Iraqis Say There Should Be Troop Timetable

[Republican_Man]

I don't think we can set even that remote a date for when a certain amount of troops to be removed. Right now I think McCain might even be right in his saying that we need more troops, not fewer, in there right now. It's not right to say that we're going to have X amount of troops gone at this point. We can't predict that now. I prefer more goal-oriented general plans, not how many troops will be out when. I have a respectful dissagreement with Senator Biden.

[lex]

Too bad we can't set a retroactive withdrawal date.

[Republican_Man]

Problem is with that, it would give the Iraqis false expectations and hurt our effort in a multitude of ways. I think what I suggested is the best method of doing things, and until I hear another good method, I'll continue to believe in it.

[Republican_Man]

You know, I just realized something. The US has never withdrawn its troops after the end of a war. Never happened before, excluding Vietnam, which, well, you know about Vietnam.
However, we are just now talking about removing troops from Japan and Germany--after 50 years--and South Korea, and we still have troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. We haven't pulled out in any other situations, so we can't do it now. Heck, we've been, again, in Germany and Japan for over 50 years and still haven't left. Makes you think...

And btw, for those Democrats that now call for an exit strategy in Iraq, they really should have called for one for Bosnia and Kosovo. We're still in there, despite the Un getting control, and it was a "war" that was really a police action, like Vietnam. Unlike Iraq, the Congress never approved the use of force. Clinton did, and it was a war of choice, too. The hypocricy of the Democrats in Congress never ceases to amaze me.

[Leo Wyatt]

Republican_Man you are right. There are soldiers in Korea and Bosnia still. And that other place you mention. Ummm Bosnia who sent the troops then? Clinton. And Libs wants to bash Bush. How hypercritical.
Was it our place to go to Bosnia? Was they threathening us. I don't remember they was. Just what a country fighting with another I guess.

[Republican_Man]

Yeah, whatever happened to the "policing the world" argument of the left against Iraq--when Iraq was for the defense of America and Bosnia and Kosovo weren't. They were a good things to do, yes, considering the attrocities that happened there, but not in our national interests, like Iraq.
It's important to recognizing how long it took in past wars to even start to pull out troops.

EDIT: No complaints from the dems about the lack of an exit strategy for a war that wasn't in our national interests, and world-wide interest, and yet there are cries about leaving a country that we HAVE to ensure the success of.

[oberon]

I really don't think past wars allude any valid insight into this particular disaster. Bush and his administration authorized a preemptive attack upon Iraq in a foolhardy search relying on "false intelligence". The US has been present for too long. People are starting to lose patience with the continued occupation which is resulting in violance. You always hear about the American deaths but what about the Iraqis? Thousands upon thousands have died since Bush declared "mission complete".. or whatever he misleadingly boasted. Anyway, further presence in Iraq by any troops including the US is more detrimental to it's people than their absence. That should be the determining factor.

[Republican_Man]

[Leo Wyatt]

Excuse me Oberon but the Iraqi war was justicified yes i misspelled but that is beside the point... Was you over there to see all the mass graves of what Saddam did? Killing his own people and Iraqi people don't have freedom... By our troops being over there, we are helping the Iraqi people to be free from an evil dictator. And to stop terrorism.

[CJ Cregg]

Then why not invade North korea, Iran, Syria and all the other "axis of evil"

There all doing similar things as Iraq did

[Leo Wyatt]

Maybe cause Korea is not a threat yet. When they become one then we stop any terrorist.

[Republican_Man]

[CJ Cregg]

North Korea has always been more of a threat than Iraq

[Republican_Man]

[oberon]

So you seek to build on those graves? The dictator is gone, there were no weapons, and the presence of US troops is what's making the "terrorists" so angry. Many of these "terrorists" are people who want the presence to end. They're tired of western occupation. I'm not condoning the acts of violance that they're practicing, but at the same time, continued American presence etc. is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

Republican Man, I'm not smoking anything, thanks. A terrorist regime is unlikely. With all the eyes on Iraq, I doubt any extremists would dare to mobilize and take over the entire country. Let's keep it real. From where would they get the funds? They have some money but not nearly enough. Their attacks are being fueled by the occupation and remember, there is a police force in place.

How can you say it "always happens in war". This is 2005. We're supposed to be enlightened. It sickens me. Perhaps if you met an Iraqi's corpse face to face, you'd feel differently. They're people too and they deserve to be respected. They have faces and names just like you.

And the "original mission" can't have been completed because there were no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons of any kind.

