Bush agrees to time 'horizon' on Iraq troop cuts

I'd love to see the troops brough home. But I don't trust george bush here. he's given the commanders in Iraq mixed messages of i'll send more troops to excuses to why we're bogged down. Then he finally listened to Patreasus (sp) and some actions reduced some violence.

But now when John McCain is trying to give his reasons for staying in Iraq for as long as possible are being churned around with this news.

For Barack Obama, it just makes it easier for him to succeed with his time table to get the troops out. But it also makes him have to watch out to see what george bush is dream ing up now.

Anyway you look at it, george bush is a lame duck looking for some way, anyway to put some kind of positive spin on his legacy of failure.

So watch for whatever he's dreaming up. he's a lunitic. < :-)

I wish Bush would just plain keep his trap closed. Everything that he says nowadays is so ludicrous it's just pure comedy. When he is "agreeing to a time horizon on Iraq troop cuts," what the heck does that mean anyways? As usual no concrete time table or guidelines. Just agree to something, which is pointless since he'll be long gone by next year anyhow. What a joke.

"the sharp reduction in violence in Iraq, to the lowest level in four years, has made the country's leaders increasingly confident"

Total failure? I think not.

Ludicrious ???

What I think is ludicrious is all you "outsiders" that think you somehow have a privelaged ear into the inner workings of the White House ! Bwahaha ! You seem to hang on every announcement, speech, discussion like it is somehow the gospel ! Get real folks, there isn't a single politician around the world that tells "you" the real poop ! You have no idea what is happening ! You never had, you never will ! And thats the way it should be ! Ludicrious indeed !

$3 billion and counting down the drain in return for a puppet government, thousands more terrorists than there ever were before, and Americans living in a constant state of threat ?

Yep, that's a total failure.

"Americans living in a constant state of threat ?"

Bwahaha comment of the month ! Sorrysake, I was just there... no fear from terrorists whatsoever ! Fear of chinese driven gasoline prices maybe... otherwise ... another day in paradise !

I applaud your servive western. I really do.

But I've watched this war start from an oppurtunity brought on by the 9/11 terrorist and watched how the george bush administration hoaxed up a war from lies, fabricated evidence and blatant falsehoods.

But don't feel duped. george bush duped 75% of the population by both patriotism and intimidation.

Now after years of no time to withdrawl, he comes up with this time horizan. The Iraqis want us out as soon as possible and george bush trying hard to keep them in Iraq and give this wonderful spin for the elections.

It's going to make campaigning interesting the next week or so as each candidate readjust with this new developement. < :-)

"the sharp reduction in violence in Iraq, to the lowest level in four years, has made the country's leaders increasingly confident"

Total failure? I think not.

Think of 'beam balance' (old scale) one pan Iraq and the other pan Afghan and American troop are finding it difficult to keep the equilibrium. Now when violence goes down in Iraq it goes up in Afghan and vice versa.

adaydream....

And I have watched a tyrant run nation and region given a new opportunity for a better future ! I have also witnessed thousands of America's, and other nations, enemies cut down at the knees with no chance to bully, harrass, or intimidate the rest of the planet ever again. I have seen the USA do what other nations "could do" but simply refused to out of pure selfishness and greed. I have seen the US criticized for its efforts by less intelligent individuals and insecure groups... who now refuse to admit their shortcomings ! I have seen the ugly side of life outside the US... We Americans maintain our democracy, our freedoms, and our way of life. We Americans need to thank our commander in chief for continuing to provide such ! You non Americans... best get on board or brush up on yer Koran, you decide !

As I said, george bush duped 75% of the population by both patriotism and intimidation.

Some people stay in his trance forever.

You believe what you like and I'll know what I know. I'm as much as an American as you young man, I'll enjoy staying right where I am. < :-)

A.D.D., and most of what you "know", just ain't so.

We could begin with the "bush duped 75% of the population by both patriotism and intimidation..."

Then we could move on to "...I'm as much as an American as you..."

Wonders.

A Fifth Columnist does not an American make, A.D.D.

USAR

"You believe what you like and I'll know what I know. I'm as much as an American as you young man, I'll enjoy staying right where I am."

In the safe confines of your American home ? Safety and security provided by the good ol US military ? Under the direction of George Dubya Bush ??? I'm sure he's happy to hear that !

A.D.D., remember: No one hates like a liberal. No one wants to control others more than a liberal.

