Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one? as edited by Karajou (Talk | contribs) at 11:35, 24 January 2010. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting


The current presence of the USA and its coalition partners in Iraq is based on a United Nations authorization which expires at the end of 2008. The United States is currently in negotiations with the Iraqi government to develop an agreement directly between our two nations that would allow a U.S. presence and continued operations without requiring United Nations approval.

Negotiations towards such an agreement have stalled in June, 2008, with each side insisting on requirements that are considered unacceptable to the other. One of these issues is that the leadership of the Iraqi Parliament is calling for a specific timetable for U.S. troops to be withdrawn as part of any agreement. For the Iraq government, this is an essential step in asserting their sovereign rights and control over their own nation. For the U.S., this puts all of the progress and stability earned with American assets & lives at risk if the Iraqi military and police forces are not able to secure the peace.


If the purpose of invading Iraq was to remove Saddam and set up a democratic society, then we MUST respect the will of the sovereign nation and remove our forces if asked to by the Iraqi government/parliament. --Jareddr 17:08, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

If we're recognizing that Iraq is now a sovereign nation under the government we helped establish, then we have to be consistent with that principle and respect any timetable they set. The door would still be open for us to increase a presence there by mutual agreement in the future, and we can use the assets in Afghanistan and at home, badly. --DinsdaleP 17:34, 14 July 2008 (EDT)


A half a trillion dollars says we do what we want, when we want. If leaving early causes the Democrat government to collapse, then we are back at square one. We leave when the Iraqi's stand up for themselves, not just saying they can stand up, they must demonstrate they can. The ultimate success of the Iraqi govt is the objective. Unsigned comments by user Jpatt

"A half a trillion dollars says we do what we want, when we want." Except when the UN authorization expires, we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. Regardless of how much money we have (needlessly) spent in Iraq, it is a sovereign nation. The Chinese government has invested an enormous amount of money in the U.S., and yet they have, thankfully, NOT taken your advice and told us how to handle our affairs. And for good reason---as a sovereign nation we make our own laws and decisions, and so will the Iraqi government. --Jareddr 17:28, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Oh, and square one would be to have Saddam back in power, and I believe he is currently indisposed, so I don't think we will ever find ourselves literally back at square one. --Jareddr 17:28, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
You are so funny. Are you sure Saddam is disposed of? Square one in reference to Democracy, not leadership but I know you knew that. Thankfully the Chinese haven't invested in the USA with blood of their soldiers. Signed comments by --jp 18:47, 14 July 2008 (EDT)