Democrats: 3-6 month withdrawal Iraq


Curiosity
#1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/...democrats_dc_1

Quote:


Start U.S. Iraq withdrawal in 4-6 months: Democrats
Sun Nov 12, 9:52 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats, who won majorities in the U.S. Congress in last week's elections, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from
Iraq to begin in four to six months.
"The first order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the

Quote has been trimmed
Gee why not break a promise or two to the Iraqi government? Good luck getting Bush to break his word to them.
 
selfactivated
#2
I think the American public said it loud and clear on voting day. How about the dozen or so lies he told the American people before he made those promises. Or the bilions being spent when Katrina victims are still displaced. No its time we start looking to our own borders like they mean something. Because the people are tired of Bush's shell games and they have spoken loud and clear.
 
Kreskin
#3
Or they could stay the course for the next 46 years to see if victory can be declared.
 
Tonington
#4
In that one article they illustrate two different strategies. A phased withdrawl is not the same as phased redeployment. Perhaps they should try the redeployment first, then the withdrawl.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#5
Whatever happened to "mission accomplished"?
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#6
The mission was "acomplished when Haliburton, Bechtal, and the like got all the money.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#7
precisely - that's what Bush's war and all the Islamophobia that we see on this forum is all about


here'a proof and it's from a right wing source:


 
tracy
#8
Doesn't look like that plan will happen.... It would be nice if it did, but it is completely unrealistic. My marine goes in March.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/...ext/index.html
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#9
It's nice to finally see Joe Bidon and others in the democratic party, along with some republicans
able to have their opinions heard, as wiser minds must now prevail.

I've heard that there is a possibility that talks could take place with syria and iran to discuss a plan
which would stabilize iraq, does anyone think this is possible in the first place, and secondly could
this plan possibly be a beginning of returning to a more rational relationship with either/both of those
countries.

I know I am sounding very positive or even dillusional, but it would be very exciting if the u.s. could
actually face some of these countries and have one on one talks, instead of all the critical statements
from both sides through the media.

And, I am not pro either country, but why can Israel have nuclear weapons and iran not, doesn't
iran also have a fear that israel will attack them, as well as the "west" always worrying about iran
destabilzing the area.

I hate listening to the "head" of iran, (can't spell his name) as much as anyone, but if the u.s at least
would talk back and forth with him, there would be a better understanding of each other. Maybe
when the u.s. has a new president, with some diplomatic skills, this might happen.
 
thomaska
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by CuriosityView Post

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/...democrats_dc_1



Gee why not break a promise or two to the Iraqi government? Good luck getting Bush to break his word to them.

I hope we do pull out, but probably not for the reasons many on this board espouse. I'm tired of having to tell parents that their sons have been killed. I have done 4 such notifications, and they are the hardest things I will ever have to do in my life.

I don't give a damn about Iraq or the Iraqis anymore, they can all kill each other for all I care. Its their country, if they want to have sectarian violence and civil war from now until Armaggedon, fine by me.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#11
I agree, as I now see that the iraqi people only care about their tribal connections, and their religious

obedience. At the beginning I felt happy that they were being freed from Sadam Husein, but as time

passed I now see that they don't have the loyalty to country, or to government, and their religious leaders

and their dislike for each other will come to the fore and nothing else matters, they seem backward and

primitive.

Leave them to their beheadings and murders, and come home to our civilized way of life.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#12
I hope that the transition for Iraqis will be peaceful and constructive. Don't know if you are old like me and can recall how difficult the transition was for Indochina after the USA pulled out. Yes, it was tragic. But ultimately, they cleaned up their act and are now capitalist. Most likely there will be a similar transitional experience in Iraq.
 
thomaska
#13
Why the delay? If cutting and running, or quitting whichever you prefer, is good..then isnt quitting sooner better?

If us being gone will make the Iraqi government step up to the plate and take care of business, lets leave today! Whats the hold up?

