UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon warned President Bush against an “abrupt withdrawal” of US forces from Iraq:
“Great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people,” Ban said in a New York press conference Monday. “The international community cannot and should not abandon them. Any abrupt withdrawal or decision may lead to a further deterioration of the situation in Iraq.”
I guess this is Ban’s polite way of saying “you broke it, you fix it.”
20 Comments
I guess that is Bans way of helping Bush. Bush wants to keep troops in Iraq while his own party is defecting in congress to vote for the pull-out measure. Bushs’ credibility is so shot that the UN secretary General agreeing with him actually holds
relative weight.
Fuck up and fuck off appears to be the intended US strategy of the day
Cutting and running would be as well though out as the decision to go in the first place.
Blaming it on Bush, Cheney, etc is no good either for our “democratic” country.
We voted for it, we send your sons over and fix it.
The US is ethically obliged not to abrogate our responsibility in Iraq.
May death reign down us if we do.
Did I miss the football post?
It’s possible that South Korea may be playing China in the quarterfinals on Sunday, right?
Where’s the football coverage dude? Where’s the Red Spirit?
Ban is right. If the U.S. is going to fight this war, then they should go at it hammer and tongs instead of throwing incompetent administrators and government personnel at it.
“Great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people” — unfortunately, it’s about 5.5 years too late for that. America doesn’t “do” caution, it just blunders on with military force.
The basic problem is that the US (at least the Bush administration) CAN’T fix it. If they had any idea how to, they woud have already. Also, our presence there is a major part of the problem, WE grow insurgents like Doritos. The Bush ’strategy’ is designed soley to hold on until 2009 when the whole sorry mess will be dumped in the next president’s lap.
1) “…I guess this is Ban’s polite way of saying “you broke it, you fix it.”
This assumes that Saddam’s pre-2003 Iraq qualified as an “unbroken” member of the “international community”. Or more pertinently, his pre-Aug 1990 Iraq, since we (US) remained in a technical state of war with the constituted civil government of Iraq from Jan 91 until the dissolution of Saddam’s government after the capture of Baghdad.
2) “…The Bush ’strategy’ is designed soley to hold on until 2009 when the whole sorry mess will be dumped in the next president’s lap.”
If I was a cynic I’d characterize President Clinton’s “Iraq strategy” of 1993-2001 in the same way. During this time we (US and coalition, mainly the UK) conducted armed flights and bombing attacks on the sovereign state of Iraq’s air defense installations, accompanied by periodic “surges” of much greater intensity (ie Operation “Desert Fox”, fall of 1998).
Not to mention the much ballyhooed “embargo” which was supposedly responsible for the death of many Iraqis esp children. Anybody happen to remember all that?
3) The Democrats in Congress who are now grinding their teeth in impotent fury could have avoided handing the much-despised Bush 43 the opportunity to renew the long-delayed ground attack of Feb 91 into Iraq, simply by stepping up and supporting President Clinton in the making of some sort of “cold peace” with Saddam, at any time during the Clinton administration (similar to what has happened with North Korea). (In fairness, some Democrats in Congress during the Clinton era probably did advocate just that).
But now there’a a chance for the Dems to fight this political battle on another day. In September there will be another opportunity to NOT appropriate supplemental money for the Iraq war. No supermajority vote (and therefore, no Republican “defections”) will be required for that!
All the Democrats in Congress have to do is “just say no”. With no appropriated funds for Iraq, Pres Bush will be forced to order US forces in Iraq back into their cantonment areas, either preparatory to a complete withdrawal (to Kuwait or Okinawa or whereever) or to prepare for the “next phase” of some sort of permanent stationing of a lesser number of US forces for more limited operations in Iraq, as many leading Democratic Congressmembers advocate.
Depending upon what the Democrats decide they want the US to do next. Courage! (as Dan Rather might say if he were still on the air at CBS). The two leading Democratic contenders for President are both US Senators, let’s see if they will call for the cutting off of all war funds in order to force this intransigent President to bend.
millions and millions of souteast Asians perished around Vietnam with continuous wars in the region, notably from Cambodia.
this was the right thing to do?
Ban is supporting Bush’s plan in a hidden way.
I’m shocked that a Uri party origin would say so, but let’s not forget he is probably a political moderate from DLP origins.
it’s the easy and convenient way for US to bring all troops home.
Nothing is finished in the former Yugoslavia. Clinton’s war. There is a threat of another war. But, but, but !
No US physical troops at stake. Europe and US were content to watch for 7 years to let those people kill each other. And launch air strikes.
This is the post-Vietnam weakend mindset of America.
Trouble in the globe?
Launch air strikes, watch it on tv. Let them kill each other until they get tired.
