world

Iraq demands clear timeline for U.S. withdrawal

98 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

98 Comments
Login to comment

That's right!!!

Kick our butts out.

We've been there too damn long.

Oh, I don't think george and dick and condi are going to like this. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know something's fishy when now the Iraqi government demands a withdrawal timetable. Yet the weasely Bush first refuses to consider such a thing.

Quite an easy and flippant decision for him, he ain't the one out patroling in 120 degree heat, worrying whether he will be alive the next minute from a sniper, an IED, or other nefarious killing devices.

Unbelievable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President George W Bush has steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home.

We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

-george bush May 24, 2007

george, Your pants are on fire.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rjd jr; The Iraqi government has been infiltrated by bad guys.

Bush served in the military with honor. How can he serve when he has completed his duty to his country.

Without the US military Iraq would be a hotbed of world terrorism. They are being defeated by the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, That should be 2 different quotes:

President george w bush has steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home From the above story

Then....from May 24,2007

We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

And george...your pants are still on fire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, there'll be Republican heads exploding like fireworks across the world because if this news.

And before some Americans start saying "We don't deserve this - we paid in blood and treasure!", let's get some facts straight -

1/ Baghdad never asked America to invade - this was totally a war of choice for America.

2/ Iraq owes America nothing.

3/ After comprehensively destroying Iraq in the initial attack and 5 years of aftermath, America owes Iraq big time.

4/ Iraq was and still is a soveriegn nation.

5/ America does not own Iraq and should have no sway over it's government.

6/ When Iraq’s foreign minister insists that any security deal with the United States must contain a “very clear timeline” for the departure of U.S. troops, this does not mean some waffly “general time horizon” as asserted by Bush, and it sure as heck is not an "inspiration goal" as hinted by others - it is a get-the-heck-out-by-this-date timeline.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes! Proof that the Iraq government is not a "puppet" government as some liberals have claimed.

Perhaps we can set a clear timeline for the wacko extremists to take over Iraq, or for the Sunnis to return to power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is Turmoil For The Wingers Day :-)

hey! The Iraqi government's withdrawl demnands pretty much match those of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Heh, did McCain get it wrong again!?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great post, sushisake.

It's encouraging to see that you can admit the war is pretty much over,

the civil war people like you hoped for never came to pass,

the United States of America has emerged victorious,

Al Qaeda is defeated, humiliated, and their stock waaay down in the Mohammedan world,

and Iraq is fast approaching the day when they can stand on their own feet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Heh, did McCain get it wrong again!?"

No, heh, but Sushi did. The Iraqi government is in power because of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now. The same Iraqi government would most likely not be in power if all U.S. troops are withdrawn by May 2010.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fine, leave tomorrow.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, I forgot - you're right - it was all about the oil.

LOL. Yeah, still got the ultra-hip, twenty-something-and-I've-seen-it-all "No blood for oil' t-shirt? Haven't seen that one for a while...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"fine, leave tomorrow"

What! So Iraq can fall into chaos? How would that honor our fallen troops?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uhh, wait, how can Iraq fall into chaos when things are supposedly going so well now?

This is precisely the reason why this insanity will never end. On one hand, when people mention any future suicide bombings, al qaeda of iraq rumblings, or any sort of death and destruction in Iraq, the pro war fanatics cry, it's not so bad, deaths are down, things are going well, etc. etc.

Then people say, o.k. fine, things are going well, let's not put the troops in any further danger from this hell hole. Then the pro war fanatics turn around and scream, NO, it's still not safe, it will fall into chaos if we do, etc.

And ReaganLegend, no disrespect but Bush hardly served any meaningful time in the military. What did he do, some Air National Guard stint (no disrespect to the great National Guard)? Far cry from seeing ground combat in Vietnam. Fittingly, a commander in chief that saw no ground combat in war has no concept of what the troops are going through now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

undecidedbout08,

As for the USA being victorious, I'd say that it's more like we're in extra time and have just scored the equalizer.

The "war against terrorism" is far from over. We've succeeded primarily in enlarging the bullseye on our back. The fighting in Iraq is not even over. We've made ourselves persona non grata, a rather neat trick for a liberator, and when--and if--we do deign to follow the wishes of the Iraqi government and leave, the dreams of an independent Kurdistan, the quibbling over who really has the oil revenue rights and the enmity between Sunni and Shiite will remain. All of those causes have been enhanced during our occupation and if we can find no solutions for them before we are forced out of Iraq, Iraqis will have to find their own. Historically, anyway, that has not been pretty.