USAR

Umm, Westurn, you're joking right? Putting Japan alongside of Cuba, China, and Iraq as nations where the common man is afraid of speaking out? So what do you exactly call the thousands and thousands of Japanese citizens that march to protest whatever cause they believe in? And I thought Iraq was safe now. I know you are joking.

Westurn,

The US's record isn't exactly spotless either, what with torture, wire-tapping, etc. Japan is a democracy, there is no connection to the other nations you listed.

"So what do you exactly call the thousands and thousands of Japanese citizens that march to protest whatever cause they believe in?"

For example ??? And lets not get confused with the springtime union/labor demonstrations to support your point. Those are back door gov. sponsored events ! So do tell Jr. Clue me in to those large scale denouncements of the Japanese government !

MMMMM the love of real patriots.

It flows vehemently tonight.

But george bush will give us his twist to try some redemption for the way Iraq has been handled and what his legacy will tell.

Too bad he didn't listen to his daddy. < :-)

A.D.D., too bad Dubya's daddy didn't listen to a few of his generals.

His "legacy"? Overall, I think Dubya's the kind of guy who'll do what he believes is right regardless of what future pundits will say of him.

What a guy.

USAR

"Putting Japan alongside of Cuba, China, and Iraq as nations where the common man is afraid of speaking out?"

Anyone care to explain the Japantoday moderation policy ??? seems that posts are deleted or censored not for being off topic but because they do not reflect the position by the editors or moderators working here. This is another example of a lack of freedom of speech as practiced here in Japan. A site based on fear... fear that you will be banned for not towing the company line. Sorry rjdjr, Japan belongs right there in the same group as Cuba, China, Iraq etc.

Bush's legacy will be one who spent asked for and spent more money than any President before him. The end result, sure, less militants (and overall less people) in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have to give him that. Good job!

People in Katrina-hit areas still without a home, but hey, they still got their lives and each other .. Good job, Dubya!

Home foreclosures at record highs, but at least it relieves them of that home that was too expensive for them to buy anyway ... Good job!

oh, I shouldn't forget to thank Mr. Bush for my stimulus check I got for duly paying my taxes, even though I am an expat living overseas, and know of not one other country in the world which requires its citizens to file taxes from abroad. Thanks!

Consumer prices are up to it's highest amount in 17 years, resulting in a surge in inflation, puting a squeeze on the average taxpayer's money...but hey, it makes us stronger and more knowledgable in how to save every penny. Thanks, Dubya!

Fuel costs at over 4 dollars a gallon! Maybe that was his tactic all along... drive oil costs up so that we all have to go green. Use the car less and take public transportation, or bike to work. Good one, Bush.

Yes, we are safer at airports. We have to pay more for flying, more for checking in, go through more security, be fingerprinted, not be able to choose our seating anymore (unless we pay some money), but at least we are safer. I have to give Bush that. Thanks.

Westurn: "What I think is ludicrious is all you "outsiders" that think you somehow have a privelaged ear into the inner workings of the White House!"

As opposed to you, I suppose, who are posting messages from inside the oval office. 'Bwahaha' indeed. Oh, and try to finish a sentence without an exclamation mark.

Bush's withdrawal schedule is simple: 'someday'. At least McCain's desire to be there for 100 years more is a little more specific.

And then there's freakashow... so confused:

"Bush's legacy will be one who spent asked for and spent more money than any President before him."

And when you consider inflation and current economic conditions ??? You'll find out that Bush is pretty consistent with his American and international contemporaries.

"People in Katrina-hit areas still without a home,"

Sorry... regional issue ! Not Dubyas concern. Maybe you should talk more about all those folks still living in temporary housing after the Kobe earthquake... Back in 95 !

"Home foreclosures at record highs"

Hmm, Bush is responsible for banking loans now ? Better yet, lets look at how the Dow Jones jumped to 14,000 ( up 4,000 points since Clinton) during his presidency. It took greedy Arabs, an overheated China, and a birth explosion in India to finally eat away at some of the gain... none of which are Bush's problems !

"Consumer prices are up to it's highest amount in 17 years"

Again... big oil, not Bush. Take yer moanin' mouth to the opec ministers are try yer drivel on them freakashow ! In fact, the vast majority of your rant is clearly targeted for those running the show at opec, and the emerging economies in China or the rest of the BRICS. Why not criticise where the criticism is due ? Because America bashing seems in vogue ? It's not freakashow... you just continue to embarrass yerself with these misguided posts. Bwahaha !