Good news !
Iraqis are getting tired of killing each other! I predict within 3 years that they’ll stop attacking the US troops, because they’d rather have US troops than be blown away by random market bombs.
but, thanks to dumb liberals in America, that may not happen. In Dec 2009, Obama or Clinton would be planning another entry into Iraq to solve the problem, because Iraq would be in constant civil war. Drumming up allies to enter a 3rd Iraq invasion.
you don’t want that?
Vote Republican.
“If I was a cynic I’d characterize President Clinton’s “Iraq strategy” of 1993-2001 in the same way. “
Yes, although it’s fair to point out that the no-fly zones, sanctions, and other pressure tactics were already in place when Clinton took office.
US policy toward Iraq since 1990 has enjoyed bipartisan support, and I believe it was the Democrats who strongly supported the airstrikes on Yugoslavia. Both parties are amenable to using military force against foreign countries that have not attacked the US, and this sudden anti-war fervor amongst Democrats seems calculated to leave Republicans holding the bag on a popularly supported invasion that has crumbled into an unpopular war.
I have vowed not to vote for any member of Congress or presidential candidate who cast a vote in support of the invasion in 2003.
I’m not going to say that Iraq wasn’t a highly disfunctional place pre-invasion. And, I believe that a lot of the divides we see there today can be attributed to a hangover from the former regime. However, if it wasn’t broken before the invasion, it is almost completely trashed now.
I can appreciate the fact that Americans are concerned with what will happen there - as they should; as has been pointed out, the United States is responsible for having invaded this country - for dubious reasons - in the first place - but can assure you that this is by far a greater and more immediate concern for Iraqis.
The Iraq War was a fool’s errand from the beginning. So many experts (e.g. respected political theorist John Mearsheimer), generals (e.g. Gen. Eric Shinseki) and wise folks from all manner of expertise and vocation warned DON’T INVADE IRAQ.
But Bush did anyways. (1) He lied about WMD. (2) He lied about uranium in Niger. (3) He lied about an Al Qaeda connection. (4) He lied about US troops being greeted with roses. (5) Bush lied about Iraq having chemical or biological weapons. (6) He lied about Iraq having a fleet of planes capable of dispersing such weapons to anywhere in the world. (7) Bush lied about Iraq having metal tubes built for nuke weapons production, a lie debunked months before he launched his invasion. (8) Bush lied about Iraq rebuilding its nuke facilities at former sites, which was also debunked months before he launched the invasion.
Bush has lied constantly before and after his Iraq War started. The war is said to cost 40 billion a month now. It cost about 3,000 Americans their lives. It cost 10s of thouusands of their limbs, their sanity, and their health in numerous other ways.
Iraq is in no way comparable to bombing Serbia. Are you out of your mind??? That is a ridiculous comparison. To compare the two the way you did just shows how completely out of touch you are. The Iraq War has ruined America in ways that the ten year long Vietnam War couldn’t ever do.
Bush has bankrupt America militaruly, fincancially, politically, in credibility (diplomacy) and spiritually (character).
How can America demand to replace a country like Lybia on the UN Human Rights Commission now??? Who are the Americans now??? Do they stand for democracy and human rights now? Or oil and some abstract MIddle East hegemony, some weird neo-con theory??? The Iraq War has at best mullified America’s position as a beacon of such virtues. America’s soul has been cheapened by Bush’s war.
I notice that the strident Pro-Bush pontificating seems to be waning.I hope the pendulum doesn’t swing too far the other way.
Clinton’s policies toward Iraq were far from good, but it should be pointed out that it was conservatives and Republicans who pushed most strongly for precisely those policies. They are the ones who have been after Saddam and pushing invasion since the early 1990s. The point of my post was that the US sinmply has no idea how to ‘fix’ Iraq and no real ability to do it if it did. To truly ‘pacify’ Iraq would require 500,000 US soldiers. The Iraqi military is useless to us and no one else is sending any meaningful number of ‘coalition’ troops anymore. We don’t have those troops without a draft, and that ain’t coming back. Our continued presence there makes things worse, not better.
continued presence is the only option. Withdrawal is convenient, mostly because only Iraqis will die. That’s what this is about, isn’t it?
Don’t give a damn as long as there is no home blood shed.
African civil wars. Yugoslavian civil war. Chechen war, Pol Pot’s genocide. Vietnam’s war with its neighbors after US withdrawal, Indonesian genocide of minorities, the list goes on and on.
Republicans were shitting on Clinton’s airstrikes against Iraq when Clinton was boss.
Democrats were shitting on Bush I when Bush I was boss.
Now, Democrats are shitting on Bush II when Bush II is boss.
