Full Version: Should we leave Iraq no matter what?
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 30 2004, 07:50 PM)
turnea,
I agree. The administration did cave. However, I believe the Iraqi did an excellent job of putting together a draft constitution. An have a good chance of building a new Iraq if they can continue to work together.
All this makes it more imperative that the Iraqi people know we will not leave them until they are ready to take charge of their countryt in full.
1SG
I agree. The administration did cave. However, I believe the Iraqi did an excellent job of putting together a draft constitution. An have a good chance of building a new Iraq if they can continue to work together.
All this makes it more imperative that the Iraqi people know we will not leave them until they are ready to take charge of their countryt in full.
1SG
Hopefully, by the end of June, they WILL be able to run the country on their own. I doubt it though. We may need to keep a few advisors in country just in case they run into a snag
...just a reminder (I've stated this before): We will have troops in Iraq for at least 4 more years. The force structure will certainly evolve - we already see a significant change in organization and equipment (as well as in pre-deployment training and prep) of the units deployed/deploying for the current rotation. And units for the next rotation - a year from now - have already been identified and have planned their training cycles accordingly.
This minimal time-commitment that I am stating is no secret, and it is fairly common knowledge across the operational board. Just nobody wants to talk about it....
This minimal time-commitment that I am stating is no secret, and it is fairly common knowledge across the operational board. Just nobody wants to talk about it....
QUOTE(Mustang @ Mar 31 2004, 06:46 AM)
...just a reminder (I've stated this before): We will have troops in Iraq for at least 4 more years. The force structure will certainly evolve - we already see a significant change in organization and equipment (as well as in pre-deployment training and prep) of the units deployed/deploying for the current rotation. And units for the next rotation - a year from now - have already been identified and have planned their training cycles accordingly.
This minimal time-commitment that I am stating is no secret, and it is fairly common knowledge across the operational board. Just nobody wants to talk about it....
This minimal time-commitment that I am stating is no secret, and it is fairly common knowledge across the operational board. Just nobody wants to talk about it....
What do you mean no one wants to talk about it? It has been stated many times on this and other threads that U.S. and Coalition forces will be in Iraq for as long as it takes to secure the country. I don't recall a target date for the military leaving being set. As for the planning and training the Army is doing. That is what the Army does. If the plans change and for some reason we leave Iraq in the next year, then training and planning for the Army will change.
1SG
QUOTE(GDan204 @ Mar 31 2004, 03:54 PM)
What do you mean no one wants to talk about it? It has been stated many times on this and other threads that U.S. and Coalition forces will be in Iraq for as long as it takes to secure the country. I don't recall a target date for the military leaving being set.
I think some of us(myself included) made a mistake early on. The mistake being connecting handing over the reigns of government with pulling out our forces. While we will be handing over governmental responsibilities to the Iraqis, we will of course, still run the show on the military side. Am I right on this??
QUOTE
It has been stated many times on this and other threads that U.S. and Coalition forces will be in Iraq for as long as it takes to secure the country.
I am not talking about some vague time-frame, as in "as long as it takes to secure the country." I am speaking of a specific minimal occupational time frame of 5 years. This planning was being implemented in Iraq last summer. It is clearly seen in contracting, leasing, taking out of options and basic operational planning that has gone forward from that point. There is a possibility of staying longer - but the national-level decision makers have decided that 5 years is a good bet for bringing a stable democracy to Iraq.
Yes, at the operational level, the military is busy planning as it always does - with various force structures being contemplated for the different ways in which the mission could evolve over time. And we are looking at both beyond the 5 year point and at contingencies for an early withdrawal. Although the latter is far less likely.
Now, the lack of openness that I speak of is the lack of open discussion of this planning for a 5 year commitment - although civilian and military elements at all levels have been involved in its implementation. The general public - as has been shown clearly on this board - is viewing the extent of our commitment in Iraq through clouded lenses.