Funny to watch the righties on here DESPERATELY scrambling to change the topic to anything other than the pathetic attempts to defend their flippity-floppity president.

Sorry smithinjapan...

"As opposed to you, I suppose, who are posting messages from inside the oval office.2

I have never been one of those posters who has claimed such a privelage... what about you ? You think you know "all" there is to know about the current presidency ? Or must I bust out another "Bwahaha" ???

"Bush's withdrawal schedule is simple:"

Yes it is... "Not on his watch !" Is that really so difficult to understand ? Whats more imperative though is what will happen once the Americans do leave ? Do you think the UN will shoulder any of the responsibilty for maintaining peace ? Or will they go back to their "food for oil" line my pockets mentality ?

BTW, why does this article claim this war is "unpopular" ? I'm willing to bet the thousands of citizens in Iraq that voted in their first "free" elections would disagree. As would the hundreds of thousands of more that now open their shops, drink fresh water, go to school, and basically live life in quiet neighbourhoods free os Saddam and his tyrant brothers ! My how quickly we forget !

And when you consider inflation and current economic conditions ??? You'll find out that Bush is pretty consistent with his American and international contemporaries.

Where do you get this crap? george bush gave away $4,000,000,000,000.00, mostly to the richest 1% of the population. No other president has ever done that.

Show me a link with your facts. Not brovado.

I'm glad that he feels more comforable about his future as a has been who definately won;t be celebrated for his decision, his missions or his results.

bush agrees to time 'horizon' on Iraq troop cuts. Always the play with words. Remember enemy combatants. Dead-enders. Now time "horizan".

Still won;t help John McCain.

And damn sure isn't going to be a gleaming star in his biography. < :-)

Westurn (on post number 9 or so): "I have never been one of those posters who has claimed such a privelage... what about you ? You think you know "all" there is to know about the current presidency ?"

My point was that anyone with any information (or even without it) is valid to their opinion. Saying you know more about American politics simply because you were born in the USA is folly -- it's like a Japanese salary man telling a Chinese woman he knows more about being a Geisha simply because he's Japanese. I certainly don't know 'ALL' there is to know about the current presidency, nor did I ever claim I did know all, but I CAN know more than someone who knows less, regardless of their nationality.

"Or must I bust out another "Bwahaha" ???"

No... in case you didn't catch it, I was mocking your 'bwahahas' as being simply silly.

Thank you for not fully quoting my observation of bush's 'timetable' (sarcastic). In case you didn't notice, I said his idea of a timetable is simply saying something like 'some day', being "vague and nebulous" as one is quoted in the article.

"BTW, why does this article claim this war is "unpopular" ? I'm willing to bet the thousands of citizens in Iraq that voted in their first "free" elections would disagree. As would the hundreds of thousands of more that now open their shops, drink fresh water, go to school, and basically live life in quiet neighbourhoods free os Saddam and his tyrant brothers ! My how quickly we forget !"

I could spend time dissecting and cutting this question of yours and it's naive 'proof to the contrary', but it would be wasted on you, and you've already chosen to ignore all the real facts on the ground in Iraq. Just suffice it to say that for any 'hundreds (of thousands, even)' who think the war is 'popular', as you say, there are MILLIONS who don't for the opposite reasons of everything you said (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dead whom, if they could speak, would have more than a few unkind words for bush, I'm sure).

adaydream: There probably won't be any stars in bush's biography at all, which is to be written by Eric Carle.

Saying that Japan belongs in the same group as China, Cuba, and Iraq is not only a supreme insult to the people of Japan, but also a supreme insult to the citizens of China, Cuba, and Iraq, where they suffer from REAL human rights violations. Who comes up with these ridiculous analogies?

rjd_jr: "Putting Japan alongside of Cuba, China, and Iraq as nations where the common man is afraid of speaking out? So what do you exactly call the thousands and thousands of Japanese citizens that march to protest whatever cause they believe in? And I thought Iraq was safe now. I know you are joking."

I don't think I've ever heard of thousands and thousands ever attending a rally or protest, but you're right that it's a poor analogy on the part of Westurn.

Also, why is it a 'supreme insult' to Japan? unless of course you consider the other nations in question as being inferior.

The last gasp efforts at saving a "security deal" guaranteeing US presence in Iraq forever,a presence that the Iraqi's themselves don't want at all.

