Italy to pull troops from Iraq

[takeo]

Berlusconi said he was responding to public opinion
Italy is to begin withdrawing its troops from Iraq in September 2005, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has said.
He told Rai state television the pullout would take place "in agreement with our allies".

Italy has 3,000 troops in Iraq - the fourth largest foreign contingent.

Domestic opposition to Italy's involvement in Iraq intensified after the killing of an Italian agent by US troops in Baghdad earlier this month.

The surprise announcement came as Italy's lower house of parliament backed a recent Senate vote to extend the country's military presence in Iraq beyond June.

'Progressive reduction'

Mr Berlusconi has been one of US President George W Bush's staunchest allies in the US-led war in Iraq.

Main international troops in Iraq
US: 150,000
UK: 8,000
South Korea: 3,600
Italy: 3,085
Poland: 1,700
Ukraine: 1,600
Georgia: 898
Romania: 730
Japan: 550
Denmark: 496
Bulgaria: 450
Australia: 400
Source: Global Security
But, he said, after speaking to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair he concluded that public opinion in both countries favoured a troop withdrawal.

"In September we will begin a progressive reduction of the number of our soldiers in Iraq.

"I spoke to Tony Blair about it, and public opinion in our countries is expecting this decision," he told Rai.

He said the exact numbers would depend on the Iraqi government's ability to deal with security.

Strained relations

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan played down the announcement.

"We certainly appreciate the contributions of the Italians. They have served and sacrificed alongside Iraqis and alongside other coalition forces," he said.


There was a huge outpouring of grief at Mr Calipari's death

He emphasised that Italy's withdrawal "will be based on the ability and capability of Iraqi forces and the Iraqi government to be able to assume more responsibility".

But he rejected suggestions that Italy's decision was due to strained relations after secret service agent Nicola Calipari was shot dead by US troops in Baghdad on 4 March.

"I haven't heard any comment to that effect from Italian officials," he was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.

Mr Berlusconi has said the US must accept responsibility for the shooting, which is being investigated by the US military.

The BBC's Tamsin Smith in Rome says it is the first time Mr Berlusconi has suggested a timetable for withdrawal.

Our correspondent says the Italian government is also mindful of local elections looming early next month.

Also on Tuesday, two other members of the US-led coalition in Iraq - the Netherlands and Ukraine - began a phased withdrawal from the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4352259.stm

So it looks like the last sailors are leaving the sinking ship, let's look who remains: Georgia, one of the poorest and most corrupted countries in the world involved in civil war and anarchy, Ukrain, which is going to leave soon since troops were send to Iraq by the previous regime, Poland, which is also going to leave soon, Romania and Bulgaria, two of the poorest countries in Europe, so what's remaining? Denmark, Japan, South-korea and Australia are only not-bribed members and make the (small, sincetheir contribution is quite small) difference between "coalition of the willing" and anglo-american occupation... And South-Korea and japan feel obliged since the US is protecting their security.

[Reffo]

Takeo, tell me if I am wrong but based on your posts I get the impression that in your opinion Israel and the USA are the greatest evil doers in the world. Conversely, I get the impression that you don't have much to criticize about Palestinians, Syria, Iran and other similar regimes.

Why am I saying this ? Firstly, as I said because of your other posts. Secondly, this thread that you started seems to display delight about something that you perceive as going wrong for the USA, am I right or not ?

[takeo]

Takeo, tell me if I am wrong but based on your posts I get the impression that in your opinion Israel and the USA are the greatest evil doers in the world. Conversely, I get the impression that you don't have much to criticize about Palestinians, Syria, Iran and other similar regimes.

Why am I saying this ? Firstly, as I said because of your other posts. Secondly, this thread that you started seems to display delight about something that you perceive as going wrong for the USA, am I right or not ?