QUOTE
The mistake being connecting handing over the reigns of government with pulling out our forces. While we will be handing over governmental responsibilities to the Iraqis, we will of course, still run the show on the military side. Am I right on this??
Yes. Even when governmental responsibilities are handed over to the Iraqis, we will remain for the fledgling period of self-governance to ensure not only a peaceful transition, but to enable the new government to put down roots deep enough to (hopefully) give it a solid chance of survival.
You can only imagine what could happen if we withdraw too early, leaving a nascent democratic government to fall victim to coup, counter-coup and a slide into even more vicious instability.
Is it a good idea to turn over power to a provisional government on June 30th?
Yes, but our military forces will still be there.
But is it a good idea to turn over power to a provisional government on June 30th?
Yes, but our military forces will still be there.
But is it a good idea to turn over power to a provisional government on June 30th?
Yes, but our military forces will still be there.
Seriously - has anyone gone back and read this entire thread? It has taken over a month and more than fifty posts to say roughly the same thing over and over and over.
In an effort to throw another element into this discussion (unless someone feels compelled to inform us yet again that, come June 30th, our military forces will still be there), let me ask if anyone feels that we will ever withdraw our forces from Iraq.
Mustang has suggested that we will be there for at least four or five years. GDan feels we'll be there "as long as it takes to secure the country" - whatever that means - and reminds us that we were in Germany, Japan and South Korea for more than fifty years. He also states, though, that he believes that, if we are asked to go, we'll just pack up and go, as we did in Thailand (where, in fact, we still have "military advisors") and France.
I'm not so sure. I don't think it matters one whit what happens on June 30th. I don't think it matters what happens should Iraq ever have a "democratically elected government". I think that one of the main reasons - in fact, the main reason - for our invasion of Iraq was to establish a permanent military force in the Middle East.
As has been discussed elsewhere, the Project for the New American Century has long had its eye on Iraq in order for the US "to shape the international environment to its own advantage" by becoming "a Middle Eastern power" as a step in establishing "global hegemony". The PNAC has been officially advocating "regime change" in Iraq since at least 1998 specifically for this purpose. How are we to become "a Middle Eastern power" or, indeed, a global hegemon if we turn any real power over to the locals - especially when it's PNAC policy to prevent any other country from "even aspiring to a larger regional or global role"?
It would be one thing if this "neo-imperialist strategy" (as the PNAC plans are described by Scott McConnell of the Ayn Rand Institute in The American Conservative) were being advocated by a bunch of fringe neo-cons with no real power. But the authors of this doctrine include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle: the very people who orchestrated the invasion which has been on their agenda for over five years.
Again, I see June 30th as a totally irrelevancy. Unless we effect our own "regime change", yes - for the thousandth time - our military forces will still be there. Forever.
Yes, but our military forces will still be there.
But is it a good idea to turn over power to a provisional government on June 30th?
Yes, but our military forces will still be there.
But is it a good idea to turn over power to a provisional government on June 30th?
Yes, but our military forces will still be there.
Seriously - has anyone gone back and read this entire thread? It has taken over a month and more than fifty posts to say roughly the same thing over and over and over.
In an effort to throw another element into this discussion (unless someone feels compelled to inform us yet again that, come June 30th, our military forces will still be there), let me ask if anyone feels that we will ever withdraw our forces from Iraq.
Mustang has suggested that we will be there for at least four or five years. GDan feels we'll be there "as long as it takes to secure the country" - whatever that means - and reminds us that we were in Germany, Japan and South Korea for more than fifty years. He also states, though, that he believes that, if we are asked to go, we'll just pack up and go, as we did in Thailand (where, in fact, we still have "military advisors") and France.
I'm not so sure. I don't think it matters one whit what happens on June 30th. I don't think it matters what happens should Iraq ever have a "democratically elected government". I think that one of the main reasons - in fact, the main reason - for our invasion of Iraq was to establish a permanent military force in the Middle East.