But what the hell do they know?

I'm glad a contreversial and similar US presence in Saudia Arabia didn't cause any backlash from fundemantalists, so I'm sure this will turn out just dandy.

Smithinjapan... excellent post !

"I certainly don't know 'ALL' there is to know about the current presidency"

Feel free to pass your wisdom on to yer brethren !

Westurn: Just passed it on to you, amigo, since you seem in serious need of some 'lurnin'. Again, you completely avoided the point of my post, which was bang on, and chose to simply cut and paste one line to fit some sad attempt at a retort. Tsk Tsk...

Anyway, again, just because you're a bush supporter and an American does not mean you necessarily know anything more about your own politics that someone who is not American but has looked into it does. In fact, being a bush supporter, I'd say you know less than even the average American about what this government is and has done.

Feel free to keep denying it all, though. Your posts are, if nothing else, humourous.

Westurn wrote:

Not Dubyas concern.

So you do admit that Bush is only concerned about Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq. He doesn't care about American's health, welfare, economy, education, food, transportation, crime, and housing. Only Iraq. Well, Americans are fed up. We are tired of Bush placing all of his concern on only Iraq. It is about time he spends some of that money on real issues like the ones he has neglected for so long, and not some "band-aid" of a stimulus package. $300 - $600 don't go far these days, what with inflation and how it is.

The last gasp efforts at saving a "security deal" guaranteeing US presence in Iraq forever,a presence that the Iraqi's themselves don't want at all.

GWB, who refused to discuss time tables with the Democrats, was forced into this by the Iraqis. Calling it a "time horizon" is just an effort to save face. Why did he want a permanent troop presence? I think Juan Cole is right: "Bush probably wants US troops in Iraq because they help nail down energy contracts between the US and Iraqi concerns. Without 140,000 troops in the country, the Iraqis would not have a good reason to favor US concerns like Hunt over China's Sinopec or Russia's Lukoil."

"But like a great leader"

Heh, even the Republican candidate has distanced himself from Bush's disaterous tenure. Too funny.

Betzee,

I doubt very much Bush Co are ready to give up their occupation army to keep an eye on the oil. The amdmitance of the time horizon is just a bone being thrown to the Iraqi government to make them look like they're in charge and making steps to rid Iraq of the invaders, when we all know they aren't going to let their prize go so easily.

Adverts,

Except GWB is on his way out the door and needs an agreement now to keep US troops in country beyond 2008. I must say Kevin Phillips predicted we would arrive at this point quite accurately (from an interview in March 2006):

A generation ago Phillips wrote The Emerging Republican Majority which Newsweek described as the “political bible of the Nixon administration.” Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Phillips was viewed as one of the GOP’s top theoreticians and electoral analysts.

But no more.

Phillips is now warning that the party–and the country as a whole–is headed for potential disaster. Phillips sums up his concerns in the title of his new book: American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century.....

KEVIN PHILLIPS: It’s really an appalling thing, because I—in the course of the last couple of days, as my book tour started, I’ve talked with a number of conservatives, people running conservative publications, old aides from the Republican campaigns back in the 1960s and 1970s, and everybody agrees, and some are even starting to say it semi-publicly: this man is a national embarrassment....

[W]e face an enormous convergence, again under specific oil-related circumstances, of a global struggle for natural resources as the price of oil climbs, as we turn the armed services into a global oil protection service, which has been happening, and as we see the administration refuse to grapple with the need to really curb oil consumption in the United States, which is mostly through transportation and especially motor vehicles.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/21/fmr_gop_strategist_kevin_phillips_on

"the invaders"

Are these the invaders that set in motion the events leading to brnging to justice the awful dictator of Iraq, and free elections in Iraq?

Checking...

Yeah, they are!

sarge: "Are these the invaders that set in motion the events leading to brnging to justice the awful dictator of Iraq, and free elections in Iraq? Checking... Yeah, they are!"

Ummm.... sarge... do you have a dictionary at home? Please look up the word 'invasion'. You'll probably find that it refers to an outside force FORCING they're way into some place else. Are you suggesting that it's the... err... people of Iraq who invaded Iraq before the illegal invasion by the US? We all know you're not talking about Iraq attacking anywhere else, because those trumped up lies bush tried to use as reason #3 after the weapons of mass destruction were proven to be lies well before the invasion began.

