| Welcome to Die Hard Baseball. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| No pullout plan for Iraq | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 25 2006, 05:21 PM (108 Views) | |
| kyyankgrrl | May 25 2006, 05:21 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
Bush, Blair unlikely to set pullout plan By Steve Holland WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were unlikely to set a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq when they meet at the White House on Thursday to discuss the next steps in bringing order to the country, the White House said. "They're not going to race out and say, we're all coming home. You know, there aren't going to be people kissing in Times Square tomorrow. But I do think what you will have is a very forward-leaning set of discussions about how to proceed," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. Both leaders face domestic pressure over an increasingly unpopular war and are keen to see progress on the ground so that they can begin sending home soldiers facing daily attacks by insurgents seeking to force them out. They count on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, sworn in last Saturday at the helm of a national unity government, to start tackling guerrilla and sectarian violence that has killed thousands since the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Maliki has been talking up the prospect of Iraqi troops taking over security but Blair's spokesman said no one in Iraq's new government urged an immediate withdrawal of foreign forces when the British leader visited Baghdad this week. "What they want is a steady transfer of control," the spokesman said. Bush and Blair were due to hold a news conference at 7:30 p.m. after their meeting. Formation of the Iraq government gave them an opportunity to show progress and bolster their sinking political fortunes, damaged by the failure to bring stability to Iraq. Bush's popularity has dwindled to around 30 percent in most polls, which could damage his Republican party in November's mid-term elections. Blair is under pressure within his own Labour party to step down to give his presumed successor Gordon Brown time to settle in before the next general election, expected in 2009. Bush said this week that U.S. troops would move more into a supporting role in Iraq. VIOLENCE IN BAGHDAD In a new reminder of the uphill struggle Maliki faces, gunmen shot and seriously wounded a senior Defense Ministry official in Baghdad, in what appeared to be part of a campaign to target top figures in Iraq's U.S.-backed administration. Maliki, in an interview with Arabiya television, said there was no reason for the array of armed gangs and militias in Iraq, now that the country had an elected government. "There is no right after today, when we have an elected government that all Iraqis participated in, for anyone to carry their weapon in the name of resistance and kill because the resistance today will be political and legal in order to end the foreign presence and regaining full sovereignty." He said the real problem for the government was the armed gangs, rather than the organized militias. "The militias we know are easy to co-operate with and we will end this problem quite easily, but the thing that I know happens are gangs, some of whom left the militias and some formed by criminals that were released by the previous regime," he said. Analysts are doubtful whether Iraq's forces, due to expand to 325,000 by December from about 255,000 now, can assume overall security responsibility in the near future. There are nearly 140,000 U.S. and British troops there now, most of them American. Gen. Michael Hagee, the top U.S. Marine Corps general flew to Iraq on Thursday to tell his troops they must kill "only when justified," as the U.S. military investigated whether Marines killed civilians in two incidents. "We must regulate force and violence, we only damage property that must be damaged, and we protect the noncombatants we find on the battlefield," Hagee said at the Pentagon before leaving. (Additional reporting by Fredrik Dahl, Aseel Kami and Alastair Macdonald in Baghdad and Katherine Baldwin in London) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060525/ts_nm/...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl ********** Why am I not surprised? There is NO exit strategy. |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | May 25 2006, 07:08 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
"No pullout plan" is not the same thing as "no exit strategy." There is an exit strategy, and we are well along the path on that strategy. The exit strategy is to allow the Iraqis form a new government (virtually done), help the Iraqis build, train, and equip a new military (more training is needed, but the army is built), help the Iraqis build, train, and equip a police force (almost built, more training needed), and to turn over security to these institutions. As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. There is no time-table, hence the silly accusations that there is no pullout plan. However, there most decidedly IS an exit strategy. There always has been. It has never changed. And, we have made inexorable progress all along. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| kyyankgrrl | May 25 2006, 07:30 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
Assuming you are correct.....then what was our real intent when we invaded Iraq? Simply to overthrow the Saddam government and oversee the installation of a U.S.-friendly regime? I would like to believe the U.S. will eventually leave Iraq. However, I find it hard to believe the bully nation we've become would abandon such a convenient location from which to intimidate Iran. |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | May 25 2006, 08:03 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
Close. Except for the hyperbolic and insulting language toward our nation. Our intent from the beginning, as has been stated and ignored many times, was to oust Saddam and provide security while Iraq instituted its own government, friendly or not, and rebuilt its security capability. That is exactly the path we have followed and are now close to the end of. We will soon draw down to very few troops, none if the Iraqis say they don't want any. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| kyyankgrrl | May 25 2006, 08:38 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
Hyperbolic and insulting language toward our nation? When we invade a much weaker nation for the purpose of overthrowing their government - that is being a bully nation. And no....in the beginning, we said we were invading Iraq under the pretense that they were violating U.N. sanctions regarding WMDs. Dismantling their infrastructure and creating a civil war in a nation where there was none was just a bonus. And again....I cannot see the U.S. leaving such close proximity from which to intimidate Iran. |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | May 25 2006, 08:54 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
No, that is defending our security. Small terrorist groups, much weaker than we were, killed 3,000 Americans. Size and distance no longer matter to protect us. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to be proactive in preventing future such attacks--by any terrorists supported by any rogue regime. Iraq was harboring terrorists. To the best of our knowledge, they also had WMD. (To this day, we don't know for sure one way or the other.) That nexus was too dangerous to ignore. Yet, we did not go in without ample warning and ample opportunity for Saddam to fully cooperate. Had he cooperated and not had WMD, that would have been that. We weren't bullies; we were proactive against a potentially deadly adversary. So, yes, I stand by calling your words hyperbolic and insulting to our nation. Oh, and I suggest you do some reading of all of the speeches (don't cherry-pick) given prior to entry into Iraq and the authorization to use force. (Pay particular attention to the "whereas's.") The UN resolutions were part of a much larger picture. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| kyyankgrrl | May 25 2006, 09:12 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
Using that logic, you could justify the U.S. invading ANY nation, for there are terrorists cells in ALL nations. Which, in turn, justifies the rampant distrust of the U.S.'s motives by Middle Eastern and Third World nations. A "potentially deadly adversary".....in other words, we are willing to sacrifice U.S. lives based on "maybe" and "might"? And we are committed to keeping those troops there because our collective pride won't let us admit that invading Iraq was a colossal mistake? Soldiers should not be asked to give their lives for the cause of "what if". |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| eye95 | May 26 2006, 08:29 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Gorilla...'nuff said
![]()
|
No, that logic would result in invading almost NO other nations. Iraq did not just have terrorists. It harbored them--including members of al Qaeda. Iraq was not just any other nation. It was a rogue regime that was still in a technical state of war with us, under a cease-fire that they were repeatedly violating, to the point of shooting at our forces. Iraq was not just any other nation. At one point, we knew with absolute certainty that they had WMD. Despite numerous chances to dispose of the WMD and allow verification of that destruction, Saddam thwarted the inspectors to the point where verification one way or the other was impossible. So, Iraq was a rogue nation, harboring terrorists, and with, to the best of our knowledge, WMD. That was a unique and dangerous nexus--unique, therfore, "using that logic," we could NOT justify invading just ANY nation. |
<O> Danny's take on Israel LINK-->
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |












7:31 PM Jul 10