NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA24921251150436545A00?source=PA%20Feed

If, as the article says at the end, two British sectors will be handed over to Iraqi security forces this summer, I wonder how many US sectors will be handed over.
And when.

I wonder if Karl Rove will be setting the schedule.

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA24921251150436545A00?source=PA%20Feed

If, as the article says at the end, two British sectors will be handed over to Iraqi security forces this summer, I wonder how many US sectors will be handed over.
And when.

I wonder if Karl Rove will be setting the schedule.

Ah, we're getting the hell out of there at last. Nice to see. Good luck without us.

hm... here's a question. once they do, will they move in to help US sectors?

Ah, we're getting the hell out of there at last. Nice to see. Good luck without us.

there is the real humanitarian response.. (our ppl r more valuble then urs)

hm... here's a question. once they do, will they move in to help US sectors?

there's no doubt about it

Call me suspicious, but I think a handover is more imminent than we think. It would be politically convenient. Plus, you have to schedule a parade so the President can be in it.

Call me suspicious, but I think a handover is more imminent than we think. It would be politically convenient. Plus, you have to schedule a parade so the President can be in it.

I agree with a handover, that probably is imminent, but leaving, never... and of course, since we have to remain in charge of our own people, well, a handover in name, but in reality... less power than you might think...

there is the real humanitarian response.. (our ppl r more valuble then urs)

...

What are you babbling on about? I stated that I'm glad we're withdrawing, and wondered how the US troops would do wthout British troops covering those sectors, as they'd have to bring in more troops/spread remaining troops more thinly in the country to compensate.

Nowhere did I say that British military personnel were more valuable than US ones.

...

What are you babbling on about? I stated that I'm glad we're withdrawing, and wondered how the US troops would do wthout British troops covering those sectors, as they'd have to bring in more troops/spread remaining troops more thinly in the country to compensate.

Nowhere did I say that British military personnel were more valuable than US ones.
I have the feeling that the US will hand over some sectors as well. To satisfy the electorate near election time. Complete with a parade with the President.

...

What are you babbling on about? I stated that I'm glad we're withdrawing, and wondered how the US troops would do wthout British troops covering those sectors, as they'd have to bring in more troops/spread remaining troops more thinly in the country to compensate.

Nowhere did I say that British military personnel were more valuable than US ones.

My comment was more directed to British military personnel being more valuable then Iraqi lives.. both civilian and otherwise. This of course must be the line of thinking in a premature withdrawl.

I have the feeling that the US will hand over some sectors as well. To satisfy the electorate near election time. Complete with a parade with the President.

extremly doubtful, since it is now the Republicans hardline position of "staying the course"... only if democrats take power would u see such an irrisponsible move.

My comment was more directed to British military personnel being more valuable then Iraqi lives.. both civilian and otherwise. This of course must be the line of thinking in a premature withdrawl.
Well I don't think it's like we're forcing it on them. It's their country and quite understandably they'd rather look after it themselves, and if they're ready for the job and want to do it then I see no reason to stop them. It's not as though we'll be leaving the whole country. If it does all go tits up we could help them out if they need it.

My comment was more directed to British military personnel being more valuable then Iraqi lives.. both civilian and otherwise. This of course must be the line of thinking in a premature withdrawl.

Or possibly it could be due to the fact that the British government doesn't want to impinge on the sovereignty of Iraq and its new government any longer?

...

What are you babbling on about? I stated that I'm glad we're withdrawing, and wondered how the US troops would do wthout British troops covering those sectors, as they'd have to bring in more troops/spread remaining troops more thinly in the country to compensate.
not trying to sound condesceding... but isn't it that the uk troops are handing over the sector to Iraqi forces, and thus not requiring the thinning of US troops?

not trying to sound condesceding... but isn't it that the uk troops are handing over the sector to Iraqi forces, and thus not requiring the thinning of US troops?

I have no idea. If so, then thats even better.

The only thing imminent in Iraq is a civil war.

Or possibly it could be due to the fact that the British government doesn't want to impinge on the sovereignty of Iraq and its new government any longer?

I wasn't under the impression Iraqi government officals were lobbying to have foregin troops leave the country... Rather, public opinion is pressuring governmental officals from both the UK as in the US to leave.

It is as well interesting that one would make the argument, that you are seeking to no longer infringe on their sovereignty, and thus are recalling troops, yet in the same breath comment that the US will have to possibly reinforce those areas. The Iraqi government, like the US government, want (colaition) troops to leave when the Iraqi security forces are up to task.. not before.

I wasn't under the impression Iraqi government officals were lobbying to have foregin troops leave the country... Rather, public opinion is pressuring governmental officals from both the UK as in the US to leave.

Well it's not just the Iraqi government that would want the Coalition forces to scale down. Polls of Iraqis regularly show a majority want the Coalition forces out as soon as is safe and practical, and plenty don't even want to wait that long.

The only thing imminent in Iraq is a civil war.

Not necessarily, now that the leader of Al-Queda has been killed, im pretty sure that between the intelligence caught, and the fact that terrorist organisation will suffer a deathblow, terrorism can be nipped in the bud.

Give democracy a chance - Iraqis don't want Iraq to split, since the oil resources are concentrated in one small area. After all, Iraq has been a democracy for only a year.

these things will happen

The only thing imminent in Iraq is a civil war.
You wish.