I criticise Syria, Palestinians and iran as well, but since everyone else is doing so on this site it's not a priority, but since few people are criticising Israel and the US on this site, it is more valuable to express my opinion about those states. If I would be on a Lebanese or Arab website or on indymedia I would be spending more time criticising Lebanon, or the palestinians since few do it on those sites.
But anyhow, I don't like anything going wrong for the US, 11th september wasn't my happiest day (as quite some Egyptians told me during my last stay there), I'm not a US-basher (some people on this site are delighted if something goes wrong for France, whatever, they are France-bashers)
However I'm "happy" (altough not the right word for this) things in iraq didn't go as expected. If they were, the US would have repeated such actions all over the world, nowadays they think twice before engaging in something similar. I don't think they're going to attack Iran for example, or even Syria or Cuba.
I'm also happy Saddam has gone but I'm not "happy" that it happened trough a foreign military occupation, with all the catastrophic results for the Iraqi people. The insurgeancy was positive in this sence that it prohibited the US colonising Iraq, and they had to turn over the country quickly to the Iraqi's themselves, without realising their plans. I think with the new government that Iraq will come to grips with itself yet the consequences of the occupation are still present. Only when the last foreigners leave Iraq a truce with the sunnites will be possible. All this bloodshet would have been unnecessary if the US either treated Saddam as they treated Khadaphi and if they supported the Iraqi opposition without engaging themselves. As in Lebanon, Ukrain, latin America (where the people of many former American supported dictatorships have liberated themselves and have voted for leftist parties) Turkey and, possibly in the future, Iran, the people of a country are perfectly able to liberate themselves, whenever they are ready for it and willing. Foreign intervention (without the legitimation of the political forces) comes at a very high cost, as the example in Iraq has demonstrated.
It is also the reason why support for communism crashed in Poland, Eastern Germany and Hungary first, while in the Soviet-Union the desovietisation happened on command of the former leaders who changed colours, while the population wasn't (and still isn't) very entousiastic about the changes. communism was imposed on those countries, it was a foreign concept, exactly as the US tried to impose its will on the Iraqi's. While in China communism was homemade, it succeeded because Chinese supported it, which made China one of the most succesfull countries in world's history.

The US didn't succeed in imposing its will over the Iraqi people, the elections didn't turn out in their advantage and due to the insurgeancy they needed the support of the islamists, the new rulers of Iraq. Yet the shadow of two years of American mismanagment of Iraq are still looming over Iraq.
Today Iraq is in a very difficult situation, Kurds who want independance, sunnites who fight both the occupiers and the new government, and a religious government which is due to clash with both parts of its own population as well as with the foreign occupiers.Italy, the third strongest members of the "coalition of the willing" is withdrawing, another uppercut for the US' strategists in Iraq.

[Mediocrates]

A simple yes or no would have sufficed in lieu of a Castro length harangue.

[Illuminatus]

....has performed magnificently in Iraq -- The Iraqi people are forever in their debt. Thier mission in Iraq is basically complete.

These were not the listless and corrupt French army who surrender everytime the going gets tough. The Italians stuck it out with pride and tradition. Here's one example of what they've done for the Iraqi people:

The Italians (..) have been running Iraqi police and National Guardsmen through drills that have included simulating car bombings, suicide attacks and riots. Italian forces have also intensified their sweeps of the city, turning up stockpiles of weapons in an attempt to clear the streets of arms. In one recent raid alone they seized around 1,200 rockets.

On Monday, Italian Carabinieri paramilitary police delivered new uniforms, berets, gloves and flashlights to Iraqi security forces here. Iraqi police have assembled new checkpoints throughout the city. Out front of their headquarters sits a small fleet of Nissan pickup trucks outfitted with swiveling machine guns. http://www.analisidifesa.it/articolo...id/4813/ver/EN

In today's news conference in India, Sec. Rice said:

First is to note that the Italians have been steadfast in their support of the Iraqi people’s desire to have their aspirations for freedom met. They were early supporters of the Iraqi people through the coalition. The Italians suffered casualties as a result of their commitment there, including among the carabiniers, and I remember that when that happened that they had more volunteers that they could take to take the place of those people. So, the Italians have served and served bravely in support of democracy in Iraq.

http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComu...id=52462&src=0

The Iraqi army and police now conduct 50 percent of all the patrols in Iraq -- on their own. 30 percent embedded with coalition troops.