I don't think anyone hoped for a civil war much as they did expect one. (I certainly never heard SushiSake3 hope for one.) Our administration took some pains to advertise that there was no civil war and yet, Iraq today is still walled, neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed both with and without bloodletting and human traffic proceeds through checkpoints. To say that there was no civil war is a poll-driven argument at best, for there were many Iraqis who swore there was.

The situation in Iraq has improved. But there is no point in pretending that there has been any victory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rjd jr; President Bush has an unblemished military career. He is the kind of resolute commander is chief we need in Iraq.

The Iraqi government is under pressure from radicals to make the US leave.

Whatever they say we`re gonna stay until the terrorist evil doers have been removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as the US and Iraqi governments agree on withdrawal then I see no problem with that. The problem is having the Democrats forcing the US to withdraw at the exact wrong time - while Al Qaeda was causing so much havoc. Now that the Bush/Pretreus surge has turned the tide (yes, McCain was right and Obama woefully wrong) we can begin to withdraw having accomplished the goal of leaving Iraq as a stable Democracy. What happens after that is mostly up to them. If Iraq would like the US to leave, then like in the Phillipines - the US will leave. The US is not an imperial power and does not covet owenership of Iraq's oil (and never has).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Uhh wait, how can Iraq fall into chaos when things are supposedly going so well now?"

Uhh, there are still 140,000 U.S. troops there holding it together. It's going to take more than 16 months more from the time the next U.S. president takes office before the Iraqis are going to be able to handle their own security. Politicians are politicians - it's popular for Iraqi politicians to say the stuff they say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

If there are honest, free and fair elections--that's to say if there even are elections--the same Iraqi government is not likely to be in power in May, 2010.

Al-Maliki is reading the political sentiment. Iraqis want the US out and they want a government that responds to them. Americans want out and we want a government that responds to us.

What does McCain want? He wants to "win". It's not about winning. It's about achieving the best possible result.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2; Excuse me, but McCain wants what is best is the name of democratic freedom. John McCain doesn`t want to be a winner , he wants the best for the US and the world , including Iraq. The US will leave when we decide it is correct.

We liberated he country, and spent billions of dollars making it a thriving economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack,

I don't think the problem was the Democrats. I think the problem was the status of the conflict in Iraq.

While one can make a reasoned argument that it was the surge that resulted in decreased deaths and political gains, there is scant or no evidence to say that the conflict has been resolved and the gains are solidified. In fact, Petraeus suggests that everything is reversible.

There is also no proof that it was the surge alone which produced the results which have materialized. The Iraqis were already standing up to al-Qaida. Absent the surge, an American withdrawal would have been accompanied by another strategy which I presume would not have looked simply like putting one's tail between one's legs and running. Iraqi forces would have been put forward rather more quickly that they wanted, but it is their country.

Additionally, if it were not for the Democrats pushing for withdrawal in a way that increasingly resonated with Americans, who is to say that the administration would not have continued its Rumsfeldian adventure? The fact is that all the talk of withdrawal forced the president's hand to try something different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With the recent improvements in Iraq I think a timetable is becoming more of an acceptable reality. Why not give it to them? If the security situation changes for the worse then they can revisit it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: "The same Iraqi government would most likely not be in power if all U.S. troops are withdrawn by May 2010."

But that's EXACTLY what the Iraqi government wants -- those troops ALL out by then. Might I remind you that the 'liberated and democratic' Iraq wants much the same thing as presidential candidate Obama wants; which means you are either with him, or against Iraq -- in which case the latter means you deny that they are a democratic and sovereign nation, and nothing more than a dictatorship under US control. Stop trying to deflect that fact by saying, "Well... guffaw if it weren't for... " bla bla bla. Tell us which fact you believe? Is Obama correct and McCain wrong, or is Iraq not a free nation and the US must remain? Easy question, sargie.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ReaganLegend,

You're excused. You're more than welcome to participate, but let me catch you up on the status of the conversation between Sarge and myself. Sarge has expressed the opinion that McCain wants to win.

I think that what is best for the world is that the US not to undertake leaving Iraq on its own terms. Bush has said that we will leave when the Iraqis ask us to. So when and if they do, I think that would be a good point to "decide" to leave.

Additionally, I think both candidates want what is best for "democratic freedom" and both want what is best for Iraq and for the world. I think both also want what is best for the US. And that is what I said--achieving the best possible result.