As has been discussed elsewhere, the Project for the New American Century has long had its eye on Iraq in order for the US "to shape the international environment to its own advantage" by becoming "a Middle Eastern power" as a step in establishing "global hegemony". The PNAC has been officially advocating "regime change" in Iraq since at least 1998 specifically for this purpose. How are we to become "a Middle Eastern power" or, indeed, a global hegemon if we turn any real power over to the locals - especially when it's PNAC policy to prevent any other country from "even aspiring to a larger regional or global role"?
It would be one thing if this "neo-imperialist strategy" (as the PNAC plans are described by Scott McConnell of the Ayn Rand Institute in The American Conservative) were being advocated by a bunch of fringe neo-cons with no real power. But the authors of this doctrine include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle: the very people who orchestrated the invasion which has been on their agenda for over five years.
Again, I see June 30th as a totally irrelevancy. Unless we effect our own "regime change", yes - for the thousandth time - our military forces will still be there. Forever.
Well, I believe that it's fairly obvious that we won't hand over military matters on June 30th. Especially considering.......
[QUOTE]Almost half the soldiers recruited into Iraq’s new model army have deserted less than two months after completing basic training, in a severe embarrassment for the US-led administration in Baghdad.
Three hundred of the new Iraqi army’s 700-strong 1st Battalion were discharged after they refused to obey orders following a row over pay and “terms and conditions”, a senior coalition provisional authority official confirmed yesterday.
Their departure is a significant setback to the coalition’s efforts to hasten the recruitment and deployment of Iraqis on to the streets to combat the upsurge in attacks on US-led troops, which average 21 a day.
The 1st Battalion was celebrated with fanfare when a US Army band played at the ceremony marking the end of its nine-week initial training course in October. Only last week, Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary, hailed the newly-created units as the future of the nation’s armed forces. He made no mention of the malcontents.[QUOTE]
(Times of London article, by Stephen Farrell; December 12, 2003)
We certainly haven't heard much about the "progress" of rebuilding Iraq's military. You would think that with certain areas being an exception(i.e.-the infamous "Sunni Triangle") that we could prop up a military force that had more numbers than the Sunni rebels and Shi'ite militias put together.
[QUOTE]Almost half the soldiers recruited into Iraq’s new model army have deserted less than two months after completing basic training, in a severe embarrassment for the US-led administration in Baghdad.
Three hundred of the new Iraqi army’s 700-strong 1st Battalion were discharged after they refused to obey orders following a row over pay and “terms and conditions”, a senior coalition provisional authority official confirmed yesterday.
Their departure is a significant setback to the coalition’s efforts to hasten the recruitment and deployment of Iraqis on to the streets to combat the upsurge in attacks on US-led troops, which average 21 a day.
The 1st Battalion was celebrated with fanfare when a US Army band played at the ceremony marking the end of its nine-week initial training course in October. Only last week, Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary, hailed the newly-created units as the future of the nation’s armed forces. He made no mention of the malcontents.[QUOTE]
(Times of London article, by Stephen Farrell; December 12, 2003)
We certainly haven't heard much about the "progress" of rebuilding Iraq's military. You would think that with certain areas being an exception(i.e.-the infamous "Sunni Triangle") that we could prop up a military force that had more numbers than the Sunni rebels and Shi'ite militias put together.
It is a good idea to turn over power on June 30th if possible but no one should be surprised that we will need to stay in Iraq to guarantee that the thugs that ran Iraq do not take over again. We are still in Kosovo are we not? How many years is that?
As far as the PNAC “advocating regime change since 1998” one could say that there is a good reason for that. That is the year that the Clinton Administration abandoned all hope in Iraq and walked away.
