Leaving Iraq?

Leaving Iraq? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 9:52:54 AM)
I have been puzzling over the new language coming out of the White House, and I was wondering if this new language means that we will be leaving Iraq sooner rather than later I put a couple of links to news stories to show what I am talking about for those who have not been paying attention recently Panel to Seek Change on Iraq A commission backed by Bush has agreed that 'stay the course' is not working, its leader says. A phased withdrawal is one option on the table. By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer October 16, 2006 WASHINGTON — A commission backed by President Bush that is exploring U.S. options in Iraq intends to propose significant changes in the administration's strategy by early next year, members say. Two options under consideration would represent reversals of U.S. policy: withdrawing American troops in phases, and bringing neighboring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-planb16oct16,0,4775251.story?coll=la-home-headlines Here Bush seems to be rejectin this thought http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/stay.course/index.html And the last link is about what Colin Powell says about it http://www.startribune.com/587/story/718368.html I think that the outcome of this election will very well determine whether or not we stay or we go and how long that process takes... Any thoughts?

philosophy -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 9:58:52 AM)
....seems to me, from both a cultural and geographical distance, that the Republicans are trying to create a new position vis a vis Iraq......one with a far clearer exit date, if not an exit strategy. The upcoming elections and the percieved electoral weakness on this issue being the triggers for it. If i were being insanely optimistic, i'd keep my fingers crossed for the idea that Bush et al have come to the realisation that a continual war is not a good thing for America, but i shant hold my breath.

juliaoceania -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 10:01:50 AM)
I have been insanely optimistic in the past, decided it just sucks to get my hopes dashed...smiles I am hopeful that the American people will get extremely fed up. I heard a stat on Iraq off of CNN, we have spent 1 trillion dollars there, enough to fix social security for 100 years. They are squandering our future

KatyLied -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 10:03:59 AM)
I didn't read the links, but this may just be some near to the election rhetoric. Perhaps if some people think that change in forthcoming they will be willing to back Republicans.

meatcleaver -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 10:10:00 AM)
Cutting and running will be seen as a defeat, it is immaterial that the Iraqi army was crushed in the initial war, the resistance would have been seen to have won in the Arab world and rather to the alarm of the conservative Arab world and once again Iran and Syria would be strengthened. It would have made more sense to have brought Iran and Syria into the equation earlier when the occupation was seen to have the upper hand. But withdrawal seems to be the only rational option to this affair which is pretty much what the chief of the British army said not long ago.

juliaoceania -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 10:15:26 AM)
I would think that too Katy, but here is the thing, Bush has not completely backed down, it is insiders in the White House and a commission he appointed that are setting up a strategy as we speak. Bush speaks with forked tongue, still rejecting a plan to exit on a timetable, but his surrogates say something else. It is almost like bet hedging? The election will play a role, no doubt. If the democrats win there maybe some accountability for the monies spent over there (note I said maybe, not absolutely, I do not trust any political party). One thing is certain, we are in a dire position over there, and futility is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. This war has been completely botched, they have not forced Rummy out, the White House is just beginning to acknowledge how bad it is. I do not know if it is positioning for the election, but I have this suspicion that the announcement of a change in policy is coming after the election, and they are just seeding the idea out there because a sudden change in course would be seen as weakness going into the elections... but I have been wrong before. In a few short weeks I think we might, just maybe, see a change with a timetable to get out because I do not think that "staying the course" will work now no matter how many of our people we throw at the problem. But who knows

juliaoceania -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 10:22:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Cutting and running will be seen as a defeat, it is immaterial that the Iraqi army was crushed in the initial war, the resistance would have been seen to have won in the Arab world and rather to the alarm of the conservative Arab world and once again Iran and Syria would be strengthened. It would have made more sense to have brought Iran and Syria into the equation earlier when the occupation was seen to have the upper hand. But withdrawal seems to be the only rational option to this affair which is pretty much what the chief of the British army said not long ago. It is a defeat. Throwing good after bad is not a brilliant strategy either though. There are many of our people over there that will not lose their lives if that fact is acknowledged and we bring them home sooner than later. Everyday that we stay we have more of them come home permanently maimed or dead, everyday someone else's child, sibling, or spouse will never come home. Everyday we are there increases the time that Iraqis will have violence instead of coming to a settlement amongst themselves because we are like a giant stick poking a fire ants nest...

philosophy -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 10:29:03 AM)
"the resistance would have been seen to have won in the Arab world and rather to the alarm of the conservative Arab world and once again Iran and Syria would be strengthened." (my italicisation) ...is it possible to avoid this now without going into a total military solution, which would be a far from guaranteed success? If not possible to avoid, then just how damaging would it be, both in a overall world sense and to vested political interests?

meatcleaver -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 10:37:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy "the resistance would have been seen to have won in the Arab world and rather to the alarm of the conservative Arab world and once again Iran and Syria would be strengthened." (my italicisation) ...is it possible to avoid this now without going into a total military solution, which would be a far from guaranteed success? If not possible to avoid, then just how damaging would it be, both in a overall world sense and to vested political interests? Probably not. Unnecessary wars are always foolish as Israel found out in Lebanon. The mistake many conservative governments make is to think that all you need is a mighty army to win a war. Defeating an army is only the beginning of a war, if you have no control of what comes after the whole affair is pointless at best, a caststrophe at worse. This will probably end somewhere in between but a whole lot of innocent blood has been wasted and those politicians that started the war should be made to pay by their countries. The sad thing I find about this whole episode is that the politicians will retire without any consequences. What little faith I had in the British Parliament has evaporated because I can't understand how they can let Blair get away with such an obviously foolish adventure.