For a Saddamite to lose his beloved Saddam Hussein, then cheer a failed insugency that went nowhere, and now hopes and prays for a civil war that's just not happening -- it is little wonder that they avert thier eyes in shame when they meet or speak with an Iraqi -- after all, they where on the wrong and losing side of history.

No surprise that Saddamites will try to make Italy's mission accomplishment into some sort victory for Saddam Hussien and the Ba'ath party.

On the day the US military finally withdraws from Europe, watch them come out the woodwork proclaiming Nazi Germany's victory over the allies.

grazie l'Italia

[takeo]

....has performed magnificently in Iraq -- The Iraqi people are forever in their debt. Thier mission in Iraq is basically complete.

These were not the listless and corrupt French army who surrender everytime the going gets tough. The Italians stuck it out with pride and tradition. Here's one example of what they've done for the Iraqi people:In today's news conference in India, Sec. Rice said: http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComu...id=52462&src=0

The Iraqi army and police now conduct 50 percent of all the patrols in Iraq -- on their own. 30 percent embedded with coalition troops.

For a Saddamite to lose his beloved Saddam Hussein, then cheer a failed insugency that went nowhere, and now hopes and prays for a civil war that's just not happening -- it is little wonder that they avert thier eyes in shame when they meet or speak with an Iraqi -- after all, they where on the wrong and losing side of history.

No surprise that Saddamites will try to make Italy's mission accomplishment into some sort victory for Saddam Hussien and the Ba'ath party.

On the day the US military finally withdraws from Europe, watch them come out the woodwork proclaiming Nazi Germany's victory over the allies.

grazie l'Italia

the insurgeancy isn't finished at all, last week has been one of the bloodiest since the start of the war, and Italians don't support the war, never did by the way, the largest antiwar demonstration ever in history was in Rome. But now even their fascist government (including the openly fascist National Party which also has Alessandra Mussolini as a member and openly cultivate the remembrance of her grandfather) understands their presence in Iraq is so unpopular that withdrawing was the only option. Of course the Bush-government, isolated as they are, understand relations with Europe should be restored whatever happens, that's why they have not punished Spain for its withdrawel nor will they punish Italy nor will they punish any of the countries which always resisted the war, quite on the contrary they seem very keen to restore relations, and even said invading Iran without European support is "not an option". They have learned from the negative experience, at least 1500 Americans and a multitude of Iraqi's haven't died in vain.

[Illuminatus]

Little wonder why our forum Saddamites are celebrating today. I see they all recieved the al-Qa'eda fax about the same time.

They think they have another victory? 1st Spain and now Italy?
It still hasn't brought back their Saddam. In fact the "light of his return grows dimmer" each passing day.

[..DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraq's al Qaeda wing said on Wednesday Italian troops "humbled" by insurgent attacks would still be targeted despite Rome's plans to start pulling out from Iraq in September, according to an Internet statement.

"We tell those whose might was humbled in Iraq and we tell Italy, the worshipper of the cross, that we will continue to fire bullets at you," said al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq, led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The longer Italy stays in Iraq the greater will be its losses," the group's military leader said in a statement posted on Web sites used by Islamic militants. It could not be independently verified.

"Jihad (holy war) has started to bear fruit." ..]


Iraq Qaeda Wing Says Italian Troops Still Targets

Nobody said that the [.. insurgeancy (is) finished at all..] on the contrary - it looks like you're not making much headway amoung the Iraqi people.

You can tell our forum Saddamites are getting desparate as Iraq and its people takes on more and more responsiblity away from the Coalition of the Willing.

[Reffo]

I criticise Syria, Palestinians and iran as well, but since everyone else is doing so on this site it's not a priority, but since few people are criticising Israel and the US on this site, it is more valuable to express my opinion about those states.

I could accept this as a reasonable answer. However, one thing still worries me with your approach. If you really were reasonable and a bit more balanced, I would have expected you to acknowledge, at least some of the time, that the situation is not always 'black and white', there are shades of grey in any argument. For example, you talk a lot about "International Law", "Causis Belli", "wars of aggression" etc but you don't seem to realise that these too are open to interpretation. The thing that worries me most about your posts is that you never seem to concede or acknowledge a well argued opposing point of view. Instead, when you are cornered, you just ignore a post and move on without answering or perhaps conceding a point, at least occasionally....we can all be wrong sometimes, there is no shame in admitting it ....