McCain's best possible result does involve "winning" in Iraq. Check it out:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fp-VmXgeVhc

or

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mccain.2013/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Obama's idea does not focus on winning as a notion, but would tolerate some imperfection in Iraq (as would McCain). I certainly think there is a lot to be desired in Obama's thinking, but it isn't weighed down with the notion of winning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

spent billions of dollars making it a thriving economy.

Well, we've certainly spent that but Iraq's economy could hardly be described at a thriving. All the car bombings and beheadings kinda scared away foreign investors. As a result, most employment growth has occurred in the public sector. While that's typical for the region as well as for natural-resource dependent economies, it also reinforces patronage networks and prevents the emergence of a civil service meritocracy, something usually associated with stable democratic governance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What! So Iraq can fall into chaos? How would that honor our fallen troops?" Hey, if the majority of the US people want a withdrawl, there really isn't much more to consider. Iraq falling into Chaso will no longer be an issue you have to worry about. If the US upped and left without being asked than I would agree with you, but Iraq says time to go home, Obama says its time to go home, and much of the US says its time to go home.

As for honoring the soldiers who died, well, I don't recall going in there to make the place better. We went into get Saddam and find his WMD's . Besides, most of the Iraq government comprises Shiites now, so I guess they would want to properly warm up to Iran now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great article. I like the way the AP and Reuters et al reframe the message. Iraq's foreign minister "wants the US out" ?

He's the same guy, a Kurd, who published this plea in the Washington Post, only 15 months ago:

Don't Abandon Us

By Hoshyar Zebari Friday, May 4, 2007; Page A23

"Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain.

Iraqis, for all our determination and courage, cannot succeed alone. We need a healthy and supportive regional environment. We will not allow our country to be a battleground for settling scores in regional and international conflicts that adversely affect stability inside our borders. Only with continued international commitment and deeper engagement from our neighbors can we establish a stable democratic, federal and united Iraq. The world should not abandon us."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301548.html

I guess, uh, something unexpected, something historical, something truly momentous took place between then and now...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez - "Iraqis want the US out"

Yeah, the majority of Iraqis do want the U.S. out, but not before Iraqi security forces are capable of taking over, which, right now, they are not. You have Iraqi politicians siding with Obama, who, if he had his way, ( along with some posters here ) would still be under Saddam's boot. After all our sacrifice, we are not going to let Iraq descend into chaos just because of a few self-serving politicians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why the hell should I care if Iraq was under some guy like Saddam? At least the Arabs of Iraq were happy he was there.

After all our sacrifice, we are not going to let Iraq descend into chaos just because of a few self-serving politicians." And how much longer do we have to sacrifice? Hey Japan, Germany got off in what four five years with practically nothing. If Iraq can't get off on their own, let them go.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

After all our sacrifice? Whose country has been devastated by this war? Whose country has 1/7 of its population in refugee status? Who have lost their homes? Whose loved ones have been killed in the 10s (maybe 100s) of thousands?

The politicians express these views because the Iraqi citizens want us out. Al-Maliki and other politicians see the large Shiite voting block that want us out. I think it's true that Iraqis don't want us out before their security forces are capable of taking over. I think it's also true that they believe their security forces are capable of taking over on the schedule they have set forth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The politicians express these views because the Iraqi citizens want us out. Al-Maliki and other politicians see the large Shiite voting block that want us out. I think it's true that Iraqis don't want us out before their security forces are capable of taking over. I think it's also true that they believe their security forces are capable of taking over on the schedule they have set forth.

Darn that surge for making that happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bring our troops home, now. Start a planned withdrawl immediately and give Iraq back to the Iraqis.

Just because george bush attacked them and killed 1/2 million innocent people and ran 2.5 million refuges out of the country doesn't make this American soil.

Just because we have lost over 4100 American lives doesn't make it American soil either.

Bring our troops home. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iraq needs the long term protection of the US Military.

There are hundreds of thousands of terrorists in Syria and Iran, ready to attack and turn Iraq into a radical muslim country. They will attck and destroy the country, if we are not there to deter them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "How would that honor our fallen troops?"

How will staying honor those Iraqis who have died needlessly?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlliedForces - "There are hundreds of thousands of terrorists in Syria and Iran, ready to attack and turn Iraq into a radical muslim country. They will attck and destroy the country, if we are not there to deter them."

Yes, that is obviously more than enough reason for US and Asian taxpayers to foot the bill for maybe another $2-3 TRILLION dollars for something that really isn't even America's business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US always continues with its missions whatever the cost in lives or money. The US military may also be needed to remain deployed in Iraq for possible liberation missions in Syria or probably Iran. We must stay the course for the sake of peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlliedForces - "The US military may also be needed to remain deployed in Iraq for possible liberation missions in Syria or probably Iran."