Oh and now the dems are saying they will pledge another 75 billion dollars to help out the Army's exhausted units, I wonder where that money is going to come from...surely not raised taxes?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...referrer=email
 
Tonington
#14
Maybe they'll borrow it from China like the previous congress.
 
cortex
#15
Pulling out will only accellerate the next illegal war:

Prediction : Within 5 years of pulling out of Iraq the US/UK axis will be again at war with another "developing country"-
read --- nonwhite nominally nonanglosaxon--and most importantly poorly able to defend itself----
remember we are not just talking about murderers--but COWARDS as well. This will happen regardless of who is
in power in the US or UK.

The democrats know that the public has grown tired of the war that THEY also approved of---full well knowing that Bush was lying about the WMDs---The Dems feel its time to shift the killing ground to a fresh target. but first its time to pull out in an act of moral outrage ---again "proving the power of democrasy"

its the old good cop bad cop routine.

The fact is that contrary to popular opinion----The nazis won the ww2--or rather their ideas--their memes --but in a much more insidious way these memes have crossed over into the victors and been modified diluted and in fact made pallatable by a propaganda machine that makes the nazi achievements seem like childsplay.

Previously i believed in the dems-----why?---because the rebuplicans are so f-ing EVIL that I had to believe that there was some counter force to them---the Dems---

Nope--both of them depraved absolutely--0ne is overtly evil and the other even more so for appearing to be even handed.

I will say they differ in terms of how they split the dividends of murder pillage and rape--the republicans feel it should just be the rich folks while the dems feel it should be poor folks as well.

and --we as those who live in canuckistan are no better --our role is to sit back , pretend to object , and gleefully benefit from our neighbours exploits.---
Last edited by cortex; Nov 15th, 2006 at 05:31 PM..
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by cortexView Post

Pulling out will only accellerate the next illegal war:

Prediction : Within 5 years of pulling out of Iraq the US/UK axis will be again at war with another "developing country"-

I don't think the UK will do that again, I'm sure Tony Blair would like to turn back the clock and separate
himself as far from Bush as he can, as 20/20 hindsight tells him it was big mistake.


The democrats know that the public has grown tired of the war that THEY also approved of---full well knowing that Bush was lying about the WMDs

The dems didn't have as much information re: intelligence as administration, so one can't know that they
knew there were no WMD's, if they had that info, there is no way they would have approved going to war,
as it would have given them a chance to "contradict" bush on this matter. The dems or any other opposition is in a tough position at these times, as there is such a grey area, and they don't want to
appear unpatriotic.


---The Dems feel its time to shift the killing ground to a fresh target. but first its time to pull out in an act of moral outrage ---again "proving the power of democrasy"

I disagree




The fact is that contrary to popular opinion----The nazis won the ww2--

lol


Previously i believed in the dems-----why?---because the rebuplicans are so f-ing EVIL that I had to believe that there was some counter force to them---the Dems---

Nope--both of them depraved absolutely--0ne is overtly evil and the other even more so for appearing to be even handed.

It's too bad, but I actually agree with you, and if one party behaved in a intelligent, and good way, they would never win anything, makes me sick, and I blame the american people, (or any people) for falling
prey to this behavior, they could control all of this if they didn't become caught up in the rhetoric and
dirty behavior during campaigning.



I will say they differ in terms of how they split the dividends of murder pillage and rape--the republicans feel it should just be the rich folks while the dems feel it should be poor folks as well.

how would you doit, I'm sure not equipped to keep up with you stating these opinions, and I would like
to hear another method of governing, which would be effective, other than a dictatorship.



and --we as those who live in canuckistan are no better --our role is to sit back , pretend to object , and gleefully benefit from our neighbours exploits.---

I used to feel that way, but now that I am much older, I see it this way, we are very content, and the
more I learn how the rest of the world lives, the more content I become, (about my own country) and
wish others in the world could go through their lives without so much strife and sadness and violence.
As much as you disagree with u.s. behavior, you must have an opinion about the behavior of many other
countries, who seem to treat their people in a very medieval manner, it disgusts me.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#17
[I am starting to follow up and coming candidates for leaderships of u.s. parties.

last election I followed gen. wesley clark, as I think he would make great president, and I will do
same next time around, as a canadian, of course I have no control but I am interested, and follow
closely.

his web site is WesPac, lots of interesting stories about him, he is a very decorated soldier, but at the
same time he is very diplomatic and would run the country in a very different manner than bush's.
He will deal with other countries and enemies with diplomacy as long as he can, before he would ever
be "forced" into war.

