US pullout in doubt after day of slaughter on streets of Baghdad

[sam_w]

Holy crap Batman, do some just not know who the heck signed the Status of Force agreement to withdraw forces from Iraq?

Good lord, do some even realize this is no longer our say even if we stay or leave? So it is not a matter of withdrawing early or not, it is a matter of what a sovereign nation desires, and their desire is for our forces to leave.

 

[Crunch]

If that were true than why would you justify us taking our eyes off of those who ACTUALLY attacked us and support and administration who lied and manipulated the public fear from 911 to justify an attack that Rumsfield and Cheney had been planning for years?

Get real...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

CNN.com - Senate approves Iraq war resolution - Oct. 11, 2002

Congress saw the same intelligence reports as Bush did, and voted to go.

This is just one of the lies libs use to excuse themselves from the fact that they were making political hay over the war and at the same time aiding and abetting the enemy.

Libs are disgusting.

 

[American]

When will you neocons ever figure out that it is not our calling to police the world. We should have never been in there in the first place and we have no business being there now. Period.

Maybe you wouldn't mind having your family buried in mass graves, but it bothers the rest of us decent people to see it.

 

[Redress]

Maybe you wouldn't mind having your family buried in mass graves, but it bothers the rest of us decent people to see it.

Do you have any evidence that Iraq was needed to avoid those mass graves, or are you just using over the top rhetoric?

 

[apdst]

Do you have any evidence that Iraq was needed to avoid those mass graves, or are you just using over the top rhetoric?

Saddam's regime had killed over 300 thousand people prior to the '03 invasion. There was no evidence that he was going to slack off. His two boys sure as hell weren't interested in curtailing their savagery.

 

[Redress]

Saddam's regime had killed over 300 thousand people prior to the '03 invasion. There was no evidence that he was going to slack off. His two boys sure as hell weren't interested in curtailing their savagery.

How many of them where Americans? American was claiming that Iraq was a threat to us on the home front.

 

[apdst]

How many of them where Americans? American was claiming that Iraq was a threat to us on the home front.

I don't think that was his point, but if you want to believe that, then ok.

 

[RightinNYC]

US pullout in doubt after day of slaughter on streets of Baghdad - Times Online


Gee... wasn't that one of Bush's big concerns, if we leave too soon, the country will get hammered by violence... oh look, PBO rushed out and ... gasp!

How has Obama "rushed out"? There are still 128,000 US troops in Iraq, and unless I'm mistaken, every move that has been made in Iraq since Obama took office was on the exact timetable planned by Bush.

I definitely don't think Obama can be blamed for this.

If people are looking to criticize Obama for something on this issue, wait for the eventual breach of his campaign promise to withdraw all troops within 16 months. There's no way on earth that was ever going to happen.

 

[Sanitas]

How has Obama "rushed out"? There are still 128,000 US troops in Iraq, and unless I'm mistaken, every move that has been made in Iraq since Obama took office was on the exact timetable planned by Bush.

I definitely don't think Obama can be blamed for this.

If people are looking to criticize Obama for something on this issue, wait for the eventual breach of his campaign promise to withdraw all troops within 16 months. There's no way on earth that was ever going to happen.

Plus, at the same time this was Iraq's decision. They've wanted us out for awhile now. We overthrew Saddam's regime and instilled democracy in the area. The least we could do is actually show them that they have the power over their country which we promised them.

I'm not saying we should back away and take an isolationist stance towards Iraq. Of course, Iraq is still our problem. We should move to the boarders and give more military advisory in the large cities for the Iraqi army. This the United States of America's chance to screw up again, it's Iraq's chance to do well for their country.

 

[celticlord]

How has Obama "rushed out"? There are still 128,000 US troops in Iraq, and unless I'm mistaken, every move that has been made in Iraq since Obama took office was on the exact timetable planned by Bush.

I definitely don't think Obama can be blamed for this.

He can't be blamed for the violence, but the increase in violence in Iraq does point to a particular problem with how he's proceeded in regards to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was supposed to be "the good war", and Iraq was supposed to be "the dumb war." He campaigned on the idea of getting out of Iraq so resources could be devoted to Afghanistan.