"Liberation missions"?

But where's the money going to come from to fund these "liberation missions"?

America is bankrupt as it is, in no small part because of the massive cost of fighting the Iraq war.

"The US always continues with its missions whatever the cost in lives or money."

Would you say that is a wide way to run a business? Just curious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US is not just run on the lines of business. We have a duty to defend ourselves and others from threats by rogue elements and nations.

Whatever the cost the US will continue its mission of liberating the Middle East. Don`t worry, we are a very wealthy nation, we can afford to maintain these policies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" Don`t worry, we are a very wealthy nation, we can afford to maintain these policies."

Haven't you heard? - America is $9 TRILLION in debt.

Is that what you would call "very wealthy"?

How do you get the idea that America is a "very wealthy nation"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US the the most wealthy nation on earth. If we do not presue these policies, the world would be in chaos. Iraq would fall to the terrorists within weeks if we were to depart. We must prevent bloodshed, it is our duty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlliedForces - How does "The US the the most wealthy nation on earth" sit with the fact that America is $9 trillion in debt?

Sorry, but your logic is completely incorrect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever the debt, which is a drop in the ocean for us, we are the richest nation. We can afford to stay in Iraq. Maybe it will take 100 years to liberate the region. It does not matter, we must continue our mission.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Im with AlliedForces on this one. The US is respected worldwide for sacrificing lives and spending billions of Dollars to free and rebuild nations. We did it in Germany and Japan, and well do it again in Iraq. Anyone who disagrees is a pinhead and is being unpatriotic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlliedForces and BillOreilly - do you think the Chinese and the Japanese will be willing to finance America's debt even further if it breaches $10 billion, the US dollar keeps sinking, and John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for an as yet unknown number of years?

Last time I checked, money didn't grow on trees, but maybe you both know something I don't....?

Also, considering America has such a huge debt, do you think that both of your Social Security payments, and those of all your family members, are under serious threat?

I do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BillOreilly, considering that the USA is ridiculed worldwide for spending billions of dollars on wars, sacrificing lives needlessly, and launching unnecessary and extremely costly invasions for no justified reasons, do you think it is wise to carry the existing war in Iraq on for, say, another 5 years, considering that America is already completely bankrupt and its financial situation is only going to get worse if Sen. John McCain is voted in as president??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US economy is growing every year. This sustained growth, due to good houskeeping and prudent spending, enables us to continue our campaign of liberation and freedom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3; Last time i checked the US economy was doing just fine. All lives lost were in the name of liberation. We removed and brought to Justice a guy who wanted to see the downfall of the USA. This guy also attacked our closet aliie in the region, Israel during the Gulf War.

The region must be policed by us to protect democracy and destroy those who want us to fail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlliedForces - the US economy is shrinking - expected growth for this year is just over 1%, far less than the expected 4%.

This, as you know, is due to bad housekeeping and reckless spending.

So, I would like to ask you where you think the money is going to come from to fund America's future campaigns of liberation and freedom.

Will America have to borrow even more money from the Chinese and risk pushing America's debt servicing costs even higher than the current $200 billion a year?

Where will that money come from?

I think the war in Iraq will have to be stopped so that America can continue to wage future campaigns of liberation and freedom, don't you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the growth for this year (conservative guess) is 1%, then how can the economy be shrinking?

We can afford to saty in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we will stay, and the world will be a better place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, I would like to ask you where you think the money is going to come from to fund America's future campaigns of liberation and freedom.

The Ukraine is probably next on neo-imperialast Russia's list.

Europe will step up.

They know Putin fears them.

So what if he controls the oil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bring our troops home from the hoaxed up WMD War.

Bring the troops home from the stealing of Natural Resourses War.

Bring the troops home from the pro-Haliburton's enrichment program.

Just bring the troops home from Iraq.

Put troops into Afghanistan, the real war on terror. And do that job properly. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bring the troops home, huh? Yedah, great let the enemy return and destroy all our nation building.;

Iraq is now a democracy with high economic growth. The streets are peacefull, she we throw all that away because a minority are to scared to stay the course?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlliedForces - "If the growth for this year (conservative guess) is 1%, then how can the economy be shrinking?"

Because growth last year was a bigger number than the actual growth for this year.

How can that be cast as 'growing'?

