Bulgaria's Withdrawal from Iraq - Top Priority for Draft Cabinet

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=50423

Politics: 25 July 2005, Monday.

Withdrawing the Bulgarian military contingent in Iraq will be a major priority of the coalition between the country's Socialists and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF).

The statement emerged from Angel Naydenov, who was nominated for Bulgaria's next Defence Minister. This is a continuation of a long-term policy on the part of the Socialist parliamentary group, Naydenov told the Bulgarian National Radio.

However, he explained that technical reasons do not allow setting a specific deadline for the withdrawal. In his words, the military's pulling put of Iraq will take place in the fall at the earliest.

The commitment to pull out the Bulgarian troops from Iraq is hardly a surprise for both Bulgarians and European observers, he added.

[joemurphy]

1. Another blow to the "Coalition of the Willing"...

How many are they pulling out? All 500?

[pinniped]

2. They will need to obtain permission from * before that can happen...

like Poland did.

[Greeby]

3. Hmm

Considering the tiny numbers they send. You'd be forgiven for not knowing these countries troops were in Iraq in the first place.

[Dr.Phool]

4. You forgot Poland

They're leaving too!

[Greeby]

5. Concerned Brit here wondering

Big question is, when are my country's troops leaving? And by that I mean something legally binding, not this "could in a year" crap from John Reid

[Inland]

9. Britain is stepping out the door already.

Sure, there's still 8500 troops still in Iraq, not quite Poland-sized, but it's down from about 35,000 for the invasion and in a relatively quiet area. How does Blair get the praise as a loyal ally while providing so little.

I think the deal is that Bush doesn't mind Blair removing troops as long as he does it quietly and without stating that the occupation is a mess and without criticizing the US.

[Bumblebee]

6. all five of them?! :)

[Jacobin]

7. No. BOTH of them

:-)

[James T. Kirk]

8. This is bad. We need troops from European allies there.

Bulgaria has been an important ally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

[Greeby]

10. Sorry

Face it, America has no allies in Europe. Only a bunch of toadies hated by their own people, and hopefully to be turfed out soon

[James T. Kirk]

12. List of European Allies in Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

UK
Italy
Poland
Romania
Denmark
Bulgaria
Albania
Latvia
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Slovakia
Estonia
Armenia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Macedonia

On top of that, we have several European allies fighting alongside us in Afghanistan. Also, we are allied with all of the European nations in NATO.

We need as many European allies as we can get. We need to work with allies as much as possible!

[bvar22]

21. Updated List:

UK
Italy
Poland
Romania
Denmark
Bulgaria
Albania
Latvia
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Slovakia
Estonia
Armenia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Macedonia

[Zhade]

13. What, do you support this illegal war or something?

Just why the hell should Bulgaria continue to participate in this massive war crime?

[James T. Kirk]

14. So America can work with allies!

If America had no allies, it would be a unilateral action. Do you want America to act unilaterally? I hope not!

European allies bring stability and legitimacy. The more European llies you have with you, the better.

[Zhade]

15. You can't bring "legitimacy" to war crimes, and invading was a war crime.

Anyone wanting to makes me sick, and should be ashamed of themselves.

I don't want America to act in Iraq PERIOD. We have no business being there, we never did, and we need to get our asses out asap.

[James T. Kirk]

16. So, you preferred the pre-war situation with sanctions and no-fly zones?

I guess that would have been OK.

[Zhade]

17. The non-UN-sanctioned no-fly zones?

Not particularly.

[James T. Kirk]

18. But you liked the U.N. sanctions, right?

[Zhade]

19. Fuck no, they killed more than the war.

But then, neither was right. It's not either/or, "captain".

[James T. Kirk]

20. But the sanctions were totally OK and approved by the UN!

Perhaps the UN is not always right.

[dutchdoctor]

24. You are making it more difficult than it is..

It is not either/or in this case.
Let me put it in the simplest terms so you can understand:
Saddam: bad
Sanctions: bad
Invasion and occupation of country that had never attacked the U.S. before and posed no threat to its neighbours: bad
Being a member of the "coalition" doing the invasion (like Bulgaria): bad
withdrawing troops from occupied country: good
UN: sometimes good, sometimes bad


See? That's how easy it is!

[James T. Kirk]

25. Bulgaria: bad, UN: sometimes bad. Thanks! Got it!

Of course, Bulgaria was always bad. They were on the wrong side in WW2, on the wrong side in the cold war. Why would they switch now?

[bvar22]

23. Why not? They were 100% effective.

Didn't you get the memo? Let me refresh your memory:

IRAQ had NO (zero) WMDs. They were unable to BUILD any WMD!

The sanctions and inspections WORKED Perfectly!
Invasion and occupation were UNNECESSARY!

Occupation of Iraq and Privatization of Iraqi assets are a HUGE WARCRIME!

[James T. Kirk]

26. You louder you yell, the less people hear.

[bvar22]

27. Sure makes ME feel good, though.

Some people refuse to hear.
Clarity, Logic, Undeniable Proof,Indisputable Causality, Facts .......mean nothing to them.
They just change the subject, taking comfort in their externally imposed dogma without asking questions.

Willful ignorance, choosing fantasy over fact, unjustified blind obedience, sophistry....those all anger me.

[James T. Kirk]

28. OK. I'll put you in the pro-sanctions column.

Because they "worked perfectly".

[WhiteTara]

11. oops there goes another

member of the coalition of the bribed or coerced.

[truthisfreedom]

22. the coalition of the coerced. the coalition of their arms nearly twisted

off.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.