Here is an example of an unanswered post: Click Here

Here is another one: Click Here

And another: Click here

[Zlatorog]

These were not the listless and corrupt French army who surrender everytime the going gets tough. The Italians stuck it out with pride and tradition.

Actually it could be the other way around if one would read their entire history and then compare. The Italian tradition ? I think it started with this wacko poet who, after the Italians had left the 'A Farewell to Arms' area, I think they were gassed there btw, decided to occupy some town somewhere, where he threatened the population he'll push them into the sea and when his own people had bombed him he suddenly decided to return to Italy and on his way back threw a few people into the karstic sinkholes... A part of our country was fascist for 20 years and we have a saying Hide your cat, the Italian soldiers are coming!

There are nuclear warheds less then 10 miles from our border, 90 altogether in Aviano and Ghedi al Torre, even Greece got rid of such cooperation in 2001.

[expat]

One thing that always puzzles me is the apparent romantic attitude with which some of those on the left seem to view the insurgency. I posed a question to Takeo in another thread, which simply asked, how could he view the violence directed by Islamists and Ba'athists towards Iraqi democrats and trade unionists as the "violence of the oppressed". I honestly felt that this was a no-brainer. Those with apparently impeccable left wing credentials should surely be working to support Iraqi democrats, not those who were slaughtering them. Unfortunately we could not even agree on this.

Every once in a while things happen that give me cause to believe that my faith in the Iraqi people is well founded.

http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/archives/000231.html

These are the people that the anti-war movement should be actively supporting. The quickest way to secure the withdrawl of coalition troops is to encourage and nurture these people, not the ones that visit violence on their own people.

[Reffo]

These are the people that the anti-war movement should be actively supporting. The quickest way to secure the withdrawl of coalition troops is to encourage and nurture these people, not the ones that visit violence on their own people.

I totally agree with you. If the left was seen to be doing this, people like me would be more ready to take them seriously as a possible postive force. We might disagree on various things but at least they would have credibility.

As for the Islamist fanatics in your post, my base sentiments wish that someone would dish out to them a bit of their own medicine of intimidation and violence.... but I do admit it's a base instinct....

[expat]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...873032,00.html

So it looks like the last sailors are leaving the sinking ship

No this is not another dereliction of duty a la "Al Andalus". Sorry to dissapoint you but Italy is not withdrawing troops from Iraq at all.

The insurgeancy was positive in this sence that it prohibited the US colonising Iraq, and they had to turn over the country quickly to the Iraqi's themselves

Yet again I ask you to point me in the direction of any democratically motivated groups taking part in the insurgency. Just one would be useful. The internet is positively overflowing with the websites of jihadis proclaiming their manifestos for Iraq but I've yet to see any with democratic credentials.

Please tell me which bits of the insurgency that you support. Is it the bit where election workers are butchered? Is it the bit where they blow up Iraqi policemen? maybe it's the bit where they kidnap leading trade unionists, torture and then execute them? Surely you don't support the suicide bombing of worshippers in mosques do you? Maybe you're just a supporter of "insurgency-lite", you know the fabled organistation that only kills coalition troops? If so, I would ask you for the last time, please point me in the direction of this mysterious and noble group who are killing only coalition troops with the aim of establishing a free and democratic Iraq. If you can, then I would be willing to concede that your support for the insurgency is justifiable.

All this bloodshet would have been unnecessary if the US either treated Saddam as they treated Khadaphi and if they supported the Iraqi opposition without engaging themselves.

In case you hadn't noticed Gadaffi is still firmly in control of Libya and looks like staying there for some time. He ralised the error of his ways courtesy of the coalition warning shot across his bows. Without military intervention Saddam would still be in power as well. Perhaps you could also point me in the direction of "the iraqi opposition" whilst Saddam was still in power. There was no credible Iraqi opposition when Saddam ruled. There are plenty of mass graves that will attest to that fact.

