posted
Americans have shown again that they don't have the stomach to fight a prolonged war with heavy causalities...Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and now Iraq, no matter what the stakes are! And al-Qaeda is already seeing the results of the midterm elections as a victory.
Another lesson to America's allies, be careful!! Americans cannot be relied upon when things start to get sour, they will blame everyone else (ahmad al-Jalabi, poor intelligence, it's Israel's war, these people have been fighting for thousands of years, etc.) except themselves.
Never forget that the Iraq war was overwhelmingly supported by the American people before it started in march 2003.
And never forget that almost 150,000 Iraqis were killed as a result of toppling Sadam, not to mention the massive economical damage to Iraq.
Americans have said their word, "victory" has turned into "the war is a mistake. let's get out!".
Left.Side.Lying.State.Of.Mind Member # 6244
posted
We're not blaming the people you named. We're blaming BUSH.
*That* is what the mid-terms are all about.
ARROW99 Member # 11614
posted
The dems support higher troop levels in Iraq and have all along Left Side. Further, Americans have consistently OPPOSED pulling out of Iraq without victory. It is true that they are dissatisfied with the conduct of the war and you will see a change, but not the kind of irresponsible change you favor. The democrats will not turn the worlds primary oil supply and the economic power that goes with over to the Iranians.
Left.Side.Lying.State.Of.Mind Member # 6244
posted
What Democrats support higher troops levels? I've seen almost nothing but Democratic support for pulling out for the past year or so, led by Joe Biden.
Here's a letter from Democratic leadership to the president asking him to redeploy troops *out* of Iraq, among other things:
The US death toll stands at more than 2,800 troops US military leaders are preparing to recommend changes in strategy on Iraq, America's top military officer says. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Peter Pace said commanders were having their own dialogue and would make the changes that were needed.
President George W Bush is to meet members of a panel drawing up proposals for ending the conflict on Monday.
Iraq was a key factor in the Republican defeat in mid-term polls and US defence chief Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.
Mr Rumsfeld will be replaced by former CIA director Robert Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group set to report to Mr Bush next week. We have to give ourselves a good honest scrub about what is working and what is not working
Gen Peter Pace
Iraq debate transformed
The White House says it is open to new thinking on the conflict, and correspondents say it would not be surprising if a real change of policy emerged soon.
Democrat calls
Gen Pace told CBS that military leaders were taking a hard look at what they were doing in Iraq.
"We have to give ourselves a good honest scrub about what is working and what is not working... and what should we change about the way we are doing it."
But Gen Pace said Mr Rumsfeld's departure would not have a direct impact.
"We continuously review what's going right, what's going wrong, what needs to change," he added.
His comments came as the White House announced Monday's meeting with the bipartisan task force asked by Congress to examine the effectiveness of policy in Iraq.
The panel, which is led by former US Secretary of State James Baker, reportedly think that "staying the course" is an untenable long-term strategy.
It is said to have been looking at two options, both of which would amount to a reversal of the Bush administration's stance.
One is the phased withdrawal of US troops, and the other is to increase contact with Syria and Iran to help stop the fighting.
Democratic Party leaders visiting the White House in the wake of their poll victory have raised the idea of an Iraq summit.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat set to be the next speaker of the House of Representatives, has called for a change of strategy, describing the current policy as a "catastrophic path".
posted
they are open to new thinking but nobody is saying that this new thinking has anything to do with pulling out. The end of the war in Iraq must include winning, both Senator Biden and the other democratic leaders all agree on that. The idea of an Iraq summit has been around for a few months. The bi partisan Baker group will suggest a partition of iraq into three nearly independent regions with American bases moved into the Kurdish areas.
Left.Side.Lying.State.Of.Mind Member # 6244
posted
Democrats Say They Will Push for Troop Withdrawal
posted
No they don't say that Left Side. They also say clearly that the objectives have to be met before that can happen. Secondly, as Joe Biden pointed out this morning on ABC the democrats really have no way to force troop withdrawl even if they wanted to. Congress does not constitutionally run foreign policy. You'll see a partition down the line if it does not improve but American troops will stay as long as the current Iranian government is in power. They have no choice whether dem or republican.
Dems have only very very small margins in Congress. A 12 vote margin in the house out of 435 and one vote in the senate out of 100. Even if they could pass something President Bush would simply veto it and they are faaaar from enough voted to over ride.
Left.Side.Lying.State.Of.Mind Member # 6244
posted Yeah, they do.
"Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Congress, said on Sunday they will push to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq in the next few months but the White House cautioned against fixing timetables."
"we need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months," Levin said on ABC's "This Week.""
""We need to redeploy," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said on CBS' "Face The Nation," adding that the decision should be made by military officers in Iraq.
"And I think it should start within the next few months.""
ARROW99 Member # 11614
posted
Even if they were serious about that , which they are not, how would they bring it about?