"We can afford to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan"

How? America is $9 trillion in debt and it is getting worse by the month,

America's Current Account Balance was -$167.2 billion for the 4th quarter of 2007 and -$176.4 billion for the 1st quarter of 2008.

That's more debt.

Where is America going to get all this money from to fund all these wars and liberations you are talking about?

Can you please give me some specifics here?

Otherwise your case looks very, very weak, just like the American economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Undecided, thanks for your comment, but you didn't actually answer my question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlliedForces - "Iraq is now a democracy with high economic growth. The streets are peacefull, she we throw all that away because a minority are to scared to stay the course?"

Haven't you been reading the news since the end of 2007?

Most Americans and Iraqis want America out of Iraq.

Why do you support the minority? It's not a very credible position to be in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People seem to forget that the 2006 elections here in the states elected more democrats to change the course of the war. But george bush didn't listen to any of it. he has continued on his war of agression against a sovern nation. But he vetoed every effort that the majority of the people wanted.

Now that it's been transformed into another sovern nation and the new sovern nation of Iraq wants the US out, period.

So many war-mongers and chickenhawks still pushing for continued aggression in presence in Iraq when the Iraqis are saying, "Go Home Yank." < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Our economic growth is forcasted to be up to 4% in 2009-11. This will create enough wealth to continue our current mission, and any future liberations we wish to undertake.

Remember millions of Iraqs are now tasting freedom for the first time, and theyre loving it.

We won`t throw that away to save a few bucks, no way!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bring our troops home from the hoaxed up WMD War.

Bring the troops home from the stealing of Natural Resourses War.

Bring the troops home from the pro-Haliburton's enrichment program.

Just bring the troops home from Iraq.

I laugh to read the variety of ways the Left admits, however reluctantly or unconsciously, that the US has emerged victorious in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Iraq`s are not saying Go Home Yank, what codswallop.

We will leave Iraq when we decide to, period.

Bus does what is right for the region, not pander to liberal peace activists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you call 1/2 million dead Iraqis victory, I guess.

Then there are the 2.5 Million refuges.

Then there are the over 4100 dead American men and women, just military.

Don't forget about the $3Trillion cost for this war from real warfare, the cost of rehibitation of our wounded the rest of their lives, the reconstruction (which was supposed to be paid by Iraqi oil) and the cost to our reputation within the free world.

Iraq has said they are sick and tired of our occupation. Get the hell out. But the republicans are saying, shut up...Haliburton needs more money.

Bring the troops home. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll be impressed when Iraq demands a clear timeline for Iran's withdrawal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why WhiteKawk - The Iraqis and the Iranians are better friends then ever before? The Iraqis have invited Iran to the capital on several occasions and even the arrest of several invited Iranians by American forces hasn't stopped this exchange of friendship from one to the other.

Bring the troops home, just like the Iraqi government wants.

Not what the republicans want. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The amount of Iraq`s killed byb the US is very low.We only use pinpoint bombings to ensure there will not be civilian casualties. About 100,000 have been killed by terrorists, not half a million.

War costs money, doing good and building a democracy is expensive, but worth every penny.

We shall continue our good work in Iraq, and reform the Middle East.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream - "Then there are the 2.5 Million refuges. Then there are the over 4100 dead American men and women, just military."

Sorry, official UN figures state 4.25 million Iraqis became displaced, and there are far more than 4,100 dead Americans <-- this number is just the number that have died in Iraq. Likely thousands more have succumbed outside Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlliedForces - The Iraq`s are not saying Go Home Yank, what codswallop.

Where in the article does it say that the Iraqis want us to stay until the US is ready to come home? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlliedForces - so you believe that Iraq is not a sovereign nation?

Why? Bush says Iraq is a sovereign nation.

Do you disagree with Bush?

Bush does what is right for US oil and defence companies, not for the people of either America or Iraq.

He should not be pandering to a small number of Extremist Right Wingers and Neocons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whitehawk ^ I'll be impressed when Iraq demands a clear timeline for Iran's withdrawal."

America First. Iran is simply helping its fellow Shiites in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3; You will find that your figures are incorrect. UN figures are faked by the liberals in the UN to spread their anti US agenda.

Iraq is safer now than under Saddam, people have democratic rights, and we will ensure that continues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream:

The Iraqis and the Iranians are better friends then ever before?