Anyway, sarge, keep checking your 'fact checker' which tells you 'yes, it is'. I saw one once in the office of a doctor who dealt with the mentally ill; it has huge buttons and tells you what you want to hear.

smith, please leave sarge in opposite-land. I understand how it works now - he says one thing, but the Reality of any given situation is the exact opposite with numerous examples to cite.

And you can bet your sweet bippy that they're willing to bet right down to the last Iraqi left alive that the mission has been a un-imaginable success.

Ummmm...smith... do you have a dictionary at home? Please look up the word "liberate." You'll find it refers to what we did in Iraq.

"Please look up the word "liberate." You'll find it refers to what we did in Iraq."

"Liberated" hundreds of thousands of human beings from earth, to.

You can't portray something as a success that is far from over, sarge.

"Liberated" hundreds of thousands of human beings from earth, to. You can't portray something as a success that is far from over, sarge.

Your idea of success in Iraq was a perpetual dictatorship. I think you refer to that as "anti-invasion" which, I'll admit, carries a slightly better ring to it. Don't let that get in your way of lecturing us about death, tho. After being here for a few years I've learned that you actually have to say you support genocidal dictators otherwise the consequences of trying to keep one in power simply don't apply to your position.

Tom Friedman had a really interesting column last month which is relevant to this discussion. As a liberal who initially supported the invasion he has a unique vantage point from which to observe both developments in Iraq and the US:

One of the first things I realized when visiting Iraq after the U.S. invasion was that the very fact that Iraqis did not liberate themselves, but had to be liberated by Americans, was a source of humiliation to them. It’s one reason they never threw flowers. When someone else has to liberate you in your own home, that is humiliating — and humiliation, I believe, is the single-most underestimated force in international relations, especially in the Middle East.

That also helps explain why Iraqis initially never took ownership of their governing institutions, like the Coalition Provisional Authority, or C.P.A. They never fought for it. It was handed to them. People have to fight and win their own freedom, and that’s what gives their institutions legitimacy.

What seems to have happened in Iraq in the last few months is that the Iraqi mainstream has finally done some liberating of itself. With the help of the troop surge ordered by President Bush, the mainstream Sunni tribes have liberated themselves from the grip of Al Qaeda in their provinces. And the Shiite mainstream — represented by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Army — liberated Basra, Amara and Sadr City in Baghdad from both Mahdi Army militiamen and pro-Iranian death squads.

We may one day look back on this as Iraq’s real war of liberation. The one we led five years ago didn’t count [though it was plenty costly].

And because Iraqis now have their own narrative of self-liberation, it appears to be giving more legitimacy and self-confidence to the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Army and the Maliki regime.

It also has, as this story indicates, led to Iraqi demands for a departure timetable for US troops from their country. This is something GWB, in the waning days of his administration, can't fight (though he'd clearly prefer to avoid a commitment to leave).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_267

Maybe thses links will enlighten you. < :-)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060013

*" In fact, Hussein did allow IAEA inspectors into Iraq before the invasion, and they "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Saddam also allowed the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) into Iraq before the invasion, and its inspectors "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction."

"As Begala noted, in September 2002, Saddam agreed to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq. The UN Security Council subsequently voted to allow the IAEA and UNMOVIC to travel to Iraq and examine its alleged weapons of mass destruction programs, with the first inspectors arriving in the country in November. The IAEA focused only on Iraq's nuclear weapons capabilities, and on March 7, 2003, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the Security Council that, "to date," the IAEA (through its Iraq Nuclear Verification Office) had "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Just over a month later, on April 14, in another letter to the Security Council, ElBaradei wrote that the IAEA had again concluded that "[i]n the nearly four months during which the IAEA was able to conduct inspections in Iraq, significant progress was made in assessing the status of Iraq's nuclear related capabilities" and that "as of 17 March, 2003, the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Congruent with Begala's claim on Anderson Cooper, ElBaradei noted in his April 14 letter that, "[o]n 17 March 2003, the IAEA ... had to withdraw its staff from Iraq, as part of the decision to withdraw the staff of UNMOVIC and other UN staff, out of concern for their safety following an advisory of upcoming military action."

Similarly, in its May 30, 2003, report to the Security Council, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC wrote: "In the period during which it performed inspection and monitoring in Iraq, UNMOVIC did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items from before the adoption of resolution 687 (1991)."*

World can't be happy as long as there exists the rogue nation that invade a sovereign country for the number of fictitious reasons.

