100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Iraq raises idea of timetable for US withdrawal | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
As well, you said in your post a statement about signing an agreement on troop withdrawal. There are two issues with that. Iraq has stated they wanted a continued security detail, which would maintain some US presence there in some capacity, though much much more limited than the current state. Whatever that means to them I do not know. I don't know either. But why not? A continued security detail to check progress and keep watch on trouble as it arises. There is no reason for the President to oppose a timetable other than it's not in the best interest of the Republican Party, it's corporate handlers and lobbyists. Or, like you hear stated in all press time and time again. There is that worry if you state, "Hey, we are fully pulling out on August 1st (for example)", that the enemy will then just sit back and relax waiting for that date when all forces are out and go on a spree. I don't think it likely, but it of course weighs on the strategerists minds. The newsmedia is surely shoving that one down our throats, many with hope it will happen just so they can do a Vietnam-style celebrating of defeat. Come on Starsailor. Do you really think the Iraqis will set a timetable of August 1st of this year? They may be optimistic but I doubt they are THAT optimistic. No, of course not. I was just using a random date as an example to the point I was covering. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As well, you said in your post a statement about signing an agreement on troop withdrawal. There are two issues with that. Iraq has stated they wanted a continued security detail, which would maintain some US presence there in some capacity, though much much more limited than the current state. Whatever that means to them I do not know. I don't know either. But why not? A continued security detail to check progress and keep watch on trouble as it arises. There is no reason for the President to oppose a timetable other than it's not in the best interest of the Republican Party, it's corporate handlers and lobbyists. Or, like you hear stated in all press time and time again. There is that worry if you state, "Hey, we are fully pulling out on August 1st (for example)", that the enemy will then just sit back and relax waiting for that date when all forces are out and go on a spree. I don't think it likely, but it of course weighs on the strategerists minds. The newsmedia is surely shoving that one down our throats, many with hope it will happen just so they can do a Vietnam-style celebrating of defeat. Come on Starsailor. Do you really think the Iraqis will set a timetable of August 1st of this year? They may be optimistic but I doubt they are THAT optimistic. No, of course not. I was just using a random date as an example to the point I was covering. So, since the timetable is not in the near future, but won't be until next year or so, why is President Bush resisting it? Could it be just a Republican President playing election year politics? And as for your argument of the enemy going in after the timetable, it doesn't make sense. If we have made so much progress in Iraq as a result of the surge, then isn't our staying there for a long time without a timetable for withdrawal an admission that the surge did not work? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted the story yesterday along with the fact that Saddam's 550 tons of uranium was finally safely removed from Iraq as well as another good news report. This is certainly good news. Today, the state department rejected a withdrawal without conditions, since the Iraqi government does want the US to remain a close security partner. This whole thing shows that the Iraqi government is becoming a diplomatic player along with the economic discussions they have been in with other foreign governments. They are growing and becoming a viable economic, diplomatic, and surely secure, by their own military and security forces as well, since they are in sole military control of over 9 of their provinces. Attacks are down. Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities down 90%, attacks in general down 80% from a year ago. Anbar Province, the once hotbed of Sunni insurgency and al-Qaeda attacks, is now fully under Iraq Government control. Iraqi security forces are maintaining its security. "Iraq ready for "final" battle with al Qaeda: PM" from REUTERS - http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1880448320080125?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true What you have posted here is slightly twisted towards your agenda but even with what you have posted, we need to leave them to taking care of their country. They asked us to leave a couple years ago and we are still occupying their country AGAINST THEIR WILL. That's his MO Dragoness! Distraction from the truth with BS  That's all the Republican's have left! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As well, you said in your post a statement about signing an agreement on troop withdrawal. There are two issues with that. Iraq has stated they wanted a continued security detail, which would maintain some US presence there in some capacity, though much much more limited than the current state. Whatever that means to them I do not know. I don't know either. But why not? A continued security detail to check progress and keep watch on trouble as it arises. There is no reason for the President to oppose a timetable other than it's not in the best interest of the Republican Party, it's corporate handlers and lobbyists. Or, like you hear stated in all press time and time again. There is that worry if you state, "Hey, we are fully pulling out on August 1st (for example)", that the enemy will then just sit back and relax waiting for that date when all forces are out and go on a spree. I don't think it likely, but it of course weighs on the strategerists minds. The newsmedia is surely shoving that one down our throats, many with hope it will happen just so they can do a Vietnam-style celebrating of defeat. Come on Starsailor. Do you really think the Iraqis will set a timetable of August 1st of this year? They may be optimistic but I doubt they are THAT optimistic. No, of course not. I was just using a random date as an example to the point I was covering. They did set a date! Back in Jan. Bush said: “American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission.” FACT — IRAQIS ANTICIPATE TAKING CONTROL OF SECURITY BY 2018: Iraqi defense minister Abdul Qadir “that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.” [New York Times, 1/15/08] FACT — CORRUPTION AND SECTARIANISM PLAGUE SECURITY FORCES: “Rampant corruption and lingering sectarianism” within Iraqi security forces are “major hurdles that Iraqi defense and police leaders must overcome in order to take responsibility for Iraq’s security,” according to Gen. James Dubik, head of the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq. “[S]hortages of key personnel, equipment, weaponry and logistical capabilities mean that Iraq’s security forces will probably require U.S. military support for as long as a decade.” [Washington Post, 1/18/08] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GOOD!
I look forward to getting our kids out of harms way. The sooner the better! This whole occupying/policing action is completely pointless in relevance to a "War on Terror". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Tue 07/08/08 04:41 PM
|
|
GOOD! I look forward to getting our kids out of harms way. The sooner the better! This whole occupying/policing action is completely pointless in relevance to a "War on Terror". FACT — IRAQIS ANTICIPATE TAKING CONTROL OF SECURITY BY 2018: Iraqi defense minister Abdul Qadir “that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.” [New York Times, 1/15/08]  Election Politics! The Republicans are desperate and we all know they are not about to tell the truth! Do you honestly think so much has changed in Iraq in such a short time span? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
krupa
on
Tue 07/08/08 04:42 PM
|
|
Dude! I hate the thought of American blood being shed there for that time period....
When it comes to politicians....I don't believe a single damned one of them at any time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Tue 07/08/08 04:45 PM
|
|
Dude! I hate the thought of American blood being shed there for that time period.... Me too! Its been past time to cut the umbilical cord, but electing the Republican Clone, McConfused will not stop it! Heck, they cant even tell people the truth! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Starsailor2851
on
Tue 07/08/08 06:58 PM
|
|
Posted the story yesterday along with the fact that Saddam's 550 tons of uranium was finally safely removed from Iraq as well as another good news report. This is certainly good news. Today, the state department rejected a withdrawal without conditions, since the Iraqi government does want the US to remain a close security partner. This whole thing shows that the Iraqi government is becoming a diplomatic player along with the economic discussions they have been in with other foreign governments. They are growing and becoming a viable economic, diplomatic, and surely secure, by their own military and security forces as well, since they are in sole military control of over 9 of their provinces. Attacks are down. Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities down 90%, attacks in general down 80% from a year ago. Anbar Province, the once hotbed of Sunni insurgency and al-Qaeda attacks, is now fully under Iraq Government control. Iraqi security forces are maintaining its security. "Iraq ready for "final" battle with al Qaeda: PM" from REUTERS - http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1880448320080125?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true What you have posted here is slightly twisted towards your agenda but even with what you have posted, we need to leave them to taking care of their country. They asked us to leave a couple years ago and we are still occupying their country AGAINST THEIR WILL. That's his MO Dragoness! Distraction from the truth with BS That's all the Republican's have left! I'm a registered Democrat, thank you very much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You couldnt tell by your support for Bush!!