Oh, that must be why Iran has snipers, rockets and IED-makers in Iraq, all for the purpose of prolonging the instability of the country by attacking Allied troops. Oh yeah, Iran has Iraq's best interests in mind. What codswallop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake; Iraq and Japan are both sovereign nations , however we will keep our troops in both nations Bush is not pandering to anyone, he wants democracy and freedom worldwide. The troops will stay in Iraq to keep security and prevent an invasion from rogue states.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even Christopher Hitchens, once the darling of the literary Left, admits that Iraq is waaaay better off - - -

"Mission accomplished." ...Iraq no longer plays deceptive games with weapons of mass destruction or plays host to international terrorist groups. It is no longer subject to sanctions that punish its people and enrich its rulers. Its religious and ethnic minorities—together a majority—are no longer treated like disposable trash. Its most bitter internal argument is about the timing of the next provincial and national elections. Surely it is those who opposed every step of this emancipation, rather than those who advocated it, who should be asked to explain and justify themselves."

http://www.slate.com/id/2197007/?from=rss

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The facts remain WhiteHawk that Iraq has invited Iran to Baghdad on several occasions. The US arrested the Iranians over and over again and Iraq told the US over and over, we invited them. They are our guest.

I'm just accepting Iraqs jestures as their own that they want Iran as a friend.

So you want to tell me that I'm incorrect? You want to tell me they haven't been invited and told the US military, they're our guest?

Iraq has made it very plain. Go home America. We want you out. Talk to us about a timetable for getting all your military out.

This isn't something that just started yesterday. Al-Maliki made this plainly apparent to george bush. John McCain isn't talking about staying till victory anymore. It's all but a done deal. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream:

The facts remain WhiteHawk that Iraq has invited Iran to Baghdad on several occasions. The US arrested the Iranians over and over again and Iraq told the US over and over, we invited them. They are our guest.

You're telling me that you can't separate the ambassadors, foreign ministers and other diplomats from the bomb-makers and snipers? You believe that the Iraqi government invited the Iranian bomb-makers and snipers into Iraq to prolong the instability of the conflict and keep the Allied forces there longer? Well, that explains a lot!

I'm just accepting Iraqs jestures as their own that they want Iran as a friend.

So you want to tell me that I'm incorrect? You want to tell me they haven't been invited and told the US military, they're our guest?

You're not just incorrect, you're deliberately ignorant of any facts that don't fit your preconceived notions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WhiteHawk - Here's my links.

Prove your case.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2007/07/iraq-070709-irna01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_US_raid_on_Iranian_diplomats

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/29/iran.us/

I can prove my case where the Iraqis have invited Iran to talks. Prove me wrong.

I'll be glad when the last US troop is out of Iraq. I'm sure Iraq will be glad when they get the timeline in stone and the US is just trotting their little selves right back home.

Bring the troops home. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bring the troops home"

What, now? That would most likely result in Iraq being taken over by extremists and al Qaida prancing all over Iraq. How would that honor our fallen troops?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, You're like a broken dick cheney record.

Iraq wants us out and as fast as possible. You want us telling Iraq that we're staying how long?

They want a timetable. Not just adaydream. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Sarge. The extremists are hoping Obama wins, and when he runs away from Iraq, they will return with a Taliban style government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream, just because you're capable of ignoring the Iranian snipers and bomb-makers that have been attacking Allied troops, doesn't mean they don't exist. Yes, Iraq has invited AMBASSADORS and DIPLOMATS from Iran to Baghdad, but I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM. You're dancing around the issue of the UNINVITED SNIPERS and BOMB-MAKERS.

Provide proof that the Iraqi government invited snipers and bomb-makers from Iran into Iraq. That's the issue. Those are the Iranians that need to withdraw from Iraq.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1542670/We-are-not-responsible-for-rifles%2C-says-Austria.html

From the article:

Astrid Harz, a spokesman for the Austrian foreign ministry, said yesterday that the sale had been "checked very thoroughly" and what happened to the rifles after they were delivered to Teheran ostensibly for use by border police was not the responsibility of her government. It was the responsibility of the Iranians, she said.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/02/evidence_of_iran_sup.php

From the article:

"We have evidence that Iran provided insurgents with explosive devices and trained them to use these weapons, produced between 2004 and 2006," Said MG Caldwell. "The Iranian suspects detained in Irbil have confirmed these reports and we have found with them maps and explosives-related material. Those Iranians were trying to get rid of these documents in the lavatories... the Iraqi government has notified us that (the Iranians detained in Irbil) were not diplomats and had no passports."

and:

Evidence was also unveiled that Iranian agents are actively planting explosive. MG Caldwell displayed identification cards of Iranians captured while "involved in acts of violence."

and:

"We assess that these activities are coming from the senior levels of the Iranian government," the defense official said, 'noting that the Al-Qods brigade reports to Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamanei.'