I guess France, Germany and Russia were leftist countries that wouldn't support george bush. Maybe it's for two reasons they didn't join in.

They didn't believe george bush.

They don't receive foreign aid from us, so they couldn't be threatened with loss of funds.

Now after years of no time table, george bush is going to be backed into a wall and the Iraqis are going to give us a time table. george bush will try to phrase it some special way, but the Iraqis are starting to kick our butts out.

And how will John McCain spin this? < :-)

"Now after years of no time table, george bush is going to be backed into a wall and the Iraqis are going to give us a time table. george bush will try to phrase it some special way, but the Iraqis are starting to kick our butts out."

Hogwash ! Bush has had no timetable for obvious military purposes... why on earth would you tell your enemy when you are leaving ???

As for the Iraqis ? Great, lets hope they take the reigns and bask in their new found freedoms !

Oh I love that one. we can't set a time table cause it'll alert the terrorist.

B/S What are they going to do. All take a vacation till we leave and then come back?

Maybe it might force the Iraqis to get off their ass and take the reins for their new country.

But the republicans want to stay there, as long as it takes, maybe like Korea. 50 years, good God. Like Japan, right over 60 years.

These are dumb ass policies. And I for one, don't agree, so I speak out. < :-)

Yeah, peace is great. But we're not the world's cops.

Again, how long do we pay for this stupid policy?

I mean I know you can't change it. But if you could, would you pay these to keep forces in Japan and Korea? 50 years? 100?

Are you willing to pay trillions of future dollars for these endeavors?

When do we stop that and bring those dollars home and take care of our own people?

"Your idea of success in Iraq was a perpetual dictatorship."

No, once again superlib, my idea was that it was none of your damned business to invade someone else's country.

"Don't let that get in your way of lecturing us about death, tho."

Don't worry buddy, I won't. Getting rid of Saddam has more than likely killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did. That's what they call a no-brainer mate.

The future of Iraq as a potential Islamic state hostile to the west, and of course, the terrorist recruitment possibilities the invasion gave all these idiots, are as ever omni-present...

...the Invasion is widely regarded as a disaster - and as we all know it was done for profit, not to snuff a brutal dicatator.

Heh, no wonder y'all hate being reminded of your bodycount.

From Europe;

"World can't be happy as long as there exists the rogue nation that invade a sovereign country for the number of fictitious reasons."

Exactly.

But the "moral" argument apparently nullifies that for those that think they were right to invade this soveriegn nation, now it is all excused for ulterior reasons.. And as I've seen, they are prepared ro argue about it to the very last Iraqi corpse.

Noble of them, really.

"Heh, no wonder y'all hate being reminded of your bodycount."

Yeh 2,974 people from 90 different nations and a kindergarten is rarely discussed these days ! Why not pontificate on that "bodycount" a bit there madverts ?

Indeed. Many Bush supporters claim that, after all, it was a good thing to topple the bad guy Saddam, although it really was not the objective of the invasion in the first place. Those Bush supporters are convinced (or try to convince themselves) that those killings and deaths were necessary for the “war on terror” which a very vague, unclear definition for this invasion.

They are not conscious that by invading the sovereign nation for no real reason, they became the “terror” and the “threat” for the world.

adaydream wrote:

"peace is great. But we're not the world's cops."

I agree ! So who is ? The UN ??? Fine until they allow themselves to be compromised like they did in the food for oil fiasco. Unfortunately the world we live in is full of selfish and indifferent nations. History has shown us time and time again how small regional riffs can become full scale international conflicts. And when these interfere with American interests, be it political or economic, well, "a stitch in time saves nine" is as good a proverb as any !

Adaydream asked:

"Again, how long do we pay for this stupid policy?"

Until the ship is seaworthy again ! Unfortunately your analogy about Japan and Korea hold little weight. Both of those nations help pay for the military prescence on their soil. And the economic trade between these nations, though consistently unbalanced, has been a benefit for all parties involved. I expect the same courtesy by the Iraqi people in the future.

adaydream cried:

"When do we stop that and bring those dollars home and take care of our own people?"

Never ! The US is the richest country on the planet. Those in need know where to get help if they want it. There are thousands of aid, volunteer, charitable organizations in the USA.

Yeh 2,974 people from 90 different nations and a kindergarten is rarely discussed these days !