The problem he has is that, increasingly, it appears that he had the two situations inverted. Iraq is "the good war"; Afghanistan is "the dumb war." Iraq is the nation which is--slowly, fitfully, and painfully--proceeding to build itself as a nation; while Afghanistan--not so slowly, but just as fitfully and even more painfully--looks to tear itself apart. Iraq is the nation that could be rebuilt; Afghanistan is the failed state that may never be successfully built. Iraq is the battlefield where Al Qaeda was greatly reduced; Afghanistan is the battlefield where the Taliban are displaying their persistent and growing strength.

McChrystal wants even more troops and more civilians for Afghanistan, and the Taliban continue to regain strength; the top general in the British Army spoke of troops being in-country for the next forty years.

So now the President is stuck between a rock and a hard place--he has made great rhetoric committing to Afghanistan, and put a general in charge whose strategic view of things calls for even more troops, at a time when Iraq requires the US to slow down troop withdrawals. That is not a winning political hand for the President--it is not unlike the meatgrinder that consumed Lyndon Johnson's Presidency.

No, he's not to blame for the violence, or for any delays in US withdrawal from Iraq. He is to blame for not thinking through this exact scenario before running his mouth about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His political strategy has put him foursquare behind a military strategy of not focusing on the winnable conflict while focusing on a potentially unwinnable conflict.

 

[Sanitas]

He can't be blamed for the violence, but the increase in violence in Iraq does point to a particular problem with how he's proceeded in regards to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was supposed to be "the good war", and Iraq was supposed to be "the dumb war." He campaigned on the idea of getting out of Iraq so resources could be devoted to Afghanistan.

The problem he has is that, increasingly, it appears that he had the two situations inverted. Iraq is "the good war"; Afghanistan is "the dumb war." Iraq is the nation which is--slowly, fitfully, and painfully--proceeding to build itself as a nation; while Afghanistan--not so slowly, but just as fitfully and even more painfully--looks to tear itself apart. Iraq is the nation that could be rebuilt; Afghanistan is the failed state that may never be successfully built. Iraq is the battlefield where Al Qaeda was greatly reduced; Afghanistan is the battlefield where the Taliban are displaying their persistent and growing strength.

McChrystal wants even more troops and more civilians for Afghanistan, and the Taliban continue to regain strength; the top general in the British Army spoke of troops being in-country for the next forty years.

So now the President is stuck between a rock and a hard place--he has made great rhetoric committing to Afghanistan, and put a general in charge whose strategic view of things calls for even more troops, at a time when Iraq requires the US to slow down troop withdrawals. That is not a winning political hand for the President--it is not unlike the meatgrinder that consumed Lyndon Johnson's Presidency.

No, he's not to blame for the violence, or for any delays in US withdrawal from Iraq. He is to blame for not thinking through this exact scenario before running his mouth about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His political strategy has put him foursquare behind a military strategy of not focusing on the winnable conflict while focusing on a potentially unwinnable conflict.

Hopefully, the Afghan elections aren't too fitful/painful for Afghanistan. And for once I can actually say that I agree with you, for the most part.

 

[Black Dog]

I did not read all the responces but I do have my thoughts on the matter.

If we leave tomorrow or 1000 years from now the same things will happen. They really don't want us there. It's not so much that they hate us but are afraid we are never going to leave, I wonder why?.

We need to leave Iraq now and deal with it now. The vacuum we will have created cannot be avoided now nor ever.

Lets get our guys out and be prepared to help with humanitarian aid and let them work it out, period.

 

[ScottD]

Last I heard we killed 20,000 jihadist in Iraq.... better there than here.

And I bet that we created most of those Jihadists by going into Iraq in the first place.

 

[apdst]

And I bet that we created most of those Jihadists by going into Iraq in the first place.

That's like saying that the invention of laws against murder created all them murderers.

 

[Sanitas]

And I bet that we created most of those Jihadists by going into Iraq in the first place.

Many of these jihadists were young teenage boys who grew up with a hatred for USA because of our imperialist presence in their countries. My father once told me (not sure about the validity) that al-Qaeda frequently targets teenage boys who were recently dumped by a girl. Apparently the boys feel like they have nothing to live for, and are persuaded to join al-Qaeda to for a suicide bombing. Apparently, the girl was working with al-Qaeda all along as well. Crazy stuff. Inshallah, the violence will stop.

 

[ScottD]

That's like saying that the invention of laws against murder created all them murderers.

Apple and Oranges.

