British troops not needed says Iraqi PM

[Gromit]

The UN Security Council mandate authorising the presence of British forces in the Iraq expires on Dec 31. Mr Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister warned that once the UN mandate expires, British forces would "lose their legal cover and have to leave Iraq".

Mr Maliki thanked British soldiers for their efforts in Iraq, but said that their combat and security roles had become redundant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/midd leeast/iraq/3187410/British-troops-not-needed- in-Iraq-says-Nouri-al-Maliki.html

So why aren't we pulling out our troops before the end of the year?

[keyplus90]

Because there is still some oil left in the Iraqi oil fields and its not Iraqis who need British troops there. Its American who want someone to watch their back while they finish the real job on hand.

So in simple words. If oil is there, Americans would stay there, if American would stay there, they would need some sort of loyal company.

[R1Geezer]

I agree Gromit pull out now and let the heathens Kill each other. The Iraqi PM just wants US and the septics gone so he can set up his own version of the Hussain dynasty.

[terambulan]

Keyplus90.....muslims not interested in the oil in Iraq. They want control (muhajideens) for same reason. You know it, admit it!

[youngmafbog]

No doubt a slow withdrawl will start.

I suspect this is all part of the chriade. We need our troops out to go to Afghanistan so I suspect all concerned are now setting the worlds expectations so that any pullout does not leave a vacuum or false rumours.

Oil has little to do with it. Oil companies will trade with whoever and the ragheads need the oil companies too or they are back in their tents.

[keyplus90]

Terambulan � stay with the topic. But just for the time being even if I agree with you. Do you believe Iraq is a safer place now for Iraqis, neighbour countries and world or it was safer when Saddam was in power. And before you say anything let me tell you that I am not related to Saddam. I never liked him either but one thing is a fact that he had controlled that country very nicely.

[Gromit]

keyplus90

Saddam was a dictator who ruled by fear. If you got on the wrong side of him, you were killed, your family was killed, and in some cases, everyone in your village was killed.

"...he had controlled that country very nicely." is not a very acurate summation of his rule. Iraq is not much better now, but getting all nostalgic about the good old days under Saddam is wide of the mark.

[keyplus90]

I think we are talking about Kurds. What about the Kurds killed by Turks?

[Gromit]

keyplus90

No, we are talking about anyone who Saddam did not like - Iraqi Sunnis, Iraqi Shias or Iraqi Kurds.

Your attempt to deflect the question to another country looks like you cannot substantiate your claim that Saddam ran Iraq 'nicely' or rebuff my accusation that your summation of Saddam's rule is wide of the mark.

[keyplus90]

OK Fine I agree with you. Lets see if Iraq becomes a better country now, or in the near future.

[Gromit]

Glad that's cleared up. Now, what was that about Kurds killed by Turks?

[keyplus90]

I have not condoned Saddam�s killing of kurds, never have I ever appreciated any sort of innocent killing (at least my standards are same). Yes the question was about controlling that country, and only time would tell (and I hope) that someone gets that country at least to the same position where Saddam has that if not better it.
You tell me why world ignored at that time? Or you may get some idea from these links.
The U.S. delivered an early Christmas present to the people of Iraq this year in the form of logistical support for Turkey's war against the Kurds.
http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/0000023 1.htm

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0139.htm l

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/i tems/659

http://thesop.org/index.php?article=8944

Or is it we only say that someone is doing wrong when we do not need their services any more?