http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=cp_fc6h5g7n673&show_article=1 Gotta love that one. I'm not saying "we broke it, we bought it." I'm just saying. If we leave, thing are going to be VERY ugly. Anyone who wants to pull out right away needs to think about that. DCU on the top, gotta love that.
It's not a perception about Mission accomplished in Iraq. It's whether a potential ally down the road can trust us. The only thing we have to gain is for world leaders to understand that we will attempt to finish what we started. Doesn't have anything to do with whether we will ultimately be successful or whether Iraq will even exist five years from now. I am the last person to be a spokesman for the Bush Administration. But my thought would be that in reality, they are fighting against Western directed terrorism. When we pull most of our forces, the immediate gain will be that we aren't promoting terrorism. With a smaller force, we can remain lower key while still engaging in anti-terrorism in the region. The Iraqi secuirty forces are being trained.r Agreed. I think we should have set a timetable a couple of years ago. I think it should be set now. I think everyone should know it.
One year all but 10K troops out. Remaining troops removed if Iraq goverment fails. At that point, we either go with some UN solution or basically regional war erupts in the area.. I would have said three years on invasion day (Assuming I knew we were going to cut the army loose). If it had been me I wouldn't have dismantled the Iraqi military and pulled our main force out once Sadaam was out of power and we would have had advisors and a small force of special forces remain to assist the fledging government.
Iraq cannot buy anything because of insurance reasonings. Unless there is some hidden law; I am unaware. So basically Iraq has to set through this time in order to make progress. The People are fighting but we aren't just fighting terrorism. We are fighting for a better place. A place exsist where Musslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddest and Chatholetics can get along. Anyone and everyone on this planet. Must try to change for the next era in learnings. Look its a way of history and I for one don't want to timejump back here. Re-read headlines: Terrorists crash neuclear engine sub-orbital launcher! Thousands die millions affected. Something like that becasue if you take the time and listen to actions. The vibrations says persons has captured planes before. Made trade. Made demands and now made war. If that line of thought progress upon futuristic headlines; the dominating race (whatever) could also become more violent. You see its not okay for one to get away with it. Its not okay for both to get away with it. But our system will not get side tracked in order to get to an more advance society. That is what is happening. Not "Hi, How are you?" but "Slow down, I am sure. You can find. What your looking for?" Thats how I see it. There is chatter about USA is fighting at least two wars over there. NEWSFLASH! USA fights alot more wars than that. Not just over there but everywhere vision leads. Becasue some persons cannot always do right and therefore must re-invigorate toward likabilities. This is diffenetly Baby Steps toward outerspace. And any tool could be the wrong size on purpose. That is the highest you can go before you swoop down like an eagle and examine areas of interest. That is this practice and not all can retrieve properly...
I can see your point but realistically how much longer would you say the US should keep going, if they're to do it for that reason? What is the point of laying out the plans in front of everybody? Why let the enemies know the plan so they can disrupt them? Plus, if something goes wrong and the plan has to be changed, everybody will be second guessing, the US enemies will try to score points, the political parties will try to get political advantage out of it, and so on. Why? I think they should come up with a solid plan for orderly withdrawal, they should plan for a specific time, and they should brief the members of congress and the allies, and probably the Iraqi government. But they should brief them with the understanding that it is not a timetable, it is not written in stone, and there will be some flexibility depending on how events unfold. Also, that if there is a leak about the timing, that they will deny it. But I think you have to start looking at specific dates, for planning purposes. I don't think the commitment should be open ended, and I don't think the withdrawal plan should depend exclusively on the Iraqis meeting certain timetables, as aparently is the plan now. Because, then it is out of anybody's control. Certainly having the Iraqis meet certain objectives should be a goal. But, what if the Iraqis don't meet their objectives, and the whole thing drags on and on? The status quo is not acceptable.
I suspect that studying the history of India from 1945 to 1950, and all of the other colonies that the West gave up after WW II, would yield some interesting conclusions on how to go about getting out.
Simple. It's the only way to put pressure on the Iraqi government. I don't like the idea of telling the Iraqis they have to meet specific goals. They should be free to do what they think is right in order to acheive stability. In what way are you respecting me more? By telling me I need to lose 20 pounds by January or I can't try out for the team? Or by forcing me to do one month of Zone diet, one of weightwatchers, one at the gym in order to reach that goal? They know the situation. We show them more respect by setting a time that we will withdraw. We make it easier on ourselves because if there is a screw up, it is their doing. And more important, it gives the Iraqi government the independence that they need to make the damn thing work. I don't think we owe the Iraqi's anything more than helping to protect the current government until we pull out in 12 months. After that, it is up to them. If it is a bloodbath, so be it. When that happens, we can decide what to do.