After saying this: "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
Bill Clinton and his liberal advisors decided it was time to cut and run. Never mind that Iraq had never fulfilled a single UN resolution. The silly idea was that we could “keep Iraq in a box” apparently indefinably since the UN showed no sign of moving to force Iraq to comply with any of it’s resolutions. How exactly you could keep this country “in a box” eludes me. We knew Iraq sold $11,000,000 a day in oil illegally and we now know he skimmed 10 billion dollars off of the oil for food program. The idea was ludicrous from the start – and this of course ignores the fact that the UN and everyone else in the world knew that Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin.
IMO we should not criticize the Bush Administration for looking at Iraq early in their term. This was an unresolved issue of major proportions.
As far as the PNAC “advocating regime change since 1998” one could say that there is a good reason for that. That is the year that the Clinton Administration abandoned all hope in Iraq and walked away.
After saying this: "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
Bill Clinton and his liberal advisors decided it was time to cut and run. Never mind that Iraq had never fulfilled a single UN resolution. The silly idea was that we could “keep Iraq in a box” apparently indefinably since the UN showed no sign of moving to force Iraq to comply with any of it’s resolutions. How exactly you could keep this country “in a box” eludes me. We knew Iraq sold $11,000,000 a day in oil illegally and we now know he skimmed 10 billion dollars off of the oil for food program. The idea was ludicrous from the start – and this of course ignores the fact that the UN and everyone else in the world knew that Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin.
IMO we should not criticize the Bush Administration for looking at Iraq early in their term. This was an unresolved issue of major proportions.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 2 2004, 01:38 AM)
Well, I believe that it's fairly obvious that we won't hand over military matters on June 30th. Especially considering.......
We certainly haven't heard much about the "progress" of rebuilding Iraq's military. You would think that with certain areas being an exception(i.e.-the infamous "Sunni Triangle") that we could prop up a military force that had more numbers than the Sunni rebels and Shi'ite militias put together.
We certainly haven't heard much about the "progress" of rebuilding Iraq's military. You would think that with certain areas being an exception(i.e.-the infamous "Sunni Triangle") that we could prop up a military force that had more numbers than the Sunni rebels and Shi'ite militias put together.
Yours is old news. The pay issue has been long settled. Here are some current links you might find informative'
A good look at the make up of the New Iraqi ?Defense ministry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar27.html
U.S. Plan Seeks to Build Civilian-Run Iraqi Army
---------------------------------------------
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_security.php
IRAQ Security Forces
---------------------------------------------
http://www.iraq-today.com/article.php?id=1...ing=§ion=14
The New Iraqi Army takes on Saddam’s hometown
--------------------------------------------
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n.../8220360.htm?1c
Posted on Thu, Mar. 18, 2004
A good look at the make up of the New Iraqi ?Defense ministry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar27.html
U.S. Plan Seeks to Build Civilian-Run Iraqi Army
---------------------------------------------
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_security.php
IRAQ Security Forces
---------------------------------------------
http://www.iraq-today.com/article.php?id=1...ing=§ion=14
The New Iraqi Army takes on Saddam’s hometown
--------------------------------------------
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n.../8220360.htm?1c
Posted on Thu, Mar. 18, 2004
New Iraqi army celebrates graduation of first class of officers
--------------------------------------------
1SG
Ted
Bill Clinton and his liberal advisors decided it was time to cut and run. Never mind that Iraq had never fulfilled a single UN resolution. The silly idea was that we could “keep Iraq in a box” apparently indefinably since the UN showed no sign of moving to force Iraq to comply with any of it’s resolutions. How exactly you could keep this country “in a box” eludes me. We knew Iraq sold $11,000,000 a day in oil illegally and we now know he skimmed 10 billion dollars off of the oil for food program. The idea was ludicrous from the start – and this of course ignores the fact that the UN and everyone else in the world knew that Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin.
1. "The silly idea was that we could "keep Iraq in a box" -
I believe Colin Powell disagreed with you.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm
"We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,” Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with “Face the Nation. “We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them… it's been quite a success for ten years…”
2. "Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin" -
So why did we not go to North Korea,Burma(Myanmar) where just as many people have been killed?
