Democrats: 3-6 month withdrawal Iraq

[Curiosity]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/pl_nm/iraq_usa_democrats_dc_1

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 Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.
Levin, on ABC's "This Week," said he hoped some Republicans would emerge to join Democrats and press the administration President George W. Bush to tell the Iraqi government that U.S. presence was "not open-ended."
Bush has insisted that U.S. troops would not leave Iraq until the Iraqis were able to take over security for their country.
"We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months," Levin said.
Speaking on the same program, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), a Delaware Democrat who is expected to head the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he supported Levin's proposal for a withdrawal.

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

 

[selfactivated]

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]

Or they could stay the course for the next 46 years to see if victory can be declared.

 

[Tonington]

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]

Whatever happened to "mission accomplished"?

 

[#juan]

The mission was "acomplished when Haliburton, Bechtal, and the like got all the money.

 

[gopher]

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]

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/11/13/iraq.next/index.html

 

[talloola]

it's about time

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]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/pl_nm/iraq_usa_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]

pulling out

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]

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]

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/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400637.html?referrer=email

 

[Tonington]

Maybe they'll borrow it from China like the previous congress.

 

[cortex]

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.---

 

[talloola]

inaccuracies

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]

my hope

[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]

lets leave today!


No argument from me. Upon leaving, let's begin impeachment proceedings and a Nuremburg tribunal for Bush!

 

[gopher]

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]

wesley clark

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.