Am I bovvered(WOTEVER) Member # 11942
posted
They're trying to get syria nad iran to go in to help
Samarra_Anissa Member # 12077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gulfy:
Another lesson to America's allies, be careful!! Americans cannot be relied upon when things start to get sour, they will blame everyone else (ahmad al-Jalabi, poor intelligence, it's Israel's war, these people have been fighting for thousands of years, etc.) except themselves.
And Arabs can't trust other Arabs.
No Arab leader allowed the Arab combined military to finish the 1948 war which could have been won.
No Arab army came in and freed the Iraqi people from Saddam (I believe if it was an Arab effort instead of a Coalition forces effort Iraq would be stable and prosperous today instead of being occupied).
No Arab army defended the Palestinians when they are cut down every day.
No Arab government will defend a fellow Arab populace.
And its not just a modern travesty, its been this way since the first crusade.
Am I bovvered(WOTEVER) Member # 11942
posted
america supported saddam for how many years? rumsfield gave him gold spurs.
america does't condemn isreal for it's aggression against palestine nor for it's assult against lebanon
PARECETAMOLspeed Member # 10861
posted
i dont trust anyone cause my farts stink and so they stink out of there butt asses .. what he done that bush man was do someting so stupid he opened his dirty smelly mouth .PARACITE!!!
Samarra_Anissa Member # 12077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Am I bovvered(WOTEVER): america supported saddam for how many years? rumsfield gave him gold spurs.
america does't condemn isreal for it's aggression against palestine nor for it's assult against lebanon
Stop relying on America to police the world.
Simple really.
Am I bovvered(WOTEVER) Member # 11942
posted
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SINCE WHEN DOES ANYONE ASK AMERICA????
THEY TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES TO POLICE THE WORLD.
WOT A ********** LIBERTY
PARECETAMOLspeed Member # 10861
posted
HEY SONO are you writing with one hand darling ,
ARROW99 Member # 11614
posted
We supported Saddam when IT WAS IN OUR INTEREST to do so. We police the world because we have a GLOBAL economy and we are the only nation that has the military power to do so. If nobody policed it we would have total chaos.
1. The administration said this morning that they were open to new ideas EXCEPT they were not open to a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq.
#2. A new Newsweek poll released yesterday showed 71% AGAINST the dems trying to pressure the administration for a premature withdrawl from Iraq.
Conclusion: Many on this board are making too much of last weeks elections. Obviously we cannot leave until the job is done
Tigerlily Member # 3567
posted
The US is not going to pull out of Iraq just like that, they can't. If they would leave now head over heels then it would be a real shame to blame the US because they left Iraq in a complete mess. The Iraqi military is still in the process of getting properly trained. If the US troops would leave they would not be able at all to handle the daily unrests, killings, bombings etc.
I just hope that indeed the US have a strong lesson learned. In my opinion homeland security should not mean to go into other countries and fight the enemies there especially if it was for all the wrong reasons. Iraq wasn't a threat for the outside world. Infact Iraq was way more peaceful under Saddam's dictatorship - even considering the crimes he committed - the terrorists came only when the US, the Brits and the Aussies pulled in.
I agree the job has to be finished. Iraq needs to be stabilized. And of course the US will never pull out of Iraq completely. They will keep some installations open for future purposes inside the ME.
Samarra_Anissa Member # 12077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Am I bovvered(WOTEVER): HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SINCE WHEN DOES ANYONE ASK AMERICA????
THEY TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES TO POLICE THE WORLD.
WOT A ********** LIBERTY
No if you follow those pesky diplomatic missions you 'll notice a consistant push from Europe for the US to follow the NATO peace treaty in which some idiot president agreed to militarily protect Europe's interests in their former colonies so European military could police its own borders.
Keep in mind Europe had 3/4 of the world colonized before WW2.
Thats why so many references are made to NATO.
Don't read the front page of the newspaper, read page 13-40 of the international section and you get a clearer picture.
ARROW99 Member # 11614
posted
Tigerlily is correct, we will never really pull out. Why people on this board support terrorists and the Iranians is beyond comprehension. The American people are not satisfied with progress in the war but a SOLID majority in EVERY POLL favors staying until the job is finished....we will do just that.
Am I bovvered(WOTEVER) Member # 11942
posted
As i pointed out b4 and you ignored it is ilegal for the us and uk to leave iraq until they law and order, or unless the iraqi government ask them to leave then they HAVE to leave. Why are the UK and US so keen for Syria and Iran to help now???? it's costing to much, people are sick of it and the lies. Which is what it is based on.
ARROW99 Member # 11614
posted
The US and UK know that Iran will not really help. Thats just diplomatic jargon and means nothing. Don't pay any attention to what diplomats say, watch what they do. That is true with all nations in termds of diplomacy.
posted ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Yeah, they do. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)