It is also the reason why support for communism crashed in Poland, Eastern Germany and Hungary first, while in the Soviet-Union the desovietisation happened on command of the former leaders who changed colours, while the population wasn't (and still isn't) very entousiastic about the changes. communism was imposed on those countries, it was a foreign concept, exactly as the US tried to impose its will on the Iraqi's. While in China communism was homemade, it succeeded because Chinese supported it, which made China one of the most succesfull countries in world's history.

I can almost envisage the nostalgic tears rolling down your face as you lament the fall of communism. It fell because it didn't work, never has done and never will do.

Communism in China did not "succeed" nor did it ever succeed in the old Soviet Union. The failed notion of a glorious communist state is currently echoing through the skulls of countless millions of starved and butchered Chinese and Russians.

the largest antiwar demonstration ever in history was in Rome

And the latest demonstration? how many marched in that one?

The war is now over, Iraq's Commander in Chief is in custody and his army disbanded. It's the anti-war brigade who are now firmly in the pro-war camp, it is they who would like to see another full-scale war war in Iraq. Instead of marching in support of democrats and trade unionists, they march in support of Islamic fascists.....yes believe it or not they actually do believe that the insurgency is really the violence of the oppressed. What a strange world we live in.

[takeo]

No this is not another dereliction of duty a la "Al Andalus". Sorry to dissapoint you but Italy is not withdrawing troops from Iraq at all.

Well, unless Berlusconi changed his mind once more, Italy will withdraw its troops, and that's what the overwelming majority of Italians want. Anyway, it's not going to save him, he's going to loose the next elections anyhow, since his internal policy as well is very inpopular.

Yet again I ask you to point me in the direction of any democratically motivated groups taking part in the insurgency. Just one would be useful.

I don't know, I've some Iraqi friends but lost contact with them some years ago. Anyhow, what is was trying to say is that the insurgeancy forced the US to rely on the shiites, because without their support the US would be totally lost in Iraq. And the insurgeancy obliged them to hand over power much quicker than they planned to do and not to the people they had in mind. (Allawi and other US-puppets). Al-Sadr, who was supported by many shiites who currently support the shiite party, was a warning for the US to hand over power quickly, and the shiites knew elections would give them power, that's why Al-Sistani could convince Al-Sadr to stop his insurgeancy. Nowadays shiites are firmy in control and one of their first moves will be to end us-influence in the country, that's also what al-Haqim, the real ideologue behind the coalition, said on varous occasions. So far the good news. The bad news is that shiites will replace it by a religious government, except in Kurdistan witch will be semi-independant. Today they're negociating about what' ll belong to the Kurdish area and determining the borders of influence. More bad news is that there 's a civil war going on in Iraq, witch came on top of the struggle against the occupiers, between the sunnites and shiites. so what happens is that the US changed the balance of power in the benefit of the shiites, but the last ones are not likely to show a lot of gratitude. Democratisation is BS. There are two parties in the Iraqi parliament, one for the kurds and one for the shiites, no other parties had a fair chance, and if they did the shiite and kurdish militia are taking care of them. Even the US-supported party of Allawi is likely to disappear soon. They could only exist by the benevolence of the Us but it's clear it's no longer the US pulling the strings in Iraq, the Bremer-administration messed up completely and the former Iraqi opposition, opposing Saddam since decades, have taken over power.
It's not about democracy, it's about the future of Iraq, and for the sunnites the future of a shiite-dominated Iraq is a nightmare, as well as the future of a us-dominated Iraq is a nightmare. In Iraq there are three parties involved (actually 4 but the kurds only mind their own territory).
Two groups opposed us-dominance over Iraq, they both had a different strategy. I don't support the insurgeancy yet without the insurgeancy the US-attempt to get a grip on Iraq might have succeeded, now it didn't wich means other countries like Iran are more likely not to be attacked in the future, so that's positive. I also don't support a shiite Iraq, because I don't like islamism, which means, from my point of view, a baathist regime is preferable over both a shiite or pro-american regime. You see things aren't black and white and alliances change quickly, as usually in the middle East.
So, did the invasion had a positive influence on Iraq? I don't think so, Saddam wasn't perfect but the new situation is ever worse. There's a civil war, still foreign occupation in Iraq (altough their influence is waning), Iraq totally destroyed and islamists ruling Iraq both officially and on the streets. (enough testimonies of closed alcoholshops, women forced to wear the veil, persecuted christians and so on).
And, the original legitimation from a western point of view, wether is were WMD, an end to terrorism or even democracy, doesn't stand at all. Yesterday there were large demonstrations to which many war-vets of the recent war participated. Those people know what they're talking about, they know what's really going on in Iraq and usually they're not very positive about it.