QUOTE
Bill Clinton and his liberal advisors decided it was time to cut and run. Never mind that Iraq had never fulfilled a single UN resolution. The silly idea was that we could “keep Iraq in a box” apparently indefinably since the UN showed no sign of moving to force Iraq to comply with any of it’s resolutions. How exactly you could keep this country “in a box” eludes me. We knew Iraq sold $11,000,000 a day in oil illegally and we now know he skimmed 10 billion dollars off of the oil for food program. The idea was ludicrous from the start – and this of course ignores the fact that the UN and everyone else in the world knew that Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin.
1. "The silly idea was that we could "keep Iraq in a box" -
I believe Colin Powell disagreed with you.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm
QUOTE
"We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,” Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with “Face the Nation. “We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them… it's been quite a success for ten years…”
2. "Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin" -
So why did we not go to North Korea,Burma(Myanmar) where just as many people have been killed?
Honestly, I think the idea of the invasion of Iraq included establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East.
I was born in an American AFB in Japan, and no, we aren't turning those over to Japan anytime soon that I know of
.
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21331
And several other sources, both younger and older, when you do a search for 'Iraq permanent military bases'
I was born in an American AFB in Japan, and no, we aren't turning those over to Japan anytime soon that I know of
.http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21331
QUOTE
They are: the Baghdad international airport; the Talil Air base near Nasariyah; a base in the western desert near Syria; and Bashur air field in the Kurdish region near the convergence of the borders of Turkey, Iran and Iraq and only 500 kms, as F-16s fly, from Baku, the capital of oil-rich Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea.
Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld denied that Washington had plans to build those bases when the Times article was published. But since then, he and his chief aides have been remarkably coy about how long U.S. forces intend to remain in Iraq.
Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld denied that Washington had plans to build those bases when the Times article was published. But since then, he and his chief aides have been remarkably coy about how long U.S. forces intend to remain in Iraq.
And several other sources, both younger and older, when you do a search for 'Iraq permanent military bases'
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Apr 2 2004, 05:52 PM)
QUOTE
2. "Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin" -
So why did we not go to North Korea,Burma(Myanmar) where just as many people have been killed?
So why did we not go to North Korea,Burma(Myanmar) where just as many people have been killed?
A lot of people have asked that question. Why didn't the United States invade Iran, Syria, N.Korea, several African nations, etc. But the question could just as well be: "Why not Iraq?"
Its leader and ruling party were as evil as any in the world. Our intelligence and the Intelligence services of Britain, France, Canada and Spain all agreed that Iraq had WMDs that could be passed to terrorists. We know Saddam's security forces had been in contact with with al-Qaeda related terrorists. Iraq fits into the Strategic picture as a key country in the stabilization of Mid East. Lastly, it is in an area where we have enough bordering allies that we can stage our troops properly.
It boils down to Iraq being a place were the Coalition could make a difference to the peace of the area, the peace of the world, and bring freedom to the Iraqi people at the same time.
1SG
Old news?, o.k., here's something a little more current--
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...4/ixportal.html
[/QUOTE]
Officers in the fledgling force stayed inside their fortified police station as the bodyguards' convoy came under attack and later when their mutilated bodies were paraded through the town.
As the town braced itself yesterday for the Americans' promised retaliation, Sgt Ahmed Samir, one of several officers nervously patrolling, said the fear of being hit by "friendly fire" meant that many police were too scared to rescue Americans in trouble.
[QUOTE]
I will grant you that there might be a few regiments(much as the ARVN army had brave tankers during Vietnam) At the same time, the authorities were incapable of handling an undisciplined crowd. Stick a fork in 'em, like the old ARVN forces, they're done
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...4/ixportal.html
[/QUOTE]
Officers in the fledgling force stayed inside their fortified police station as the bodyguards' convoy came under attack and later when their mutilated bodies were paraded through the town.
