| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gdimension
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Jeju
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:51 am Post subject: Iraqis ask US to leave |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| CAIRO, Egypt - Leaders of Iraq��s sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq��s opposition had a ��legitimate right�� of resistance. |
From the AP, seen on MSNBC. Read the rest here.
How are Bush and Cheney going to deal with this? They've spent the last few days equating pulling out to giving in to terrorists. Now they are being asked to leave.
It's going to take some serious spin, as far as I can tell.
NOTE: It doesn't seem to be the government asking for the withdrawal, nonetheless... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Beat me to it. I was goingto post it in the withdrawal thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gdimension
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Jeju
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Beat me to it. I was goingto post it in the withdrawal thread. |
Victory is mine!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I say let them have it, then.
Someone on another thread said that the longer we stay, the longer that they can wait to become self-sufficient.
Teach them to swim by throwing them in the deep end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
yep- get gone, and may the last one out of there turn the lights off.
just to play devils advocate for a moment: would US security interests be better served by an iraq that subsequently plunges into civil war, or one that is united?
also-I agree with tiger beer that now is a great opportunity for Kurds to finally get a sovereign homeland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't get too excited people. Yes they called for a timetable but they did not state a specific time. Nothing more or less for that matter than the U.S. has done. Bush too has stated that the U.S will withdraw but he also refuses to say when. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Don't get too excited people. Yes they called for a timetable but they did not state a specific time. Nothing more or less for that matter than the U.S. has done. Bush too has stated that the U.S will withdraw but he also refuses to say when. |
Your 2nd sentence does not compute with the 3rd one - Bush has consistently refused calls for a timetrable of withdrawal. The Iraqi leadership has not made demands for what this timetable would look like (though I believe they said the end of next year would be nice). Bush-Cheney Inc has never expressed an interest in EVER leaving Iraq at all, however, though they have spoken of withdrawal of troops. It seems clear that they still hope to stateion American bases there.
Your 3rd sentence does not compute with your 4th sentence. By refusing to do more than hint at a timetable for withdrawal (and labeling Dems as disloyal for asking for one) they are clearly at odds with both the will of the American people as expressed in recent polls and also, it now seems, with the leadership of Iraq which they themselves helped place in the positions they now hold.
One thing to read from this is that the Iraqi leadership is more in tune with the desires of its own people than the current American president is.
The only true thing you managed to say was "Don't get too excited people." This is usually good advice, though in this case, I think you meant to say, "Don't get too optimistic people."
Theree are just too many powers given to American presidents when it comes to waging war. This is what history will tell us about Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
just to play devils advocate for a moment: would US security interests be better served by an iraq that subsequently plunges into civil war, or one that is united? |
The answer is obvious, the real question is- is the US willing to pay the price to acheive the objective which best suits its security interests?
I see it as Rumsfeld (among others) totally f-ing up the whole Iraq thing right from the get-go with his experiment on troop deployments and time-tables. Special forces and surgical strikes will allow you to decapitate a regime but it won't allow you to occupy a country- countless Army generals were telling him that, and Shinseki was 'let go' (figuratively) for saying it.
Rumsfeld wasn't allowed to resign because Bush had confidence in him but because he was being forced to stick around and help clean up the mess he created.
But that was the past.
How to proceed now? Nobody knows.
Instead of putting Iraq out of the way or using Iraq as a base of operations against Al qaeda and instead making the US look decisive and powerful in order to get Pakistan Saudi Arabia and Iran to get their houses in order, Iraq has tied down US forces and made the US look indecisive and unable to bring its military force to bear and achieve objectives.
Can't stay, but can't leave either.
And a stalemate is a victory for al Qaeda.
What a mess. It'll be bad for everyone but al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Don't get too excited people. Yes they called for a timetable but they did not state a specific time. Nothing more or less for that matter than the U.S. has done. Bush too has stated that the U.S will withdraw but he also refuses to say when. |
Your 2nd sentence does not compute with the 3rd one - Bush has consistently refused calls for a timetrable of withdrawal. The Iraqi leadership has not made demands for what this timetable would look like (though I believe they said the end of next year would be nice). Bush-Cheney Inc has never expressed an interest in EVER leaving Iraq at all, however, though they have spoken of withdrawal of troops. It seems clear that they still hope to stateion American bases there.
Your 3rd sentence does not compute with your 4th sentence. By refusing to do more than hint at a timetable for withdrawal (and labeling Dems as disloyal for asking for one) they are clearly at odds with both the will of the American people as expressed in recent polls and also, it now seems, with the leadership of Iraq which they themselves helped place in the positions they now hold.
One thing to read from this is that the Iraqi leadership is more in tune with the desires of its own people than the current American president is.
The only true thing you managed to say was "Don't get too excited people." This is usually good advice, though in this case, I think you meant to say, "Don't get too optimistic people."
Theree are just too many powers given to American presidents when it comes to waging war. This is what history will tell us about Iraq. |
Bush has rejected calls to send more troops saying that would indicate "that we intend to stay in Iraq forever." Doesn't sound like someone who wants to stay there.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/28/politics/main704654.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
