Iraq Wants Multinational Force to Stay (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBGJTTQ1VD.html)

From that article:

Zebari warned that "any premature departure of international troops would lead to chaos and the real possibility of a civil war in Iraq."

Sounds like a fair assessment.

From the people who were appointed by the USA, it is not a big surprise.
But he's right - to leave the country now would only lead to further chaos.

by the UN not US the guy we wanted was not approved by the IGC.

Now all we need to do is convince multiple nations that they want to send troops to Iraq.

I guess we can use the 37,000 troops we took out of South Korea (I believe that’s the country) and use them in Iraq. I guess we really are over-stretching our army, because, we are having to take all of these troops and send them to Iraq.

Now are positions around the world are now weaker, because of this war. We can spend all of our time and money in Iraq, while Al Quidea and other terrorist networks get stronger.

Something missing from the title...
Iraq Wants Multinational Force to Stay but Authority Over "security Matters"


He said the resolution must underline "the transfer of full sovereignty to the people of Iraq" and authorize the interim government "to control, administer and manage Iraq's resources and assets."

"This means investing full authority in the interim government to run Iraq's affairs, make its own decisions and have authority over Iraq's security matters," he said

__________________________________________________ __

In an interview Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Iraq will not be given a veto over U.S. troops. The 138,000 U.S. troops will remain under U.S. command, Powell said.

"There could be a situation where we have to act and there may be a disagreement," Powell told Middle East Broadcasting.

So who's in charge?

We will never give control of our troops to another country, unless they are part of the Nato force.
As to who is in charge, it breaks down pretty easy.
If we want to complete an op and the Iraqis disagree then they can say go home. If they demand we do what they ask then we can go home.
We are in charge of our forces and they are in charge of theirs.
If we let them direct our military and the troops were used to destroy a political opponent then we would catch hell.
OD I believe that is wrong, we have 37000 troops in SK and are moving 12500.
Why is it ok to defend SK but not Iraq? I dont get that, but dont forget the 30000 we are moving from Germany to Turkey, proposed.

Now that the UN resolution has passed we will be able to have others join in the effort.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran

OD I believe that is wrong, we have 37000 troops in SK and are moving 12500.
Why is it ok to defend SK but not Iraq? I dont get that, but dont forget the 30000 we are moving from Germany to Turkey, proposed.


I heard we are moving 37,000, but that's beside the point. We have to take troops, from around the world and put them in Iraq.

It's okay to have them in South Korea because, well if you haven' t noticed, North Korea has large weapons, and was and is a huge threat to us. That is why we have them there.

The reason I'm mad that we have to send troops from all around the world, to Iraq, is because President Bush never said we would need to take these soldiers. He did not plan correctly, and underestimated how hard this occupation was going to be.

The Pentagon is moving 3,600 U.S. troops from South Korea to Iraq this summer, a shift that highlights the stress on the U.S. Army and promises a significant change in the way the United States helps defend the Korean peninsula.

DOnt be an ignorant fool, look it up.
Remember Engage brain before putting mouth in gear.

Highlights the stress of us, not planning for the war, and us overstretching our army because of Bush’s poor planning (so now we are forced to do this). A new way of defending South Korea….yeah, less troops will defend it a lot better.

I remember that 6-8 years ago keeping troops in Korea was a bad thing, the liberal extremist were saying that we had to reduce our prescence there, well I guess that has changed or maybe it is another excuse to attack Bush, damn pick the right reasons. There are plenty of them but not many have hit on them yet.

Am I forced to believe everything the liberals say? Also, thatthink was 6 to 8 years ago, and North Korea now has tons of weapons, and we need to have a strong presence there, because they are a threat to America. But sure, if you think taking troops away from SK is okay, be my guest.

Why is it you believe that a country with less income than Iraq could develop more weapons than they could? And why has it changed? Because Bush said we could move the troops without any problems? I am confused Korea was a bigger threat 8 years ago than they are now.

with the new weapons they have been building? yes, they are less of a threat.

Originally posted by Overdose
with the new weapons they have been building? yes, they are less of a threat.
I agree NK is less of a threat, done, finished over.

BV, it’s called sarcasm, look it up.

Oh, and you seem to be calling every debate we have “over”, when you “say” it is. I don’t think so. I’ll be away for awhile, but these debates are not over, they have just begun. I’ll have lots of fun when I get back.

Oh, and you don't run the show, so don't tell me when the debate is done.

Ok so its not over, but how do you debate one side of an issue?

Yes there's no dout these folks need help, but ever nation should have the same amount of troups committed or at least ever nation of any size, Say we send 5000 troups then some of the bigger other countries should send 5000 troups, What are we America getting for sending the bulck of the forces,are the Iraqi's selling just us much cheaper oil and gas ?? This country should be getting something for this besides being hated by the Arab World !!

Originally posted by TMW1956
Yes there's no dout these folks need help, but ever nation should have the same amount of troups committed or at least ever nation of any size, Say we send 5000 troups then some of the bigger other countries should send 5000 troups, What are we America getting for sending the bulck of the forces,are the Iraqi's selling just us much cheaper oil and gas ?? This country should be getting something for this besides being hated by the Arab World !!
No, it should be decided by amount of military total and work on a percentage. Taking that into account then Britain is actually more committed than we are.