Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Iraqi Leaders Call For Withdrawl TimetableFollow

#1 Nov 22 2005 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
CAIRO, Egypt -- Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The communique -- finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday -- condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.

The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time -- reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.

On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.

"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.
[...]
In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all "innocent detainees" who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.

The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."

Chicago Tribune via Associated Press

The fools. Don't they know that calling for a timetable will only let the terrorists win? Why do the Iraqi leaders hate Iraq and love the terrorists? I bet they all want Saddam to rape them and kill their children Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Nov 22 2005 at 10:33 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Why do Iraqis hate freedom? Smiley: frown
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#3 Nov 22 2005 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
***
2,152 posts
There won't ever be a full withdrawal of troops in my opinion. This area of the world has high strategic importance to the United States, aside from the oil of course. This area of the world will be the staging ground for military action for the next century. Look at it as the Germany of the 21st century.
#4 Nov 22 2005 at 10:42 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
This area of the world has high strategic importance to the United States, aside from the oil of course.


Agreed.

I played a Modern Day Scenerio in Civ3, and as America, the most stratigically centralized location optimal for world domination just happened to be Iraq. It's right in the Middle of everything.

go figure..
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#5 Nov 22 2005 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
***
2,152 posts
Kelvyquayo, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Quote:
This area of the world has high strategic importance to the United States, aside from the oil of course.


Agreed.

I played a Modern Day Scenerio in Civ3, and as America, the most stratigically centralized location optimal for world domination just happened to be Iraq. It's right in the Middle of everything.

go figure..


Personally, I see Africa being a center of conflict over the next century. A big issue with the Gulf wars was always requiring the land, which was more often than not supplied by Turkey, for military endeavors into the middle east. A large military base located in the red sea would make combat readiness, and the military's objective of having a "fighting force ready to deploy anywhere in the world in 24 hours" would be realized.

Edited, Tue Nov 22 11:15:27 2005 by Credos
#6 Nov 22 2005 at 11:16 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Timetables are the debil.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 227 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (227)