I wanted bush to fail from the beginning. I knew he'd screw up the country. And I hate him for that, yes. I was just hoping he would be voted out. Unfortunately, his smoke screen seemed to work for him. Not so much anymore though.. except among the conservative evangelical Christian community.

We aren't feeding a bird. These are people's lives that are being thrown away because of an ongoing war begun by false information. People are worried about a civil war and terrorist rule? Well I have some information.. IRAQ HAS NEVER HAD A CIVIL WAR. Until now of course. The US should just back off. It doesn't mean we won't provide assistance, but we don't have to occupy them to do so.

And one more thing, don't talk to me about propaganda.

[Leo Wyatt]

How do you know oberon that there was no WMDS? You have not answer my question from before. Was in Iraq to see what went on? Media does lie. People say they don't but, they do.
Was you a soldier over there?

[oberon]

No indeed. I believe peace and rationality can be used to solve the root of all conflicts. I would never help to solicit any war. I do not know completely and certainly that there were no weapons of mass destruction, but all the news and seaches lead me to believe that Iraq was telling the truth about there never having been any. So between the two poles, I choose to side with the one that presents the most clear and decisive evidence.

[Leo Wyatt]

One thing that you got to remember. In this world, there will never be peace but except when wait I better not say it. Religion just stirr up a fight. I was gonna say when Jesus comes back.. But, that will on another topic lol it is not for this one...

But you got to know you never negotiate with terrorists and give them what they want... That is proving that they can get by with anything.

[Republican_Man]

^Exactly. Sometimes the use of force is necessary to save lives. In this case, it seemed as though, in the beginning, we were going to have a lot of trouble on our hands, and in order to prevent millions of innocent Americans from dying, this president took action to defend our nation. Sure, we may have been mistaken, but that doesn't mean that we should pull out now. We have an obligation, now that we're there, to see this through.
Keep in mind that no longer is Saddam reigning with terror. No longer are there rape rooms, torture chambers, people in fear about speaking their voice, people getting assassinated for talking about other assassinations of innocents, and parents witnessing their children being forced into plastic body shredders and vice-versa. You have to aknowledge the good that's come of this, even if you disagree with the war, and know that we can't leave now. To do so would be detrimental. Even Ed Cox(sp?), former liberal mayor of NYC, aknowledges it. As do Pat Buchanon, Republican who is an outspoken critic of the war; Alan Colmes, a liberal; some of my liberal friends; 403 members of the US house; Joe Lieberman, Democratic senator; the majority of American people; the majority of Senators. Most people know that we can't leave Iraq now--that we have an obligation to see this through and protect the Iraqis AND America from the terrorists. We have an obligation to ensure that this democracy is stable. We cannot cut and run. To do that would be to give into the terrorists. We're there now and so we have to stay until the job is done.

And no, oberon, the Sunnis, who are the most critical of the US invasion, are hardly starting to join in the violence now, realizing that they can share their voice at the ballot box--something they never had before, because of Saddam's tight leash. It's terrorists flocking in--NOT the average Iraqi--that are doing this. They know that a failed Iraq would mean a failure for the US in the war on terror and a win for them. That's why Al Quada is so active there. They know how important Iraq is in this war.

Diplomacy isn't always the answer, too. Like, say, the 144-day Iran hostage crisis. It didn't work there. It didn't work with the Soviet Union. It didn't work in WWII. It doesn't work in a number of intances. And it didn't work in Iraq.
Keep in mind that the Un, while aknowledging the threat (like all the Democrats, France, the UK, Jordan, Egypt, Australia--virtually the whole world), did NOTHING. Oil for Food prevented them from trying to do anything, the damned corruption. Diplomacy was not working. They didn't enforce Resolution 1441, which they declared that Iraq had to disarm or they would face serious consequences. But they didn't take action when he still failed to comply, and Bush took it upon himself to defend this state in a time of need. And you are incorrect, to my knowledge, in your statement that Iraq said that they didn't have WMDs. They never did state that. Instead they threw out weapons inspectors, trying to cover something up.

And of course diplomacy does NOT work with terrorists and we should NOT negotiate with terrorists. Never should we do so.

And yeah, there IS evidence to the contrary of

[Founder]

[LightningBoy]

The left is only interested in maintaining a peaceful veneer.

They really don't care about how anyone is treated, so long as there's no visible conflict.

How many people were killed under Saddam's regime?

[lex]

[Founder]

[LightningBoy]