Bush NEVER lied. Yeah, that’s right.
There was a world wide consensus among Russian, German, Italian, French, and British espionage divisions that Iraq had everything dangerous to be feared, and even Iraq claimed it had it. They kicked out the IAEA, they warned US not to enter Baghdad, hinting a WMD use, and their front man, the Minister of Information of Iraq committed suicide right after.
Don’t worry. Everything is sitting pretty in Syria.
Face it, US is now ultra sensative over troop deaths since Vietnam.
If Ike, FDR, or Truman were President nowadays, they would have been impeached while in office. And even Teddy Roosevelt!
Way more people died during those wars.
Hey WJK, don’t Bogart that stuff……..pass around whatever it is that you’re smoking!
“Iraq is in no way comparable to bombing Serbia.”
Military operations against Iraq and Serbia had different motives/objectives, but both were, as I stated correctly, interventions against foreign countries that had not attacked the US.
I rank Bush II as one of the worst US presidents in history. His two-term reign has been a long national nightmare. However, it is ridiculous to blame Iraq on Bush or his administration alone. He didn’t invade without support from Congress and the American people. I don’t accept the “Bush lied” excuse. Most folks outside the US who had an opinion on the war doubted the intel and thought the invasion was a disastrous idea. How come it took our country four years, 3,500 military deaths, and $460 billion dollars to figure out what the rest of the world knew from the get-go?
sonagi, the rest of the world did not know anything different from the get-go compared to the USA.
they all thought Iraq had wmd’s.
difference? Europe feared waging war with the Muslims.
it was the case where people caring passionately for something until they realized it was gonna cost them something significant.
there are big Muslim populations within Europe that have settled there by immigration.
UK took a risk. They suffered. London Olympics terror, recent plot by highly educated, high social order Muslims, who obviously never felt comfortable being a Brit.
France. They didn’t want to. However, they got theirs anyway, even without entering the war. Muslim youths would trash France for about a week in the 2000’s, claiming unfair treatment over a minor altercation with police.
Spain got bombed on its commuter train line. No, that wasn’t the ETA. That was the internal Muslim population.
US. Call it the new police state. Or whatever you want. Bush II made it possible for millions of Americans to not even feel one prick of blood since 911 and even turn the stocks, and corporate economy around in the green. You call that the worst US President, ever? 90% of Americans got a minimum in the 100s, and most likely much more than that money as what are called tax refunds. I know, because I didn’t even do anything and got $700 in tax refunds this year alone.
And we say, we don’t want this money. Take it all back, and give us free health care. Withdraw all the troops. Let the Iraqis kill each other.
Uh, they’re gonna have to take much more than those checks to give us free health care, and that’s the inconvenient truth. I think with the free check, I could have bought myself one months worth of PPO coverage and had left over money to buy myself 4 tankfuls of gas on the Elantra. What are you talking about, tax us more? You mean, tax someone else more? People and corps cheat on taxes legally and illegally. Nobody wants to pay their fair share and everybody wants a free lunch.
I feel safe when I go thru all that airport routine. I feel safe when the FBI and CIA prevent a US terror plot. I feel safe when they raise the terror alert.
This is a clash of civilizations forced upon us. Nobody chose to do this.
By the way, what do you think will happen, if US had gone thru what Pakistan went thru in the past few weeks? Probably singing All we are saying is give peace a chance, 1,2,3,4, we don’t want this fucking war. Bush lies, who dies. fuck bush, fuck bush.
And there will be police and military doing all they can to prevent a terror attack upon those people.
The FACTUAL historical record clearly demonstrates that many countries doubted the WMD claim. It was Bush who forced the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq, not Saddam. And it was Bush who authorized and flogged the cherry-picked (misleading) intelligence estimates. He has been dishonest and wrong the whole route on Iraq, and he is wrong now. We are NOT safer because of his disastrous policies and staying in Iraq will make us progresively less safe. The police and military are being squandered in a fruitless and counterproductive foreign policy fiasco that is only helping Osama and his boys get what they want, a US-led crusade against all muslims. When you are in a deep hole the first course of action is to stop digging.
and I’m telling you what Hillary and Obama already know.
after pulling out, they’ll be getting ready for Iraq, round 3.
Yes, a 3rd invasion !
I predict this happens after they are re-elected, for we all know that Presidents do what they truly want when they don’t have to worry about re-elections.
actually, I’m correcting myself.
Obama has rocks in his head.
Or rocks in his heart.
I believe he’s the first in a decade to openly say withdraw, even if the Iraqis kill each other.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200....._interview
vote for Obama. Watch the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other on tv. Grab some pop and pop corn.
Didn’t Obama promise healthcare for all?
Nice.