There's no reason to discuss it on a thread about Iraq, since the 9/11 terrorists included not a single Iraqi.

If ItoYokado sold you a rotten apple, would you feel justified in blowing up Jusco?

Depends on how you define "included" Cleo ! Many of us Americans believe that offering financial support, training grounds, and various other forms of assistance is "included" !!! That is where Americans and you European outsiders differ ! We see the connections... you don't ! Funny though isn't it Cleo, since the Iraq war started not a single terrorist attack has occured on American soil ! Still don't see the connection ???

Funny though isn't it Cleo, since the Iraq war started not a single terrorist attack has occured on American soil ! Still don't see the connection ???

Hilarious. I see the terrorist attacks that have occurred on the soil of American allies concern you not one little bit. Just so long as the Homeland is safe, huh? With friends like that....

Since installing fibre-optic Internet no one in the cleo family has come down with appendicitis or Bubonic Plague.

I don't see the connection there either, but I'm sure you'd find one if you looked hard enough (or rather, if you closed your eyes and put your fingers in your ears, and let your imagination run away with you, which is what many Americans seem to have done over Iraq).

george bush would stay in Iraq until, hell he'd be happy to die and old age and continue to see war in Iraq. he would strangle the justified war in Afghanistan war in favor of the war of cjoice in Iraq.

Then there are posters out here who agree with his madness. Like Western who sees delight in war anywhere the republican machine can get us into.

And he's all for strangling our own nation out of our own funds to continue a war derived out of lies and fabrications.

Oh, heaven forbid now, Al-Maliki is suggesting a withdrawl..... sh-h-h-h-h don't use that word, but Al-Maliki has more cajones then I gave him credit for. In essense, Al-Maliki is telling us, don't plan any permanent bases, start planning to get your troops out, no forever peace keepers.

I bet george bush blew a stack. I can see him pouring himself a big Texas shot of Jack. You know, after he did all this for his buddies in Halliburton, Blackwater, the oil industry and GAWDDDDD, we're being kicked out of the war we started.

But saddly all we can do is speculate. < :-)

"Yeh 2,974 people from 90 different nations and a kindergarten is rarely discussed these days ! Why not pontificate on that "bodycount" a bit there madverts ?"

Uhm, because it has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

Heh, you do come out with some corkers, westurn.

Yes, and this mornings car bombings are ripe for Denial.

The US will be bankrupt before victory.

what is it with GWB and the about faces all of a sudden? Talk to Iran about nukes? Timetable to leave Iraq? What the heck has happened? Did somebody push Cheney under a bus? This is seriously random policy shifting. Not that I disagree, but WTF?

Cleo, shame on you...

"Hilarious. I see the terrorist attacks that have occurred on the soil of American allies concern you not one little bit. Just so long as the Homeland is safe, huh? With friends like that...."

What makes you think attacks on American allies don't concern me ? Not sure I've ever said that. Is this some of your wishfull thinking ? Putting words into my mouth ? please don't, I'm very capable of expressing myself.

As for your "odd" choice of analogies, well... bwahaha !

Face it Cleo, there were dozens of US targets on terrorists lists after 9/11, including Disneyland, the Space Needle, and stadiums full of sports fans. And you would have been hell bent to find anyone in the USA who thought another attack wasn't coming on 9/12-13-14 etc ! George Bush did what every president before him has done in times of declared war... take the battle to their front, not ours ! The war on terror continues on with more success than failure... and that just eats at you doesn't it ! Talk about "with friends like that".

"Then there are posters out here who agree with his madness. Like Western who sees delight in war anywhere the republican machine can get us into."

This coming from the poster that declared "war is inevitable" !

Madverts remains confused...

"Yeh 2,974 people from 90 different nations and a kindergarten is rarely discussed these days ! Why not pontificate on that "bodycount" a bit there madverts ?"

"Uhm, because it has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq."

Ooo-kayyy... now tell me what you see in this picture... more little bunnies ???

Ummm, calicoat...

"Talk to Iran about nukes? Timetable to leave Iraq? What the heck has happened?"

Nothing ! You've just led yerself to believe that you somehow had a priveleged seat in the oval office courtesy of the world press over the past 7 years. Cmon people shake yerselves ! You have absolutely no idea what is going on in the inner chambers of the US presidents cabinet ! You have never been invited to sit in (thank god !) and every tiny morsel you get is spoon fed through hyperbole known as the world press ! If you come to this forum claiming otherwise.. well... you get a washcloth so you can go wash the mud from yer face !