In case you hadn't noticed Gadaffi is still firmly in control of Libya and looks like staying there for some time.

So what? There are worse rulers than Khaddafi, some of them close allies of the US. If you really intend to change the region, be a bit more humble and start by stopping active support for despots like Mubarak or the saoudi kingdom. It would be a change and moreover it would gain you some respect in the region, unlike today.Sooner or later Libia is going to change too, but it won't be the US but the libian people changing Libia, whenever they are ready for it.

He ralised the error of his ways courtesy of the coalition warning shot across his bows.

He was smarter than Saddam was.

Without military intervention Saddam would still be in power as well.

so what? I prefere Saddam over islamists, even if didn't like his regime either (which had been us-supported by the way for over a decade)

Perhaps you could also point me in the direction of "the iraqi opposition" whilst Saddam was still in power. There was no credible Iraqi opposition when Saddam ruled.

There was, those were the people who caused a civil war in 1991, a civil war they lost. The kurds had independance since 1991 by the way and even before.

There are plenty of mass graves that will attest to that fact

Yes, of people who resisted Saddam's rule. There are also plenty of massgraves of people who resisted the Egyptian regime and prisons are full, perhaps a fact not as famous as Iraq's massgraves and prisons, but they exist and not only a few of them. and how many people are inprisoned or killed in today's Iraq, by all parties, during the recent conflict? Not a few of them, to be euphimistic... and I didn't even mention Saoudi arabia, according to AI one of the most oppressive countries in the world, and one of the best friends of the bush-family (I know it's been mentioned already, but it remains a strong reminder of the bush lies and hypocrisy).

I can almost envisage the nostalgic tears rolling down your face as you lament the fall of communism. It fell because it didn't work, never has done and never will do.

According to latest polls 80% of russians are nostaligic to the former Soviet-Union, and in other ex-soviet republics life standards dropped even more. It did work, altough it wasn't perfect, and China still IS working.

Communism in China did not "succeed" nor did it ever succeed in the old Soviet Union. The failed notion of a glorious communist state is currently echoing through the skulls of countless millions of starved and butchered Chinese and Russians.

Many communist leaders made mistakes, big mistakes, but on the whole communism was not a failure in the Soviet-Union nor in China. Many capitalist countries (except the West, which was already wealthy at the turn of the century) fared much worse.

And the latest demonstration? how many marched in that one?

still many 1000's, perhaps 100000, still the largest demonstration since the last anti-war demonstrations, it's clear this is still mobilising the people, which is rare for a foreign policy issue.

The war is now over, Iraq's Commander in Chief is in custody and his army disbanded.

and his country in ruins

It's the anti-war brigade who are now firmly in the pro-war camp, it is they who would like to see another full-scale war war in Iraq.

nope, on the contrary, but the negative consequences of the american invasion are not our fault, and it should be mentioned who is ultimately responsible for it.

Instead of marching in support of democrats and trade unionists, they march in support of Islamic fascists.....

BS, they march against the war, which caused all the problems and destruction and civil war in Iraq. Don't reverse cause and consequence

yes believe it or not they actually do believe that the insurgency is really the violence of the oppressed. What a strange world we live in.

it is, sunnites today are oppressed by both the occupiers and the shiites and the kurds who are etnically cleansing whole areas.

[Reffo]

so what? I prefere Saddam over islamists, even if didn't like his regime either (which had been us-supported by the way for over a decade)

Hey, Takeo yur'e sure you did not mean to say supported by France instead of saying "us-supported" ?

[danholo]

That's like saying you prefer fascists over communists or vice-a-versa. I mean, in the end, both use the same methods and an uneducated person couldn't tell a difference one way or the other.

Funny, being a total opposite means that you are actually the same.