That's cool. We can dissagree about how much to make public, but I think we agree about the most important aspect, which is that there should be a serious plan to withdraw most troops from Iraq in an orderly fashion within a reasonable timeframe. (A year seems reasonable, but I'm not going to pretend that I know enough to be an expert when it comes to setting the time.) Now, if we can only get the Bush administration to see it our way...
What ally?? A handover to whom?? The idea that there is a central government in Iraq with which we are allied and to which we can transfer power is an illusion. Foreign policy should not be built on illusions.
It's not an illusion at all. Is it weak? Is it doing a crap job of stopping sectarianism? Of course. But it isn't an illusion. Calling it such is almost as "head in the sand" as Bush's "Mission Accomplished".
How long has it been since the people of Iraq elected their own government? Why is it still so weak? Is it in the process of getting stronger? At this point, perhaps we should question whether the fact that the US troops are still taking such a prominent role in Iraq may not be one factor why the Iraqi government is so weak. Maybe as long as they can use the US troops as a crutch, the Iraqi leaders are able to avoid having to make the tough decisions that will perhaps make their government and other needed institutions stronger. But at some point, they have to begin letting go of the crutch. Maybe the US should think of removing the crutch.
Not me I want Hillary or Osama oops Obama to win. I want to see how much better the country would be with one of them as President. Richie? Richie who I know now Richie (Animal) I love that freaking guy. You should meet him sometime but not when he is doing something with soccer.
Need proof to impeach. Mr. Clinton lied under oath on a question he should not even have answered. He did not know that they had his girl friends come stained dress. He should have said that question has nothing to do with the Presidency anf go fucck yourselves but he rather lie.
This is just plain wrong. You do not need proof to impeach. You need proof to convict in the Senate (and not really even then!). An impeachment is basically like a grand jury investigation - that is an investigative means to discover whether there is sufficient evidence of wrong-doing to go to trial in the Senate. In short, impeachment does not require proof, impeachment is the means to obtain proof.
Cut funding for the troops? I don't think that is the best option. I'd like to see congress and the administration engage in an honest exchange of ideas to find the best solution out of this mess, without every side looking first and foremost to score political points and pander to their special interest groups. They should be talking about how to best reduce the US involvement in Iraq ASAP, and work together with the Iraqi leadership, and in a concerted effort with our allies and other interested parties, in order to help minimize the damage to the Iraqi people Surely the people we chose to represent us are intelligent enough to assess the current situation, realize that the status quo is untenable, and work together to find the best way out. Aren't they? But perhaps that is too much to ask.
Yeah, we need action, we need leadership, we need people to step up, and come up with the best ideas for America to get out of Iraq in the most efficient manner. I know! Lets have an impeachment battle that will not yield any results but will waste time, further divide the country, and weaken it. That is the solution! It worked so well last time. Shit! What a brilliant idea! Let's do it!
Oh, he meant a Richie who used to post on this board. JESUS, what a dumb clitoris he was. If shithead were cheese, that stupid son of a bitch would have been Wisconsin. Anyway, he finally got the hell out of here. Hopefully he's dead now. I'd be pretty insulted if someone compared me to Richie, by the way. Maybe you should raise your posting quality?
Well, I didn't mean to get into a debate about this (and won't here as there's another thread on this somewhere else - feel free to bump it). Just wanted to correct an error. That said, our constitutional system neither requires nor supposes unity. Just the opposite, in fact: it presupposes and requires division. And, in retrospect, one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in these days is because after 9/11 and in the run-up to Iraq the country - and particularly our federal government - was a little too unified (hence the lack of tough questions, oversight, etc.).
Warner to Petraeus: "How is this mission in Iraq making us safer here?" Petraeus - "We're carrying out the mission the best we can, blah, blah......" Warner - "Again - how is this making us safer?" Petraeus - "I really couldn't tell you." GAME, SET, MATCH. Thanks for playing the game, General. You don't know sh!t about the zeitgeist in America or like Bush you simply don't care. Gigs up soon. Enjoy retirement.