Britain asks US for Iraq pullout timetable.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Iraq/...llout-timetable/2005/01/20/1106110864424.html

Britain wants the United States to come up with a provisional timetable for the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq, the Daily Telegraph reported today.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour government was hopeful US President George W Bush would agree to make a formal announcement within two or three months, the newspaper said, quoting an unnamed government source for its information.

The Daily Telegraph said Britain, Bush's closest ally on Iraq and a major troop contributor, believed an "indicative timetable" for a pullout would bolster Iraq's interim government and undermine insurgents.

"Giving a timetable would be an important political signal that we intend to leave Iraq," the government source was quoted as saying.

"The main Iraqi parties are already talking about when coalition forces should be drawn down," said the source.

"America knows it will have to deal with the issue soon."

Britain's Foreign Office declined to comment on the report.

Talk of a withdrawal timetable could give Blair a boost as he prepares to call a general election, widely expected to take place in May.

Interesting.

 

[Grammatron]

We can begin no further than 40 years from now, I guarantee it.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think Blair has a timeframe that is a lot sooner, ie, before the next election he wants to give something definite.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Bush will give him a crumb of comfort around Easter, but after Bliar wins the election, the timetable will soon be 'revised'.

With any luck, in May we'll elect a party that will bring British troops home by the end of the year, but I doubt it...

 

[a_unique_person]

Bush will give him a crumb of comfort around Easter, but after Bliar wins the election, the timetable will soon be 'revised'.

With any luck, in May we'll elect a party that will bring British troops home by the end of the year, but I doubt it...

What party? The tories will be even firmer allies of Bush.

 

[Smike]

What party? The tories will be even firmer allies of Bush.

What's the name again?

....begins with an L.........then a D....something to do with being democratic...

 

[Kerberos]

What's the name again?

....begins with an L.........then a D....something to do with being democratic...

You mean that small party that doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the next election?

 

[Capitalist]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Iraq/...llout-timetable/2005/01/20/1106110864424.html



Interesting.

Not interesting, sad. Sad that a "pullout timetible" (e.i. surrender) would boost Blair's chance of reelection.

Incidentally, Tony Blah will not get what he wants.

 

[Ian Osborne]

What party? The tories will be even firmer allies of Bush.

Liberal Democrats. They won't win, but hopefully they'll gain enough seats to break Labour's vice-like grip on power.

 

[Capitalist]

Liberal Democrats. They won't win, but hopefully they'll gain enough seats to break Labour's vice-like grip on power.

Incidentally; go UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Britain asks US for Iraq pullout timetable.

Not interesting, sad. Sad that a "pullout timetible" (e.i. surrender) would boost Blair's chance of reelection.

Incidentally, Tony Blah will not get what he wants.

So that's the thanks he gets.

 

[Smike]

You mean that small party that doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the next election?

With luck (lots of it), they could become the opposition though. Hopefully anyone disillusioned with labour will vote Lib Dem.

 

[geni]

Incidentally; go UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party

No I tend to feel that women might have a role outside the home.

 

[geni]

You mean that small party that doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the next election?

And that differs from the Tories how?

 

[richardm]

Re: Re: Britain asks US for Iraq pullout timetable.

Sad that a "pullout timetible" (e.i. surrender) would boost Blair's chance of reelection.

In what way is a "pullout timetable" a surrender? Surely it would be an indication of success? Or do you think that the only way to stop Iraq from going to the wall would be to keep coalition troops there forever?

 

[Kerberos]

And that differs from the Tories how?

They're smaller.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Britain asks US for Iraq pullout timetable.

Not interesting, sad. Sad that a "pullout timetible" (e.i. surrender) would boost Blair's chance of reelection.

We've pulled out of a pretty large section of the planet at one time or another. I don't think many of them counted as defeats

Incidentally, Tony Blah will not get what he wants. [/B]

He might get something. I don't think that having to police the south of Iraq as well will go down very well with the american people.

 

[Capitalist]

Re: Re: Re: Britain asks US for Iraq pullout timetable.

In what way is a "pullout timetable" a surrender? Surely it would be an indication of success? Or do you think that the only way to stop Iraq from going to the wall would be to keep coalition troops there forever?

A pullout before victory is a defeat. A pullout because you've lost your nerve is not merely a defeat, but a surrender.

Also; I don't want to stop Iraq from "going to the wall" I want us to send Iraq to the wall ourselves, or, in absence of the political will to do so, I want Iraq to be governed by somebody who is afraid of crossing the United States.

 

[Capitalist]

No I tend to feel that women might have a role outside the home.

Are you sure you are not confusing them with the BNP?

 

[geni]

Are you sure you are not confusing them with the BNP?

]

Nope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3912205.stm