Iraq’s prime minister has indicated that a timetable needs to be set for our departure. That notion must really have the right-wingers in a snit. Imagine those uppity Iraqis – after all we have done for them – to actually have the gaul to tell us to leave. What on earth is wrong with them? They must think that Iraq is their country or something.

Of course President Bush opposes the idea. Bush has yammered for quite some time now about Iraqis taking control of their own future and destiny. And now that they want to do so, Bush doesn’t really want to break up the relationship. Kind of one of those “I didn’t really mean it” situations.

Bush and the invasion supporters have been bragging about how successful the surge has been and how it has helped stabilize the country. It makes perfect sense that Iraqis now see this as their opportunity to oust the occupiers. Perhaps this is one of those times that the phrase, “be careful what you wish for, you might just get it” takes on real meaning.


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Iraq, Middle East, War and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to IRAQ TO U.S. – WE WANT YOU OUT

  1. mark garvin says:

    When did they tell us to leave? I followed you links (through a rather nutty site) to the Washington Post article. I read it and couldn’t find anything in it to support your statement. I did see that Iraq’s negotiators rejected our initial demands concerning our future military presence and, apparently, we rejected some of Iraq’s initial demands.

    If they want to tell us to leave they can do so anytime and unambiguously. They haven’t.

  2. Mark:

    I didn’t have any links in my article. I am not sure what you followed unless you linked from a tag or one of the posts that the blog host automatically inserts. Here is the statement that indicates they want us gone:

    “Iraq’s prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.”

    If that doesn’t indicate they want us out, I don’t know what would. Simply because it is couched in the form of a timetable doesn’t mean they don’t want us to leave. If you see it as not supporting their desire to get us out of their country, then perhaps you are looking at in a different perspective.

    What is different is that the Iraqi government is now asking for a timetable. In the past, it has been Congress and/or the American people.

    And, as to just telling us to get out – come on, they will use diplomacy if possible. A flat out “get out” would seem kind of harsh after all that we have done for them – like bombing their country into submission, killing innocent citizens, decimating their water and electric resources, etc. Right?

  3. mark garvin says:

    I clicked on your “related posts” then to the Washington Post article. I think the difficulties of ther last 5 years make it fairly obvious that we didn’t “bomb their country into submission.” Loose language in discussing this issue doesn’t help much, particularly when the language is inflammatory.

    If we did and are doing all of the terrible things you list, why be diplomastic in asking us to get out?

    We presented a proposed agreement for 60 bases with no timetable for their closure. They want a timetable. big deal. So did the South Koreans in their last negotiations, and they got one. It doesn’t mean they will ask us to leave at the end of the agreement.

    THe very large base in Seoul that was turned over to South Korea was originally subject to an agreement that allowed us to maintain a base in perpetuity. Bad negotiating by the South Koreans and very helpful to us when they wanted the land back and we wanted concessions in other areas, like land for our new embassy.

    So what’s Iraq’s proposed timetable for withdrawal of the division in charge of killing innocent civilians? That will be real tough for us, as all military seeking to specialize in civilian killing are currently routed through Iraq.

  4. As to my language being inflammatory, I hope it is. Inflammatory means to arouse anger and passion, so if that is what my words do, then great.

    We seem to have become apathetic about the war and the loss of life. Someone needs to be jumping up and down and not just lying down and accepting the current course of events in the Middle East.

    Simply because a surge appears to be working in a war that was never justified in the first place is small comfort to the thousands of families who have lost loved ones. What do we need? 58,000 more dead American soldiers to get someone’s attention? Obviously thousands of dead Iraqis doesn’t raise our anger the way it should.

    As to Korea, this is not the 1950s’ world in which we were playing a game of chess in trying to one up the Soviet Union. The maintenance of bases in Korea is not relevant to a discussion of the war in Iraq. This is not Korea, and the same cutltures are not involved.

    Let’s see, have we not killed innocent citizens? Of course we have. As a result of our invasion, innocent citizens were killed right along with the terrorists we were seeking. And innocent citizens continue to be killed every day as a result of our occupation. Some of the deaths occur because of our direct actions and some of the deaths occur because of our indirect actions of simply beginning this fiasco in the first place.

    The initiation of the war destabilized Iraq with the result that the Sunnis and Shites started battling each other – resulting in deaths of innocent civilians. Here is some data on Iraqi deaths before the invasion and after the invasion:

    1. The risk of death was estimated to be 2 1/2 times higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period.
    2. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death.
    3. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.
    4. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher than in the period before the war.

    Obviously, sacrificing thousands of Iraqis as well as destroying various areas of their country is acceptable as long as Bush proves a point. Of course, I am not quite sure what that point is.

    I am not sure what your point is in your last paragraph other than you support the notion that all divisions are responsible for killing innocent civilians, thus all divisions should be withdrawn.

  5. ice-ironman says:

    I am starting to think the Greatest Generation gave birth to the worst generation with your posts. As a stickler to the facts could you site your references? I am truely beginning to believe you hate America and what we stand for. War is to kill people and break things. Sorry for the reality check.

