Iraqi sees need for U.S. military until 2018: report

[ms]

 

Iraqi sees need for U.S. military until 2018: report

Reuters
Tuesday January 15, 2008

Iraq's defense minister said on Monday his country would need foreign military help to defend its borders for another 10 years and would not be able to maintain internal security until 2012.

Abdul Qadir's remarks, in an interview with The New York Times posted on the newspaper's Internet site, could become an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign.

"According to our calculations and our timelines, we think that from the first quarter of 2009 until 2012 we will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country," Qadir said.

"In regard to the borders, regarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020," he said.

(Article continues below)


President George W. Bush has said U.S. troops may have to stay in Iraq for years but most presidential candidates, especially Democrats, would like them to withdraw much faster.


Full article here.
 
 

[magooch]

Well now--this all sounds like an opportunity to do some bidness.  We can trade security for oil.  How about a million barrels of oil per year for each trooper on the ground?  And while we're at it, lets not send regular GI's; mercinaries could do the job without so many political problems.

[magooch]

TM, I know you just can't help yourself from blaming bush for everything that goes wrong in the world.  Do you think there is something wrong with having Iraq pay for their security?  It's quite possible that it hasn't been workable yet, but that doesn't mean that we just dismiss it out of hand, because Bush didn't wave his hands and make it work.

I guess the other alternative would be to resurrect Saddam and let him pick up where he left off.  Then the world would be all good again.  Yeah right!!!

[Don Fischer]

I guess the other alternative would be to resurrect Saddam and let him pick up where he left off. 

Well,,,,oil was a whole lot cheaper then! And he didn't kill any of my friends. His rules of engagement were somewhat different than ours. He shot his enemy's, we differenciate between civilian and soldier in a war zone. Unfortunately many of those that are civilans durning the day are soldiers at night! I'm with the democrates. I think we should pull out within 30 days,,,,right after we turn the country into a waste land full of oil wells owned by anyone other than the oil companies!

[beemanbeme]

 Let them hire mercenaries. Then let the "touchy-feelies" see what "playing rough" really means.

[deltecs]

Well now--this all sounds like an opportunity to do some bidness.  We can trade security for oil.  How about a million barrels of oil per year for each trooper on the ground?  And while we're at it, lets not send regular GI's; mercinaries could do the job without so many political problems.

Why pay mercenaries, why not use illegal immigrants and use this time to prove they are worthy of US citizenship?  They fail over there, they fail here.

[deltecs]

I guess the other alternative would be to resurrect Saddam and let him pick up where he left off. 

Well,,,,oil was a whole lot cheaper then! And he didn't kill any of my friends. His rules of engagement were somewhat different than ours. He shot his enemy's, we differenciate between civilian and soldier in a war zone. Unfortunately many of those that are civilans durning the day are soldiers at night! I'm with the democrates. I think we should pull out within 30 days,,,,right after we turn the country into a waste land full of oil wells owned by anyone other than the oil companies!

No, Saddam didn't kill any of your friends.  He just killed only a few in the first gulf war and then refused to comply with the UN peace accord.  He had a country full of terrorists and some of them, if they didn't plot or conspire anything with 9/11, sure did shout and burn the US flag when it happened while they were plotting some other terrorist act.  Saddam himself applauded the attack and tacitly aided and supported any anti US policy.  So I guess the terrorist attack on 9/11 was not directly attributed to him but his policies were not against terrorism on US soil or abroad.  So that is OK for us to eat his **** and have only some citizens killed and maimed that were not your friends.  I had no personal contact with anyone who died or was injured in 9/11, but like the attack on Pearl Harbor, Germany was now at war wtih the US because I consider civilian deaths from terrorists or governments supporting terrorists, my friends.

[deltecs]

TM, I know you just can't help yourself from blaming bush for everything that goes wrong in the world.  Do you think there is something wrong with having Iraq pay for their security?  It's quite possible that it hasn't been workable yet, but that doesn't mean that we just dismiss it out of hand, because Bush didn't wave his hands and make it work.

I guess the other alternative would be to resurrect Saddam and let him pick up where he left off.  Then the world would be all good again.  Yeah right!!!

.
If you were president and trashed this country like the last six years I'd blame you too......he's at the controls, ergo he gets the blame.
My comment stems from the lasts 6 years of recent history and the results from utter incompetence wrapped in secrecy.  Thus my comment not to keep doing the same, because I can't afford all this progress, flowing oil, and security; and as the world thinks we're nuts.  Why not just sign your grandchildren directly over to the future use and whim of the new government since ripping off the future is to be the norm.

Deltecs,,,you really want to train, pay, and arm a mercenary/army of illegal/legal foreigners to do our bidding?...please think about that....

...TM7

So we train a group of mercenaries instead?  The illegals already here are armed, and as for the pay, we are paying soldiers there now so there is no increase in monetary expense.  Are you worried about the illegals returning as trained soldiers with the knowledge of how to use weapons?  I am more concerned with those already here that vote in elections, work to send money out of our economy, and take US jobs, raise and bear children that are now US citizens who do not and will refuse to speak the common English language, and steal our social benefits without paying into it.  Either deport them all, or let them prove they are worthy of US citizenship.  I did not say anything about legal immigrants and absolutely no to mercenaries.  Give all illegals the option of fighting overseas or getting deported with their entire family.

[deltecs]

It is obvious that media has distorted the American thinking man.  Saddam had WMD, used them, manufactured chemical weapons, and sent missiles against a US ally.  The WMD's were not the only point of non compliance with the surrender terms.  We didn't find any, which is not the same as none existed.  Our invasion of Iraq was not solely a US invasion, but one of many countries, regardless of the numbers of troops.  Most now have retreated due internal political pressure from its citizens or due to terrorists threats like Italy.  Is this the way America is to retreat too?  Due to threats against our civilian population who are not in uniform either?  Or due to the electorate who have lost friends in uniform without regard to those 3,000 people dead from terrorists?  What do you think the solution is since it is obviously another conspiracy?  Vote Paul and dishonor those who have already sacrificed something for nothing?  Vote Demoncrat so we civilians have no weapons to fight terrorist attacks and criminals on our home front?  Give me some answers and suggestions instead of why, what, where, when and who went wrong and placing blame on someone instead of correcting the problems.  I hope you didn't raise your children with this method of reasoning.

[ms]

Green span said we went over there for oil.