No way out

[Spence]

...under this President.

The U.S. military will likely maintain or possibly even increase the current force levels of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring, the top US. commander in the Middle East said Tuesday in one of the gloomiest assessments yet of how quickly American forces can be brought home.
...
Late last year, military leaders had said they hoped to reduce troop levels to about 100,000 by the end of this year. But Abizaid said Tuesday that the rising sectarian violence and slow progress of the Iraqi government made that impossible.
...
There are currently 147,000 U.S. forces in Iraq — up more than 20,000 from the troop levels in late June. Rumsfeld extended the one-year deployment of an Alaska-based brigade in July, as part of the effort to stem the escalating violence in Baghdad.

Source

[Spence]

President Bush spaketh thusly to the UN General Assembly today:

"Freedom by its nature cannot be imposed. It must be chosen."

No kidding, Brainiac. Why didn't you realize this 3.5 years ago, when it might have helped.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, there were two ways it could've gone in Iraq.

The Iraqis could've met out troops with chocolates and a ticker tape parade through Saddam (now Sadr) City, forgotten their deeply rooted tribal and sectarian blood feuds and embraced their relatively educated sides and instantly become a model of Middle Eastern democracy.

Or... they could start the retribution and begin killing each other at the first earliest convenience.

Given human nature, I don't see how the administration could have honestly thought that the former might actually occur.

[Keino]

Im just trying to figure out why Kevin Costner and Gene Hackman are being blamed for Bush's mess of Iraq.

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

Well, there were two ways it could've gone in Iraq.

The Iraqis could've met out troops with chocolates and a ticker tape parade through Saddam (now Sadr) City, forgotten their deeply rooted tribal and sectarian blood feuds and embraced their relatively educated sides and instantly become a model of Middle Eastern democracy.

Or... they could start the retribution and begin killing each other at the first earliest convenience.

Given human nature, I don't see how the administration could have honestly thought that the former might actually occur.

LOL BNG - The former is what was sold to the American Public

[akhhorus]

What made me laugh was hearing Dr. Laura say with a straight face that she thought this speech was better and more powerful than Reagan's Berlin Wall one.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by Keino

Im just trying to figure out why Kevin Costner and Gene Hackman are being blamed for Bush's mess of Iraq.

LOL BNG - The former is what was sold to the American Public

Well, after all, we are an idealistic people.

[shally]

Originally Posted by Spence

...under this President.
Source

so what would you have us do now ? pull them out ? send in more?
what is the plan?

[Axegrinder]

Any truth that they're digging trenches around Baghdad,or are they digging their way out?

[shally]

Originally Posted by Axegrinder

Any truth that they're digging trenches around Baghdad,or are they digging their way out?

with those poor b@@@@@@'s luck they probably try to dig their way out and hit a natural gas main...

[Spence]

Originally Posted by shally

so what would you have us do now ? pull them out ? send in more?
what is the plan?

Like a majority of Americans, I want a firm timeline and plan for withdrawal of American troops. I've put forth my plan on this board several times. I won't go into all of it again. Suffice to say that it involves moving about 10,000 U.S. troops into Kurdistan, where they will be safe from religious war, useful to keep the peace between the Kurds and Turks, and in the neighborhood if needed quickly. The rest would be withdrawn to the U.S. and Afghanistan, where they could get on with the task of actually destroying the people who attacked the United States.

I don't worry for one second about Mr Bush's BS line about terrorists in Iraq following us to the U.S. if we withdraw. Over 90% of the violence in Iraq is factional/sectional; that is, Shiites and Sunnis butchering each other. These people don't want to fight in the U.S., they want to get on with what they're doing now -- chopping each other into tiny, tiny pieces. My view: Let them get on with that while we actually start fighting our enemies.

It's a radical plan, I know, but one I think that would find favor with most Americans. I really believe that most Americans would rather destroy the people who attacked us on 9/11/01 than babysit an Islamic civil war. I know President Bush and most Republican office-holders disagree with me, but, hey -- I'm not a Republican. They can all bite me.

[shally]

Originally Posted by Spence

Like a majority of Americans, I want a firm timeline and plan for withdrawal of American troops. I've put forth my plan on this board several times. I won't go into all of it again. Suffice to say that it involves moving about 10,000 U.S. troops into Kurdistan, where they will be safe from religious war, useful to keep the peace between the Kurds and Turks, and in the neighborhood if needed quickly. The rest would be withdrawn to the U.S. and Afghanistan, where they could get on with the task of actually destroying the people who attacked the United States.

I don't worry for one second about Mr Bush's BS line about terrorists in Iraq following us to the U.S. if we withdraw. Over 90% of the violence in Iraq is factional/sectional; that is, Shiites and Sunnis butchering each other. These people don't want to fight in the U.S., they want to get on with what they're doing now -- chopping each other into tiny, tiny pieces. My view: Let them get on with that while we actually start fighting our enemies.

It's a radical plan, I know, but one I think that would find favor with most Americans. I really believe that most Americans would rather destroy the people who attacked us on 9/11/01 than babysit an Islamic civil war. I know President Bush and most Republican office-holders disagree with me, but, hey -- I'm not a Republican. They can all bite me.

i have NO problem with what you are saying.. that is far different from what a large portion of the isolationist wing of the democrats appear to be saying

and it is certainly true that we do not have it within our power to stop the centuries old civil war that has been raging among the islamic factions. that is likely to go on for decades or centuries more..

[Spence]

Originally Posted by shally

i have NO problem with what you are saying.. that is far different from what a large portion of the isolationist wing of the democrats appear to be saying

Shally, name the prominent Democratic office-holder who is demanding an immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. John Kerry isn't saying that. John Murtha isn't saying that. Hillary Clinton certainly isn't saying that. Joe Biden certainly isn't saying that. Even so-called doves like Howard Dean and Ned Lamont -- who are not office-holders yet or any more -- oppose an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. What about 75% of Democratic members of Congress voted for earlier this year was a committment to a timeline to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in a year or two. That's it. The other 25% or so voted against such a timeline, essentially asking for a withdrawal plan, but setting no date for it.

There is NO support in the Democratic caucus for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. None. That fact is represented in the public votes that were taken. This fantasy of a huge Democratic caucus demanding an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and a written apology sent to Osama Bin Laden for any trouble we may have caused him* is a straw man created by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld because their credibility is so shot and their arguments so weak that they cannot debate real issues. So they create phony positions and claim their opponents support those phony positions. Don't fall for it.

* Unfortunately, we haven't caused Mr Bin Laden nearly enough trouble. The blame for that falls squarely on the heads of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

[lakewinola]

Originally Posted by shally

so what would you have us do now ? pull them out ? send in more?
what is the plan?

Leaving troops in Iraq for the next 30 years is not a plan.

[lakewinola]

Originally Posted by shally

i have NO problem with what you are saying.. that is far different from what a large portion of the isolationist wing of the democrats appear to be saying

please back that up? this is just more of the same - GOP/right wing talk show host talking points that have no substance.

[shally]

Originally Posted by lakewinola

Leaving troops in Iraq for the next 30 years is not a plan.

we still have troops in korea.. that comes with the territory. we will have troops around the world as long as we are amajor power. it is the numbers and the mission that is the issue