What makes you think attacks on American allies don't concern me ?

Lessee now...could it be the way you trumpet about 'no attacks on US soil' being an indication of the success of Dubya's warmongering, while somehow the attacks in the UK, Spain, etc etc get no mention? Could it be because they don't count in your eyes?

you would have been hell bent to find anyone in the USA who thought another attack wasn't coming on 9/12-13-14 etc !

So the rest of the world should just accept US warmongering because a majority of the US public are gullible fools? Was the reaction of the US public to Orson Welles' broadcast of The War of the Worlds any reason to shoot rockets into space?

Madverts - "The US will be bankrupt before victory"

But, but, I thought we were already bankrupt. Which is it, Madverts, WHICH IS IT?

Hilarious. I see the terrorist attacks that have occurred on the soil of American allies concern you not one little bit. Just so long as the Homeland is safe, huh? With friends like that....

good point, cleo. It's just that people like Westurn only see it as physical harm done and never look at the "big" picture. Guys like him claim to "see the connections", when in fact they don't. He fails to see that connection that ever since the U.S. invaded Iraq, many of our freedoms were taken away, thus making our lives more uncomfortable. Ask anyone to see if they agree with the righties that we pay less now for flying than before the war. Sure, no attacks have occured on U.S. soil, but as for Americans traveling into other countries; that is another matter. Just look at Afghanistan, which should have been Bush's main objective in the first place. Warlords still run the land and opium production has increased (and let's not even think where profits from that business are being used).

Unfortunately, Bush's lone policy is so simple: acquire enough money to spend it on military, send the troops in and kill as many militants as possible, with no care for civilians (or casualties of war, as he would put it). I shudder to think just how many more Osamas and Saddams he is "breeding" because of this ludicrous policy of his.

Sure, U.S. military casualties in the Iraqi war have been kept at a "minimum", but let's not forget the thousands upon thousands of soldiers who have been sent home with injuries and mental illnesses. I pray that we never see another Timothy McVeigh again.

"In addition, as you are such an expert on Americans, you should know that we prefer to cheer for "our" team"

That's exactly what Cleo meant. Egocentric and arrogant. Chauvinism in the sports games can be tolerated, but in the humanitarian issue, like the victims of war or terrorism, it's just lack of compassion and concern.

westurn,

"Madverts remains confused..."

Heh, you attempted to claim what's happened to Iraq was linked to the terror attacks in New York.

"But, but, I thought we were already bankrupt. Which is it, Madverts, WHICH IS IT?"

No, Bush Co hasn't completely driven you into the ground....yet.

Please refrain from shrieking at me sarge, there's a good lad.

And lok at madverts backpeddling ...

"No, Bush Co hasn't completely driven you into the ground..."

And he, nor any other American President, ever will ! Spend more time on the reasons why and less on stamping yer foot in frustration... good lad !

Madverts - western makes a lot of statements that he can't support, just shooting from the hip.

Ask him for links/proof.

CNN is reporting now that Al-Maliki is agreeing with Obama that his timeframe is pretty close to what he's thinking. < :-)

What CNN isn't reporting is that Al-Maliki is agreeing that the timetable isn't going to be set in concrete - that U.S. troops will be withdrawn according to conditions on the ground.

westurn,

I'm still laughing at your 9-11 connection.

Moderator: Stay on topic please.

@ ca1ic0cat: He is attempting (rather fruitlessly, at this point) to turn the table on the view of his irrational policy the last few years, no doubt in an effort to stop it from reflecting on the rest of his party members, most likely so people can stop seeing John McCain as a spitten image of him, policy wise.

What I find funny is that back in 04, he harped mercilessly on JFK's changing positions (actually he just repeated the statement that he changes, like a broken take recorder or a brainlagged R-tard, and the crowds ate it up for some reason) and now this.

At least its.. some sign of accountability, since he's trying to cleanup the (political) mess(?).

I enjoy bashing Dubya as much as the next guy, but let's not lose sight of the fact that it's a good thing for the American President to be making prudent and rational decisions. Now that both sides have "flip-flopped" hopefully we can return to a culture that understands that flexibility and adaptability are GOOD qualities, has kept mankind from extinction and should not be dismissed simplemindedly as "flip-flopping." One of the stupidest and most corrosive memes of the past several years if you ask me.