Are you confused? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You couldnt tell by your support for Bush!! Are you confused? Who said I even support Bush other than just support for the President of the United States? I vote for the individual, not the party. When it comes to local and state, as well as Congress, most times I vote for Democrat. Voted for Senator Bob Casey, now thinking it was a big mistake, real quickly, but I wanted to give the guy a chance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are always running to the NeoCon's defense!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are always running to the NeoCon's defense! Yet, somehow I am not a NeoCon, so very odd don't you think? I don't support saving the world from global warming, they do. I don't believe in an increase in the size of government and increased social programs, they do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush is against Global warming??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Starsailor2851
on
Tue 07/08/08 07:43 PM
|
|
Bush is against Global warming?? He is. Maybe you should do research before acting like a child. Here is just a tiny snippet: "My worry is, however, that a low price of gasoline will make it complacent - make us complacent about our future when it comes to energy, because I fully understand that energy is going to help determine whether or not this nation remains the economic leader in the world. We are doing fine now. We have got a really strong economy, and in order to make sure it’s strong tomorrow we need to make sure we work on how we use energy. Energy is - look, let me just put it bluntly: We are too dependent on oil. We are a - (applause.) And see, low gasoline prices may mask that concern. So, first, I want to tell you that I welcome the low gasoline prices, however it’s not going to dim my enthusiasm for making sure we diversify away from oil." - http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/george-w-bush-renewable-energy/ ---- I suggest reading that entire article on a solely dedicated alternative energy site. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give me a break!
Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol! Maybe you should do a little research! Aye?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GOOD! I look forward to getting our kids out of harms way. The sooner the better! This whole occupying/policing action is completely pointless in relevance to a "War on Terror". FACT — IRAQIS ANTICIPATE TAKING CONTROL OF SECURITY BY 2018: Iraqi defense minister Abdul Qadir “that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.” [New York Times, 1/15/08] Election Politics! The Republicans are desperate and we all know they are not about to tell the truth! Do you honestly think so much has changed in Iraq in such a short time span? Good grief! If you ask me, 2018 is way too long to wait for the Iraqis to get their act together. Colin Powell warned the President: 'If you break it, you fix it.' (Pottery Barn Rule) about invading Iraq, and we certainly are in it for the long haul. We might have been further along if the inept Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had not screwed things up so gloriously. There is no way the American people will stand for our troops continuing to die in Iraq until 2018! But then, maybe the American people don't matter any more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Tue 07/08/08 10:04 PM
|
|
GOOD! I look forward to getting our kids out of harms way. The sooner the better! This whole occupying/policing action is completely pointless in relevance to a "War on Terror". FACT — IRAQIS ANTICIPATE TAKING CONTROL OF SECURITY BY 2018: Iraqi defense minister Abdul Qadir “that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.” [New York Times, 1/15/08] Election Politics! The Republicans are desperate and we all know they are not about to tell the truth! Do you honestly think so much has changed in Iraq in such a short time span? Good grief! If you ask me, 2018 is way too long to wait for the Iraqis to get their act together. Colin Powell warned the President: 'If you break it, you fix it.' (Pottery Barn Rule) about invading Iraq, and we certainly are in it for the long haul. We might have been further along if the inept Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had not screwed things up so gloriously. There is no way the American people will stand for our troops continuing to die in Iraq until 2018! But then, maybe the American people don't matter any more. There are a lot of people in Iraq who are more loyal to Sadr than to the puppet Malaki. I think their dominance is showing in this time table proposal! They dont want us there! If Bush had any sense, IMO, he would make an Allie of him instead of branding him as a criminal. Sooner or later we will leave and then he will lead a civil war to return Iraq to Iraqi rule. Better to have his ear than his hatred. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give me a break! Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol! Maybe you should do a little research! Aye? Maybe you should actually have read the article and look into the results of the Kyoto Protocol. It is an absolute failure, even with those who did sign on. It would have crippled our economy and private enterprise and resulted in dismal results to the environment. - "Scientists say Kyoto Protocol a failure": http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-say-kyoto-protocol-is-outdated-failure-397801.html The Kyoto Protocol also transfers wealth from nations to third world countries and allows them, as 'developing' to spew out as much emissions as they could ever want. China and India among those. "Its restrictions have been so gerrymandered that only 36 countries are required to limit their pollution. Just over a third of those – members of the former Eastern bloc – can pollute at will because their limits were set so far above their actual emissions. China and India, whose fast-rising emissions easily cancel out any cuts elsewhere, are allowed to keep polluting." - http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/03/science/sci-kyoto3 I suggest reading that full article. It was a very good thing we did not sign onto this ridiculous Protocol. |
|
|
|
|
