the cabinet has approved an agreement. Whether the entire Parliment will go along is still to be decided. You can spin all day, but the facts are out there. They don't trust Bush or Republicans.

Since you're speculating about how bad it would be if we'd followed Obama's lead, I'll speculate and say if we had never gone into Iraq to start with, there would be several thousand American soliders still alive, children who still had their fathers, mothers with sons alive and well. Not to mention the billions of dollars squandered there. And for what, Sandhusker? Exactly what have we got out of Bush's Iraqi fiasco? Saddam did NOT have WMDs. Iraq was NOT a terrorist base. We're not getting their oil cheap. So come on and tell me, Sandhusker, what we've gained with the loss of thousands of American lives, possibly a million Iraqi lives, torture of prisoners, billions of dollars spent, loss of our world standing, weakening of our military. I want to hear your spin about what we've got that was worth all that. :mad:
 

Mike

Well-known member
The breaking of 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions and the unanimous consent by UN members to adopt Res. 1441 should be enough for any reasonable person to go to war.


Res. 1441 in it's entirety. Read it and learn!

Security Council resolution 1441



Resolution on the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on 8 November 2002.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FULL TEXT

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fffff, "They don't trust Bush or Republicans. "

And that’s why they didn’t wait for Obama and the Democrats? That statement is rife with ignorance. If you want to buy a car from the local dealership and a salesman that you like and trust more than the morning guy works in the afternoon, you’re going to wait for the afternoon to come. The Iraqis didn’t want to wait for Obama. That should tell you something if you were smart enough to read the message.

Just because the existing agreement expires Dec. 31 doesn’t mean anybody has to go anywhere. If we don’t want to leave and the Iraqis don’t press it, that date means nothing. It’s like your renters have until the 10th to pay their rent or they’re evicted. They can wait until the 15th and as long as you don’t take action, nothing happens.


fff, "Since you're speculating about how bad it would be if we'd followed Obama's lead, I'll speculate and say if we had never gone into Iraq to start with, there would be several thousand American soliders still alive, children who still had their fathers, mothers with sons alive and well. Not to mention the billions of dollars squandered there. And for what, Sandhusker? Exactly what have we got out of Bush's Iraqi fiasco? Saddam did NOT have WMDs. Iraq was NOT a terrorist base. We're not getting their oil cheap. So come on and tell me, Sandhusker, what we've gained with the loss of thousands of American lives, possibly a million Iraqi lives, torture of prisoners, billions of dollars spent, loss of our world standing, weakening of our military. I want to hear your spin about what we've got that was worth all that. "

If we had never gone to war, Saddam and his sons would still be torturing, raping and killing. We know Saddam had WMDs at one time, and was acting like he had them again. He was thumbing his nose at agreements that he had signed. We had to go in or the message would have been sent loud and clear to all other dictators present and future that the US and the pussies in the UN were just talkers. I don’t know if you have any kids, but when you say they will get a spanking if they disobey, you had better follow through with that threat or you will get nothing but disobedience. The same follows with power-hungry dictators. We warned Saddam not to act up or else, he chose to act up, so we had no choice if we ever wanted to be taken seriously again. If you don’t think we should not of gone to war, contact Hillary and all of those other Dems that you worship who not only voted for it, but spoke up in favor if it. That fact seems to escape you, as many do.
 
Top