PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=227171)

OK, now it's called withdrawal timetables. Still don't think this is a dramatic shift for the Bush administration? As I recall this used to be referred to as "cut and run".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq

Quote:

BAGHDAD - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday that U.S. and Iraqi officials agree that timetables should be set for a U.S. troop withdrawal, but conceded that nailing down a broader pact on future relations is difficult.

Appearing together at a news conference, Rice and Zebari also mutually asserted that a final agreement between Washington and Baghdad on a a broad document spelling out the nature of any future U.S. troop presence and Washington-Baghdad relations is close to fruition, but not yet complete.

"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement," Rice told reporters after meeting with Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The two sides had come together on a draft agreement earlier this week and Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad to press officials there to complete the accord.

Zebari, asked about fears expressed by neighboring countries over such a pact, said in Arabic: "This decision (agreement) is a sovereign one and Iran and other neighboring countries have the right to ask for clarifications. ... There are clear articles (that) say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighboring countries and we already did clarify this."

A key part of the U.S.-Iraqi draft agreement envisions the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq's cities by next June 30.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1944679)

One is an orderly withdrawal based on whether things continue to progress and the other is to withdraw whether things get done or not.

I don't think anyone ever advocated a disorderly withdrawal with no consideration for the situation on the ground. Having said that, even today Iraq is far from politically stable and their infrastructure continues to be a complete mess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1944768)

And by the same token, I don't think anybody advocated that we should stay there even though things are stable

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1944782)

And by the same token, I don't think anybody advocated that we should stay there even though things are stable

Actually that's incorrect. The Bush administration wants to maintain permanent bases in Iraq. That's why they were so reluctant to discuss any withdrawal timetable with the Iraqis, and even now they're merely talking about withdrawing from the cities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1944768)

That is why we are not leaving yet. Setting up a transition plan and leaving when we are no longer needed is not the same thing as we did in Saigon...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1944823)

Why not have bases there? we do in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Korea, the UK, etc...