Would like your opinion on Gen. Wesley Clark-dem.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#18
lets leave today!


No argument from me. Upon leaving, let's begin impeachment proceedings and a Nuremburg tribunal for Bush!
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#19
your opinion on Gen. Wesley Clark-dem.


True, he has a distinguished military record. But so did Kerry until he got Swift-boated. He is generally disliked in Europe because of the Yugoslavian war. Like General Marshall you would have thought that his military success should have been a strong feather in his cap politically but it doesn't always work that way.

He is pro-choice and generally moderate on domestic issues. While he usually is an independent, he has sided with Dems. Perhaps this is because he has not gotten support from Republicans.

I find it interesting that he was born Jewish, raised Protestant, and converted to Catholicism. And his wife is from Brooklyn!

During the 2004 campaign he won several primaries, especially in the South. If he runs as a Democrat they will need the South in order to win back the White House. Therefore, I believe that his presence in the 2008 Dem ticket will be crucial for that party's chance of success. John Edwards did not succeed in garnering enough Southern votes in 2004 but this was probably due to the ardent pro war outlook in that region. Today there has been a change and the war ardor isn't anywhere as strong as it used to be in that region. Clark may be that boost that the Dems need there.

Not being a Dem I do not have any influence on which way the party goes in its selection of a 2008 candidate. But if they choose Clark it's a far better selection than Kerry. Or perhaps an Edwards-Clark ticket may be ideal. Don't know for sure but it is a possibility.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#20
I thought he chose his mothers religion, protestant, but maybe after marrying he chose his wife's religion.

He is so knowlegable re: international situations, and has so much experience all around the world.

He is "very" human, and also "very" tuned into the workings of other countries, and I like the way he
"insists" that diplomacy must be used in every way before any military action istaken.
Bush didn't even know some of the leaders of other countries when he was elected, and had never even
been abroad, and of course we all know that he "avoided" at all costs having to take part in any u.s.
military action.

Clark and Kerry are worlds apart in their approach to the leadership of the u.s.

I also like John Edwards, but Clark's experience has to take priority. Yes, they would be great on
same ticket.

I just hope that all the money Hillary has won't make her succeed in winning leadership of the dems.The democrats figure that if she wins, then it will bring out about 20 million young woman to vote, which
will take them over the top, hope not.
Although it would be interesting for the "gossips" to have Bill back in the white house.
 
cortex
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

I used to feel that way, but now that I am much older, I see it this way, we are very content, and the
more I learn how the rest of the world lives, the more content I become, (about my own country) and
wish others in the world could go through their lives without so much strife and sadness and violence.
As much as you disagree with u.s. behavior, you must have an opinion about the behavior of many other
countries, who seem to treat their people in a very medieval manner, it disgusts me.

yes it disgusts me---but what makes it feel so hopeless is that the nations able to do something really dont but take advantage of it as well--and perhaps they have to.

The fact is the entire system --world system is what is ill---the fact that a small number of countries can exist in relative freeedom and wealth is in a sense related to the fact that they can ---PREY on the rest---at least to some extent--without that VAST net tranfer of wealth from them to us I dont believe we would have the social stability to allow the freedoms we enjoy.

Its the totallity of the system. We--that is the US the EU and even Canada ( by proxy) can afford to arm ourselves and have enough left over for ipods---but they cannot--and the extent that they do arm themselves also contibutes greatly to our wealth.

You see what REALLY drives my apparently anti-US rants is this--the lost opportuinity--the fact that I do believe the US as a nation with its power and technology and the diversity of its people and its advanced superlative constitution could actually lead the entire world forward----if only it would. As the most advanced nation on the planet it is still in fact behaving like a TRIBE---we cant afford that anymore--as we are clearly headed for a worldwide ecological and social catastrophe.