CrappyDom -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 10:58:17 AM)
Just like all the other words that come out of Bush's mouth, this is just lies to fool the right wing sheep. They are building permanent military bases in the desert in order to exert control over the ME and more importantly the unexploited oil reserves in the various ex-soviet republics. They had no intention of ever really forming a free Iraq nor of leaving. They wanted a thin veneer of democracy to cover their real motivations, which is control of the oil and to counter China. Not altogether bad motivations except they aren't doing it for the benefit of America or its citizens, they are doing it to benefit themselves and you and I are paying for it.

philosophy -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 11:31:43 AM)
"Just like all the other words that come out of Bush's mouth, this is just lies to fool the right wing sheep." ....while i don't necessarily disagree CD, i wonder how we'd know if there really was a shift behind the scenes......is it a little bit like the boy who cried wolf? the POTUS who cried war?

CrappyDom -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 12:05:47 PM)
They would stop firing every general that dared to say in public things like "we need 600,000 troops"! And Rumsfeld's head would be on a pike in front of the whitehouse, perhaps a draft, and a ramping up of production of war goods, a dropping of the beligerant diplomacy, and invitation for the UN to help, I could go on, the choices are many, some I would agree with, some I wouldn't but have you noticed any ACTUAL changes? NOPE...

LotusSong -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 12:39:46 PM)
I'm reminded of Richard Gere's Tap dancing sequence in "Chicago". I see a WHOLE lotta tap dancing going on.

Rule -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 12:49:19 PM)
This is an all out war against islamic states. Bush and his open and covert foreign allies - including, I imagine, the soviet union and china - intend to stay. The drawn out length of the war has the purpose to cause as many deaths as possible. Whatever Bush suggests about an exit date is a lie. He does not care one iota about any dead or maimed or wounded USA soldiers. These exit suggestions are merely election lies. Nor do I think that the USA will exit from Iraq and Afghanistan if the Democrats win the election. It is wisest to judge people by what they do, not by the movements of their lips.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 12:53:54 PM)
No it's not. Our policy isn't nearly so coherent. We've done a lot of stupid things in the Middle East, and are guilty of just about every other accusation you hear, but the one thing we're not doing is declaring war on Islam. Half our covert allies are regimes in Islamic states. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule This is an all out war against islamic states.

CrappyDom -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 12:56:27 PM)
Rule, This was was about putting troops closer to the oil so that we COULD muscle out Russia and China, they are very much not Bush's allies. China shouldn't be anyone's but Russia could be ours if we were smarter.

toservez -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 1:02:58 PM)
It is what politicians do. Change up the words and redefine their goals. Republicans are the masters at this although the Democrats do it as well. The word deadline cannot be used because they have tied it to the democrats but most of the people are demanding to see progress and some sort of plan to get out of there. So near the election tada... Benchmarks! Which are of course the same thing realisticly as deadlines but why sweat the details. Now with the term benchmark the Republican base can feel better that there party does have a plan and a direction. because afterall the dates that they now will be able to mention, all conveniently after the election, will sound like plans and progress to get out of Iraq, swing voters not paying attention might get fooled to thinking something good is actually happening over there and Democrats can whine like they only know how to do instead of actually fighing fire with fire. This appears to be a strategy of do you think we can fool enough people. Smoke and mirrors and nothing more.

juliaoceania -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 2:19:38 PM)
quote: The word deadline cannot be used because they have tied it to the democrats but most of the people are demanding to see progress and some sort of plan to get out of there. So near the election tada... Benchmarks! Which are of course the same thing realisticly as deadlines but why sweat the details. I do not care what they call it, I just want to see our troops come home. I will say that I think it maybe beginning to dawn on the Bush Admin that we cannot stay forever. Congress (even republicans) have stated that in order to get our troops out that the goals of establishing permanent bases in Iraq should be abandononed.

toservez -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 2:28:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I do not care what they call it, I just want to see our troops come home. I will say that I think it maybe beginning to dawn on the Bush Admin that we cannot stay forever. Congress (even republicans) have stated that in order to get our troops out that the goals of establishing permanent bases in Iraq should be abandononed. Could not agree more, but I am afraid what is coming out of the Whitehouse is a big smoke screen to fool people. I seriously doubt they have made any major changes in their goals and lessen their ressolve. When the benchmarks fail, after the elections, it will be the same song and dance. Bush all along has mentioned these steps as things that needed to get done before we pull out. It really is nothing new, just repackaged. I do not think King George has the ability to acknowledge defeat of his goals and adjust. Never seen it before so I am not going to believe it now.

Rule -> RE: Leaving Iraq? (10/27/2006 2:40:58 PM)
I will die of old age before the USA moves its troops out of Iraq. They are there to stay. When they are secure they next will invade and conquer oil rich Iran.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875