As the town braced itself yesterday for the Americans' promised retaliation, Sgt Ahmed Samir, one of several officers nervously patrolling, said the fear of being hit by "friendly fire" meant that many police were too scared to rescue Americans in trouble.
[QUOTE]
I will grant you that there might be a few regiments(much as the ARVN army had brave tankers during Vietnam) At the same time, the authorities were incapable of handling an undisciplined crowd. Stick a fork in 'em, like the old ARVN forces, they're done
There is speculation that the deadline should be extended:
Senator Lugar suggested extending deadline
I have to agree. With al-Sadr and his goons causing trouble, we may need to think about setting a new deadline...say September or August
Senator Lugar suggested extending deadline
QUOTE
Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, made the suggestion on ABC's "This Week," saying he was "really haunted by the June 30 problem" given persistent violence in Iraq.
I have to agree. With al-Sadr and his goons causing trouble, we may need to think about setting a new deadline...say September or August
[quote=popeye47,Apr 2 2004, 12:52 PM]
"We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,” Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with “Face the Nation. “We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them… it's been quite a success for ten years…”
[/QUOTE]
2. "Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin" -
So why did we not go to North Korea,Burma(Myanmar) where just as many people have been killed? [/quote]
Did you miss Powell later. At the UN he clearly was well passed the point of believing we could contain Iraq and their WMD.
As far as N. Korea etc. we have no vital national interest there. We tossed away 50,000 Amerian lives in the 50s. Would you like to do this again?.
"We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,” Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with “Face the Nation. “We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them… it's been quite a success for ten years…”
[/QUOTE]
2. "Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin" -
So why did we not go to North Korea,Burma(Myanmar) where just as many people have been killed? [/quote]
Did you miss Powell later. At the UN he clearly was well passed the point of believing we could contain Iraq and their WMD.
As far as N. Korea etc. we have no vital national interest there. We tossed away 50,000 Amerian lives in the 50s. Would you like to do this again?.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Apr 5 2004, 08:39 AM)
I have to agree. With al-Sadr and his goons causing trouble, we may need to think about setting a new deadline...say September or August
We could possibly hand out civil matters to the Iraqis, but still run the show on the military side of things since their military and police forces keep getting run over by rag-tag insurgents. I'm not even certain that they would be ready for August or September to tell you the truth. We need to somehow instill some ethos, some collective identity that helped past powerful Arab empires-such as the Ottoman Empire and Ataturk's Turkey. Until this cognitive revolution takes place, our efforts will be in vain. No, we shouldn't pull out no matter what, but we should only do so when there are enough Iraqis will stand up to mere villagers taking over government buildings and cities. They will only do so when they feel they have a vested interest i ntheirt own country, something that is grossly missing now.
[QUOTE=Ted,Apr 9 2004, 04:26 AM][QUOTE=popeye47,Apr 2 2004, 12:52 PM]
"We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,” Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with “Face the Nation. “We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them… it's been quite a success for ten years…”
[/QUOTE]
2. "Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin" -
So why did we not go to North Korea,Burma(Myanmar) where just as many people have been killed? [/QUOTE]
Did you miss Powell later. At the UN he clearly was well passed the point of believing we could contain Iraq and their WMD.
As far as N. Korea etc. we have no vital national interest there. We tossed away 50,000 Amerian lives in the 50s. Would you like to do this again?.[/QUOTE]
And before it is over in Iraq we are going to lose over 1,000. It will be pass 1,0000,but who knows how much more.
So are we going to be wrong again and lose more lives? For what?
"We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,” Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with “Face the Nation. “We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them… it's been quite a success for ten years…”
[/QUOTE]
2. "Iraq was one of the most brutal regimes since Stalin" -
So why did we not go to North Korea,Burma(Myanmar) where just as many people have been killed? [/QUOTE]
Did you miss Powell later. At the UN he clearly was well passed the point of believing we could contain Iraq and their WMD.