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/02/iranian_sniper_rifle.php

From the article:

The quantities of the weapons that have been seized on the Iraqi battlefield make it difficult for the Iranians to argue this was the work of a rogue individual.

and:

It should be noted that the information provided by the U.S. military during Sunday's briefing, as well as the information on the sniper rifles, is what the military can prove with 100% certainty. The military has strong intelligence Iran is supplying other weapons to terrorists, including anti-aircraft missiles, which have been responsible for the recent rash of helicopters downed in central Iraq.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/Story?id=1692347-page=1

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/03/mil-060317-afps01.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content-task=view-id=4299

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=3052

Apparently adaydream, you've never thought to ask yourself just how the Iraqi insurgents have managed to drag out a conflict against Allied forces for five years. The obvious answer is that they've got help. And in case you've been wondering why Iranian-aided attacks have been on the decrease...

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3359545,00.html

From the article:

According to the LA Times report, a said the efforts could include more forceful patrols by Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border to counter the smuggling of bomb supplies from Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And all this bad stuff that is happening in Iraq and still they tell the United States to get the hell out.

All these Iranian snipers and killers and Iraq is telling us, GO HOME!!

All these people setting bombs and destroying Iraq, not that we haven't already done that and still Iraq is not listening to WhiteHawk.

I believe that Iraq has made the decision that any problem that they have with Iran, they can deal with on their own. They don't need the United States or want the United States in Iraq any more.

Read their lips: "GO HOME".

Read their lips: "We don't want any more American occupation."

It's not my lips, it's Iraq's lips.

No, I don't see the Iranians as the problem that you depict. I don't think Al-Maliki does either. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To: Sarge and "bandwagon jumping" theneworder666 George Bush and Dick Cheny has sent the country down the tubes. A war that wasn't necessary. Our economy is the worst it has ever been. Unemployment is the worst it has ever been. Your pres is not up to the task. Sarge you are acting like a child. Grow up. You do not have to jump on the badwagon. Your Political Party has been shaking hands with the enemies of the state for a long time. Poor white,black spanish,and asian AMERICANS are suffering. With poor health care and poor government services. PLEASE WAKE UP. SEARCH THE FACTS. His mother is a white owman just like your mother. What is the problem ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, adaydream, that was a lot of "la-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening-la-la-la-la!"

I believe that Iraq has made the decision that any problem that they have with Iran, they can deal with on their own. They don't need the United States or want the United States in Iraq any more.

So you're admitting that I'm right about Iran's meddling and that you can't prove that Iraq invited those Iranian terrorists into the country? Good. You're making progress!

You can believe what you want (you've made it clear that reality can't stop you), but the last article I provided explains why Iraq thinks it can contain Iran's meddling. But I know you can't give the American military (especially under the command of a Republican administration) credit for liberating Iraq from 24 years of cruel dictatorship, preventing that dictatorship from continuing under the rule of the dictator's sons, and bringing stability and a brighter future to the country, because that might cause you to have an aneurysm. And I wouldn't want that for you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TRUTHxHURTS:

Our economy is the worst it has ever been. Unemployment is the worst it has ever been.

Your disjointed rant is as off-topic as it is inaccurate. Please study American history prior to the year 2000 before attempting to continue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's 2008-- I would have voted for McCain 8 years ago. He has my respect for being a veteran. George "OIL BOY" Bush Junior should have never been president. But things have changed for the WORSE. Our country is not strong right now. The Commander and Chief right now is doing a terrible job. You voted for this clown. Drink some coffee and wake up !!!! You can vote for your man Johhny M. But Johhny M. has been in the poltical eye for 26 years and hasn't done scratch. USA is loosing Manufacturing JOBS. U.S. WORKERS are loosing jobs to foreign markets. Do your homework first. Unemployment is getting worse. Our dependency for OIL is riduculous. We need to move on. We need to develop technology for ELECTRIC AUTOMOBILES. McCain's a OIL MAN. Sorry !!! But it is the truth. We will go down the tubes further if we vote for your man. And not all Black people will vote for Obama . It is not in the bag.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would have voted for McCain 8 years ago.