    A universal truth, there are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Damn lies and Statistics. You have proven how to use all three. Your third party rethoric such as “out the occupiers” shows you are disconnected. Remeber those “occupiers” are my friends, and they are sacrificing for our country. I thought the Hippies wouldnt spit on soldiers anymore but you have proved that wrong. I hope this is the first war where the soldiers return and spit on the hippies.

  6. J. Q. Taxpayer says:

    I am tossing out some questions for anyone to answer.

    1- Are US Soldiers “BABY KILLERS?”

    2- Are US Soldiers and Command giving orders to kill children and women?

    3- How many thousands of Iraq nationals where killed by poison gas from their own forces?

    4- How many thousands of Iraq nationals disappeared in mass graves by thier own forces?

    5- How many thousands of Iraq nationals have been killed by so called “freedom fighters?”

    6- How many thousands of Iraq nationals have been killed by road side bombs by “freedom fighters?”

    7- It is known that Iraq had chemical weapons. Why is it we could not even find a trace of even the manufacturing plants?

    8- It is known that Iraq had chemical weapons. Why is it we could not even find any traces of the shells they had manufactured?

    9- Why was there not even a trace of chemicals weapons found at all? It has been proven they had them only a couple of years before we invaded but Iraq was spotless when we got there.

    I am not saying the war was the right thing to do because I do not have enough facts. I have only what has been stated in public. I could argue that we went there because of oil. I could argue that we went there because our huge militry complex saw a huge pay day. I could argue that we went there for very good reasons.

  7. J.Q.

    Let me take a shot at this. I will do it by question numbers.

    1. I don’t think it is a matter of calling any military force “baby killers.” All wars involve killing of innocent citizens, thus all wars will have “baby killers” if that is the terminology chosen to describe killing innocent children. The label “baby killers” could be used against any force that went into another location to fight.

    2. I can’t imagine that direct orders to kill women and children are being given. But since I am not there, I don’t know. My comments are basically directed at what those who wish to sanitize war call “collateral” damage.

    3, 4, 5, and 6. If the killing of one’s own citizens is cause to go into a country, then we should be in African countries, China, Burma, etc., because of the murdering of their own citizens by their government. But we’re not. Of course, Saddam Hussein’s forces killed Iraqis and gassed their own citizens. But if that is our criteria, then we are using it haphazardly and selectively.

    7, 8, and 9. According to the CIA’s 2004 Iraq Survey Report(a year after we went in), Iraq’s WMD program was destroyed in 1991, and Saddam Hussein ended his nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War. That is probably why we didn’t find anything. I believe Bush was well aware of the lack of WMDs, but he had already determined to attack Iraq. He merely used the WMDs as an excuse. Unfortunately, Congress and the American people bought into the fear that still surrounded 9/11 and probably would have accepted any reason – whether or not it was based on fact or fiction – to go into Iraq.

    In your last paragraph, you mention that maybe we went there for good reasons. I guess I still don’t think there was a good reason. Iraq was not connected to 9/11, so any direct threat to us didn’t exist. I have the 9/11 Report in which the commission found there was no connection.

  8. J. Q. Taxpayer says:

    I would think anyone with much study knows very well that in a war women, and children are killed by accident. Hence, by stating US troops are doing this killing is intended to inflame the readers that it is being done on purpose. If it is noted they have killed women and children by accident then I could find it acceptable.

    As for why we are not in these other places protecting the people is interesting. To make that arguement one would have to approve that the actions by the US are just to stop such. If this was the true reason we under took the war in the first place. Which I do not believe we ever did. But I do ask is the US general population prepared to go to war with China? I think not!

    I am not saying the CIA report is right or wrong. History tells me the CIA has made some major blunders in the past. Maybe our Miltary group had a different read on the matter. But even after 10 years not even a trace of a chemical was found in some old wharehouse. Think about how much it takes to clean up a waste site here in the US and to make it CLEAN. I am sure Iraq did not clean up their chemical messes to that degree.

    You make an point about the fact Iraq did not have any part of the 9/11 happenings. On the surface I think you are right on. However, explain to me why international attacks have continued to decrease since we have been in Iraq?

    If you want my true belief the war was over Saddam Hussein’s failed attempt to kill Bush the first. One can argue if it war was wasn’t started for that maybe it was for Hussein’s killing of his own people, build up of Hussein’s troops to launch a possible war agains Saudia Araba (keep in mind what he did to the oil fields during Dessert Storm), or restart his nuke program.

    Even though I dislike Clinton a ton I would find it hard to believe he would have ever launched a war that he would know would kill fellow Americans just for the sake of having a war. Likewise I find it hard for President Bush to have done so.

    Just like a few years ago you may remember it being reported that slow moving chopper was seen flying over Fort Wayne for a number of nights. No one said much outside of the public seeing it.

    Then in about four to twelve months a bunch of indoor pot operations where busted by FWPD and Allen County Police Department.

    No one ever told us that just maybe the Indiana State Police chopper was using heat detecting equipment to find the operations and gave the police the information.

    The point is sometimes we just do not know every detail about what is going on. There just maybe a few people who can keep their mouth shut in order to protect all of us. I jsut do not know if the war in Iraq is one of them.

Comments are closed.