As far as N. Korea etc. we have no vital national interest there. We tossed away 50,000 Amerian lives in the 50s. Would you like to do this again?.[/QUOTE]
And before it is over in Iraq we are going to lose over 1,000. It will be pass 1,0000,but who knows how much more.
So are we going to be wrong again and lose more lives? For what?
I see no problem with letting the deadline stick. We are transferring sovereignty to the Iraqi people; we are NOT cutting and running. The Coalition Provisional Authority will be dissolved and our presence will be limited to an embassy, but our military will still be there in full force. We will still be calling the shots. This deadline was artificial, but if we wavered now we would look weak to the enemy. We need to stand firm.
QUOTE(Ajax @ Apr 10 2004, 07:14 PM)
I see no problem with letting the deadline stick. We are transferring sovereignty to the Iraqi people; we are NOT cutting and running. The Coalition Provisional Authority will be dissolved and our presence will be limited to an embassy, but our military will still be there in full force. We will still be calling the shots. This deadline was artificial, but if we wavered now we would look weak to the enemy. We need to stand firm.
Amen!
As long as the US troops don't leave along with the Coalition Authority, we will be doing alright. I don't know about the embassy thing because it might be attacked so i think until we can regain security to a decent level of stability, we might have to consider another option in that sense
Should we leave Iraq no matter what?
Better question is should we keep the June 30th deadline to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqi Governing Counsel?
According to recent reports, Bremer, Rumsfeld, and Bush are standing by the deadline. The Iraqi Governing Counsel is firm about the June 30th deadline and will be extremely upset if the deadline were delayed or cancelled indefinitely. For months, the Iraqi police and fire departments have been first responders to the bombing scenes with our troops in the background for support. One of the serious problems is adequate time for properly training the Iraqi forces to handle the broad scope of potential hot spots that will continue long after the deadline.
I recently read that Bremer is leaving Iraq soon after the deadline and will be replaced with someone with similar capabilities. I also read that numerous legal authorities are helping the Iraqs organize and prepare thousands upon thousands of documents, evidence, and witnesses for Saddam's trial.
Edited to ad link to today's article regarding the June 30th deadline:
Bush won't postpone Iraq turnover
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/
Better question is should we keep the June 30th deadline to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqi Governing Counsel?
According to recent reports, Bremer, Rumsfeld, and Bush are standing by the deadline. The Iraqi Governing Counsel is firm about the June 30th deadline and will be extremely upset if the deadline were delayed or cancelled indefinitely. For months, the Iraqi police and fire departments have been first responders to the bombing scenes with our troops in the background for support. One of the serious problems is adequate time for properly training the Iraqi forces to handle the broad scope of potential hot spots that will continue long after the deadline.
I recently read that Bremer is leaving Iraq soon after the deadline and will be replaced with someone with similar capabilities. I also read that numerous legal authorities are helping the Iraqs organize and prepare thousands upon thousands of documents, evidence, and witnesses for Saddam's trial.
Edited to ad link to today's article regarding the June 30th deadline:
Bush won't postpone Iraq turnover
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/
QUOTE
CRAWFORD, Texas — President Bush yesterday rejected calls to postpone the planned June 30 turnover of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government, saying "this is precisely what our enemies want."
The president said that the recent surge of fighting in Iraq is being caused by a "small faction" of holdovers from the Saddam Hussein regime who are attempting to derail Iraqi democracy and seize power.
The president said that the recent surge of fighting in Iraq is being caused by a "small faction" of holdovers from the Saddam Hussein regime who are attempting to derail Iraqi democracy and seize power.
As far as Saddam being a bad guy goes, so was Milosevic yet not many GOPers supported Clinton at that time. Suddenly and magically the GOP is full of idealists, go figure.
I dont think we can leave Iraq until they have a stable democracy. I believe Bush is worthless as a president but american credibility is now at stake.
I dont think we can leave Iraq until they have a stable democracy. I believe Bush is worthless as a president but american credibility is now at stake.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.