The challenge is HOW , how to SHIFT from the hypercompetative adversarial war game that has in part fueled our ascension to 0ne world perspective which would the be in line with the actual one world that exists concretely as such in the form of our inextricable interdependance and embeddedness in nature.

I dont see anyone doing this--really--just half hearted attempts--

We still think we can afford to play games.

We cant.---and the dems is good while the republicans is bad game as well as the US is bad and canada or the uk is good game is pitifully, silly as well as tiresome

God i LOVE getting on a high horse!
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#22
[quote=cortex;748054]yes it disgusts me---but what makes it feel so hopeless is that the nations able to do something really dont but take advantage of it as well--and perhaps they have to

Well, I'll do my best here, but I am not that great wth written explanations Is it as simple as - inside
of most nations, it is the behavior and greediness of a certain element of people that drive them to
push forward to gain for themselves and their greedy friends, searching for money and power , and
the rest of us just want to have a fairly simple life, be happy and - don't take advantage
of others, and while we're all doing that, those others guys are becoming rich and powerful and
learning how to gain from the disadvantage of others, and on and on it goes, until finally the powerful
ones are runniing the countries, threatening others, stealing from their own, making deals with the
devil. They are not the majority, but they are the ones heard and feared. A good example maybe,
is the method Sadam Husein used to finally become the person in charge of Iraq, from what I read,
he was just a "heavy" for earlier leaders, and finally after many blood thirsty murders, etc, he over
threw his bosses, and became "them" And, in the u.s. and Can. and other such countries, money
is everything when it comes to gaining power, as it is "bought". Hillary Clinton is a good example
at this time, as she has so much more money than any of her opponants, for the upcoming dem.
campaign, that it seems almost impossible at this point for anyone else to catch her. The white
house seems to be just a huge corporation owned by many other corporations, so how could
any of us ever compete with that


You see what REALLY drives my apparently anti-US rants is this--the lost opportuinity--the fact that I do believe the US as a nation with its power and technology and the diversity of its people and its advanced superlative constitution could actually lead the entire world forward-

Aside from the Palestinian situation,(which I'm just not sure about at times0, and having such an illiterate and arrogant dunce like Bush at the
helm, I think the U S. in the past has done a pretty good job..

---if only it would. As the most advanced nation on the planet it is still in fact behaving like a TRIBE---we cant afford that anymore--as we are clearly headed for a worldwide ecological and social catastrophe.

I agree, but I have hope for the future, IF the U.S. gets back to what it knows best, and that is,
setting a good example of living in a democracy, so that others will really want it too, and to keep
it's name in good standing in the world, as one of PEACE, irrespective of what Terrorists do, and
move through those catastrophes with the United Nations, very carefully, so that they don't lose
the support of most of the world, the Afghan istan situation was OK, with a coalition, and doing
what they had to, and making good progress, until BUSH got a new wacky idea, (which I think
he had all along) to find a way to blame it on Iraq. I feel so frustrated with how someone like him
has changed the world, "who the hell does he think he is" anyway.

The challenge is HOW , how to SHIFT from the hypercompetative adversarial war game that has in part fueled our ascension to 0ne world perspective

Well, my simple explanation to that is just what I said above, with someone like Gen. Wesley Clark
at the helm, who will talk to the enemy and persevere with diplomacy so that all know where all
stand at all times.

which would the be in line with the actual one world that exists concretely as such in the form of our inextricable interdependance and embeddedness in nature.

whew, right over my head


We cant.---and the dems is good while the republicans is bad game as well as the US is bad and canada or the uk is good game is pitifully, silly as well as tiresome

You bet, and Canada could constantly speak up, with our broad minded and peaceful view of
most things, and become much more defiant with the u.s. attitude at the moment, BUT, we have
them sitting right next door to TAKE CARE of us, so we must not rock the boat, or we might
have to build our own army, and this is much easier.
 

Similar Threads

0
3
no new posts