 

[Kandahar]

US pullout in doubt after day of slaughter on streets of Baghdad - Times Online


Gee... wasn't that one of Bush's big concerns, if we leave too soon, the country will get hammered by violence... oh look, PBO rushed out and ... gasp!

OK, we've been there for six years now...hardly "rushing out." How much longer do you suggest we stay?

 

[First Thought]

Maybe you wouldn't mind having your family buried in mass graves, but it bothers the rest of us decent people to see it.

Hyperbolic fearmongering doesn't really bolster your side of this argument...

 

[The Prof]

obama, who's always bitching about all the bad stuff he "inherited," was given an iraq almost miraculously pacified with the possibility of baghdad actually emerging as the one democratic example in the terminally troubled middle east, something folks my age thought we'd never see

all my long adult life, the middle east has been insoluble, hopeless, domain of despair

yet its strategic significance made it the likeliest starting point of earth's final world war

all the greatest minds on the planet banged their heads against the impossible middle east, trying everything---crack downs, easings up, rewards, sanctions, talks, isolation, billions of dollars of aid...

nothing worked, nothing offered any HOPE of working

for 25 years saddam was one of the world's ugliest leaders in fomenting international terrorism

any war on terror that did not address iraq was hardly likely to see much success

obama "inherited" a world WITHOUT saddam hussein

just imagine the problems the IDIOT in the white house already is overwhelmed by if they were COMPLICATED by a living, breathing iraqi strongman

obama has NO INTEREST in iraq, he really just wants it all to go away

he would simply dismiss the entire incendiary issue with a regal sweep of his toga'd left hand

unfortunately, the region is not going to go away

indeed, it holds the potential to EXPLODE at any time in the mount rushmore face of the IDIOT in the white house

his policy pertaining to baghdad and beyond can be seen as OSTRICH

just bury your head and hope for the best

but whether he wants to OWN the issue or not, it's HIS

the poor thing---everything is just always so UNFAIR

so eager to get out, so desirous of hands off, he actually encourages the enemies of stability to come out and do their thing

you've got bigmouth biden, whom bigears obama put in particular charge of iraq, announcing---if any of you bad guys kill enough little girls, we're LEAVING

Biden: US might pull out of Iraq politics

an outright INVITATION to violence

the LID is gonna come OFF in iraq, it's just a matter of time

obama's OSTRICH policy actively CREATES instability

meanwhile, he's in afghanistan for POLITICAL purpose only, and those CHEAP motives don't even pertain to governance but are instead simply left over from his CAMPAIGN

he PLEDGED to do go into the mountains on the moon above karbala certainly not because he believed in US arms, rights, interests or action

no, his sole purpose in broaching afghanistan WAS to prove to the people that he was NOT your traditional anti-military, blame-america-first democrat

his reason for being there NOW is simply not to look like a complete phony

THIS is why americans must die in the mountains in record numbers

bush actually believed in what he was doing, and he almost pulled off the impossible

it's up to obama to FINISH that job, it's his responsibility, whether he likes it or not

both iraq and afghanistan are SURE to drag him down

 

[apdst]

Apple and Oranges.

No, it's not. There were thousands of non-Germans that joined the SS when Britain, France and the US declared war on Nazi Germany. Did we create all those Nazis? No, we didn't. They made a choice to take an active part in defending Facism. The jihadists did the same thing

 

[The Mark]

No, it's not. There were thousands of non-Germans that joined the SS when Britain, France and the US declared war on Nazi Germany. Did we create all those Nazis? No, we didn't. They made a choice to take an active part in defending Facism. The jihadists did the same thing

The question of how much censorship was involved in their information input is...another question.

 

[MSgt]

US pullout in doubt after day of slaughter on streets of Baghdad - Times Online


Gee... wasn't that one of Bush's big concerns, if we leave too soon, the country will get hammered by violence... oh look, PBO rushed out and ... gasp!

It doesn't matter when we pull out. There will be slaughter. And there is a very real good reason for it.

Throughout history, "peace" has always come between tribes only after one slaughters enough of the other. We find ourselves audience to a world made wrong by European colonialism. A world where tribes were forced together or divided and then later maintained by America and the U.S.S.R. throughout the Cold War.

Somalia? Tribes.

Bosnia? Tribal slaughter merely placed on pause by the west until it is abe to complete what it started.

Iraq? It's only a matter of time before the tribes clean house. The Sunni hate the Shia and they hate the Kurds enough to murder and to commit genocide.

Pakistan? Merely a matter of time.

We have fooled ourselves into thinking that just because we are civil in our day to day encounters within our local western borders that the rest of the world wasn't placed on pause throughout the 20th century. The first half of the 20th century was centered and focused on European tribal conflict. The last half saw the world's tribes maintained or contained by either America's inherited or designed dictator or the Soviet's inherited or designed dictator. If the tribes of Europe saw themselves important enough to drag the world into global chaos twice, then how have we designed for ourselves such a comfortable ignorance as to not identify a post Cold War world where the oppressed and repressed tribes of the third world are being set free? A world where neighbors hold nuclear arms... or worse...contain nuclear arms locally. A world where we fool ouselves into thinking that "globalization" only has a positive side.

Tribal slaughter will be the path to "peace" in this century. And our attempts to stall or to demand from them what even Europeans couldn't do will only make matters worse and far more deadlier for the American troop that will be engaged for one reason or another.

It's time to leave Iraq, let them do what they are destined to do, and deny them their refusals to accept cultural and civilizational responsibility for themselves. Our job is finished. We rid them of "our" dictator and gave them opportunity. And considering that the Cold War days of dropping in another dictator to maintain "stability" (which continues to be a UN prescription for the world's regions) is our past and not our present nor is it our future, this was all we were ever going to be able to do with Iraq.

What they do from here will say more about this region and its people than it does for American might.

 

[TBone]

If we leave, without completing the mission, we'll have to go right back. Just like we did in 2003 when we went back to Iraq after leaving things half finished in 91. Just like we went back to Afghanistan after ****ing up the end game in the 80's.

I agree. Finish what we started. Dem's and GOP voted for the war, we went as a nation, we need to stomach it and stay.

One point you failed to make was that every time we pull out from a fight, it continues to weaken our position in the world.

 

[First Thought]

I agree. Finish what we started. Dem's and GOP voted for the war, we went as a nation, we need to stomach it and stay.

One point you failed to make was that every time we pull out from a fight, it continues to weaken our position in the world.

So how do we "win"?

 

[DeeJayH]

It doesn't matter when we pull out. There will be slaughter. And there is a very real good reason for it.

Throughout history, "peace" has always come between tribes only after one slaughters enough of the other. We find ourselves audience to a world made wrong by European colonialism. A world where tribes were forced together or divided and then later maintained by America and the U.S.S.R. throughout the Cold War.

Somalia? Tribes.

Bosnia? Tribal slaughter merely placed on pause by the west until it is abe to complete what it started.

Iraq? It's only a matter of time before the tribes clean house. The Sunni hate the Shia and they hate the Kurds enough to murder and to commit genocide.

Pakistan? Merely a matter of time.

We have fooled ourselves into thinking that just because we are civil in our day to day encounters within our local western borders that the rest of the world wasn't placed on pause throughout the 20th century. The first half of the 20th century was centered and focused on European tribal conflict. The last half saw the world's tribes maintained or contained by either America's inherited or designed dictator or the Soviet's inherited or designed dictator. If the tribes of Europe saw themselves important enough to drag the world into global chaos twice, then how have we designed for ourselves such a comfortable ignorance as to not identify a post Cold War world where the oppressed and repressed tribes of the third world are being set free? A world where neighbors hold nuclear arms... or worse...contain nuclear arms locally. A world where we fool ouselves into thinking that "globalization" only has a positive side.

Tribal slaughter will be the path to "peace" in this century. And our attempts to stall or to demand from them what even Europeans couldn't do will only make matters worse and far more deadlier for the American troop that will be engaged for one reason or another.

It's time to leave Iraq, let them do what they are destined to do, and deny them their refusals to accept cultural and civilizational responsibility for themselves. Our job is finished. We rid them of "our" dictator and gave them opportunity. And considering that the Cold War days of dropping in another dictator to maintain "stability" (which continues to be a UN prescription for the world's regions) is our past and not our present nor is it our future, this was all we were ever going to be able to do with Iraq.

What they do from here will say more about this region and its people than it does for American might.

so tehy will be killing each other instead of us?
and with a lot of htem dying, guess that helps those who think the planet is over crowded

win win :thumbs: