Badassbab said:
Kasz216 said:
Badassbab said:
Kasz216 said:
Badassbab said:
Kasz216 said:
Badassbab said:
Kaz,
I haven't seen any agreement of when the US will leave Iraq, the Iraqis have for years been trying to get them to agree on withdrawal and the Iraqi public have been wanting it since day one. There are agreements on when the the US will withdraw a large proportion of their army but not completely (which is what the majority of the Iraqi and American people want and if democracy mattered it would've happened years ago).
To say the US didn't go in for any other reason other than control of black gold is ignorant. Your reason doesn't hold up to scrunity and no offense but quite laughable. |
There is an agreement on when they'll leave US. They signed the agreement right before the US elections took place. The troops are all supposed to be out by 2012.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/3461368/British-and-US-troops-to-leave-Iraq-by-2011.html
|
That article doesn't prove your point at all. If anything it's vague and lacks specifics. Not surprising as it's dated 2008 when Bush was still in power. There is no way the US will withdraw completely, they never do unless comprehensively defeated on the political front by way of mass protests etc (Vietnam) as militarily the're pretty much unstoppable (within reason).
|
There are actual later articles. It was just the first one i could find. There is an agreeement in place though. If you don't want to believe it because of your own biases i cant help you.
|
There is no agreement in place that will mean the complete and utter withdrawal of the US military from Iraq. As far as I'm concerned that's a fact if you can prove otherwise I'd like to see it. Nothing bias on my part just stating facts. Has the US withdrawn from Germany? Japan? Korea? Iraq will be NO different.
|
I don't see how I can prove to you something is going to happen... when I show you the policy that states it's going to happen and you claim thats not the case. Once again... this time aproved by US Congress.
I mean hell... we have an agreement passed by congress and a ban on establishing permanent bases? What more do you want... a time machine to the future?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/home/168-general/48378-congress-affirms-iraq-withdrawal-date-of-december-31-2009.html
Also your choices are weird. Since you are claiming we are going to "Control them for their oil." Like we're controlling Germany?
|
Nothing weird about my choices, Germany, Japan and Korea are firmly under the US camp and have been since the end of the second world war. Of course the control lessens over time as the politics of the time dictates.
Sorry for sounding skeptical but does that article really mean everyone controlled from the Pentagon inc military advisors and not just combat troops? I haven't really read into the legislation so don't really know what it entails. I always thought it was gradual withdrawal of combat troops with the Pentagon still having a permanent presence of some sort. So I take it can't be altered in any way and nothing can come between it? I just find it hard to believe there will be a permanent complete withdrawal. And what about the embassy? Will they reduce that in size as that's about the size of a small city. Will need combat troops to defend that. And does it include all mercanaries? I guess I'll have to wait until Dec 31, 2011 (what's with the precise date lol).
|
Embassies are considered soil of the actual country, not soil of the other country.
Everything in the US Embassy would be considered inside the United States.
Other then that. I can't say. All I can tell you is that unlike all the states you mentioned there is a ban on permanment military bases. Which means the US can't run bases in the country like they do in other countries.