Canadians can't vote in US elections. It's not like buying smokes or going south for quality medical treatment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: Let it go man. If you are right, you will be able to tell everyone I told you so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

Whether the surge made that happen, whether something else made that happen--all of that is irrelevant to what the Iraqis want now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlliedForces,

I think your question as to how our economy can be shrinking if we have 1% growth is a side issue. But if you'd like an opinion as to how this can happen, you might give this a read:

http://peakwatch.typepad.com/Our_Phony_Economy.pdf

The real issue, of course, is whether we can afford (in blood and bills) to stay in Iraq in order to promote a somewhat vague freedom and democracy agenda. America has been successful when it has thwarted those who have attacked us. We have been far less successful in terms of promoting regime change. There is simply no reason to believe that--absent a long-term commitment to Iraq--that our vision of freedom and democracy will materialize in a country with a vast Shiite majority, with a disgruntled Sunni minority and an independence-seeking, oil-draining Kurdish contingent.

But it seems that the Iraqis do not want that. We have already won what there is to win in Iraq with the exception of the right to establish permanent bases there. The Iraqis are asking us to leave, which we said we would do when asked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WhiteHawk,

Maybe you should be more impressed that Iraq has not asked Iran for a clear timeline for withdrawal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

undecidebout08,

I don't think that Hitchens has been the darling of anybody's left for at least 20 years. It's true that he doesn't believe that God is great (as if that would make someone a leftist) but he supported the Iraq War. This is not a reversal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have been far less successful in terms of promoting regime change" damn good point!

Maybe you should be more impressed that Iraq has not asked Iran for a clear timeline for withdrawal." Are you saying Iran is there?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WhiteHawk - So you're admitting that I'm right about Iran's meddling and that you can't prove that Iraq invited those Iranian terrorists into the country?

You're right WhiteHawk. I totally agree that you are right. Chalk that up.

Hmmm, I don't remember the Iraqis inviting the United States into Iraq to destroy a whole nation.

But they're telling us to "GO HOME!!"

I don't remember the Iraqis inviting the United States into Iraq to destroy damns, power plants or factories.

But they are sure telling the United States to "GET THE HELL OUT!!"

No I don't remember when Iraq invited the United States into Iraq to attack a sovern nation and allow it's national treasures to be looted and stolen right out of the museums.

But, I do believe that I heard that Al-Maliki has told the United States to "GET THEIR TOYS AND GO HOME!!!!!" They want a timeline and that's the truth, too. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

I am saying that whether Iran is there or not, Iraq hasn't expressed enough concern about their presence to ask them to leave. And perhaps that should tell us something about the extent of the Iranian presence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I think after it is all over, Iran will be thanking the US for getting rid of Saddam and allowing them free access into Iraq.

I think they owe a bit of gratitude.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: you didn't answer my question, nor the direct questions of any poster on here who points out the facts to you (which is about 99% of all posters -- all the other 'posters' are the same person with new handles).

Which is it, sarge, you agree to the definite withdrawal of all troops by the deadline Iraq wants, as is Obama's campaign promise, or you disagree that Iraq is a free and democratic country and needs the US to be a dictator over what it 'really wants' (ie. US is the dictator and REAL government). Which is it? Hell, even bush is for a withdrawal, so are you suddenly anti-bush, too?

So sarge: Agree with Obama and a democratic government in Iraq and troop withdrawal? or agree with McCain and the 'need' for troops to stay indefinitely, and that Iraq is not capable of its own decisions (hence, not free and/or democratic).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hell, sarge... even skipthesong is against you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Canadians can't vote in US elections. It's not like buying smokes or going south for quality medical treatment.

Hahahaha!! so funny and so on topic. I dont now where my message went but I am proud american when I see u putting canadians in there place:!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith - Yeah, Obama and the Iraqi politicians who, behind the walls of the Green Zone, which is guarded by U.S. soldiers, say they want the U.S. troops out as soon as possible, are right. I'm sure that the sooner all U.S. troops are out, the sooner peace will return to Iraq, maybe not the kind of blissful peace that Iraq enjoyed under Saddam, but peace nonetheless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

searing analysis of the total and complete failure that is the bush invasion of Iraq by a ex-Army officer and now Professor.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile2.html

In an article of the The American Conservative dated March 24, 2008, Bacevich depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as the best choice for conservatives in the fall. Part of his argument includes the fact that "this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival." [4] He also goes on to mention that "For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion." [4]

This will go beond the scope of the spoon fed wingers who are still holding out that the invasion was anything other than a complete failure. But anyone outside of the hopeless partisian loser crowd will be amazed by the insight of this author. Who by the way lost his son in Iraq to a suicide bomber.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites