Iraq Demands "Very Clear" U.S. Troop Withdrawal Timeline

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"Iraqi officials have said they would like to see all U.S. combat troops out by October 2010."

Good, the sooner the better!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq demands "very clear" U.S. troop timeline (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080810/ts_nm/iraq_dc_2)

By Mohammed Abbas Sun Aug 10

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States must provide a "very clear timeline" to withdraw its troops from Iraq as part of an agreement allowing them to stay beyond this year, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Sunday.


http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20080810/2008_08_08t043730_450x433_us_iraq.jpg?x=358&y=345&sig=VG08slP3tAmPSE5TWVGeog--
Demonstrators display a poster of anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr during a protest march after Friday prayers in Baghdad's Sadr City, June 27, 2008.
(Mohammed Ameen/Reuters)

It was the strongest public assertion yet that Iraq is demanding a timeline. U.S. President George W. Bush has long resisted setting a firm schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq, although last month the White House began speaking of a general "time horizon" and "aspirational goals" to withdraw.

Iraq's leaders have become more confident of their ability to provide security as the country has become safer. But attacks which killed at least 15 people on Sunday, including a U.S. soldier, were a reminder it is still a violent place.

In an interview with Reuters, Zebari said the agreement, including the timeline, was "very close" and would probably be presented to the Iraqi parliament in early September.

Asked if Iraq would accept a document that did not include dates for a withdrawal, Zebari said: "No, no. Definitely there has to be a very clear timeline."

"The talks are still ongoing. There's been a great deal of progress. The deal is very close. It is about to be closed," Zebari said of the agreement, which will replace a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the U.S. presence, which expires at the end of this year.

A sticking point in the negotiations is Washington's wish that its troops be immune from Iraqi law. In July, Iraq's deputy speaker of parliament told Reuters lawmakers would likely veto any deal if this condition were granted.

Other hurdles include the power of the U.S. military to detain Iraqi citizens, and their authority to conduct military operations, Zebari said.

"Our negotiators have really found compromises on all these issues."

ASSERTIVE STANCE

He would not be drawn on the precise dates that Iraqi negotiators are seeking for withdrawal, saying the document was not yet final. Iraqi officials have said they would like to see all U.S. combat troops out by October 2010.

An agreement that included that date would require the Bush administration effectively to accept a timeline almost identical to the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who opposed the 2003 invasion.

CONT.

[DenverBrit]

"Iraqi officials have said they would like to see all U.S. combat troops out by October 2010."

Good, the sooner the better!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq demands "very clear" U.S. troop timeline (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080810/ts_nm/iraq_dc_2)


Absolutely!

[Spider]

Are the Iraqis saying we have worn out our welcome ?

[The Lone Bolt]

Weren't we supposed to be installing a puppet government in Iraq so we could keep our troops there forever and control their oil? I'm confused. :kiddingme

[Rigs11]

Weren't we supposed to be installing a puppet government in Iraq so we could keep our troops there forever and control their oil? I'm confused. :kiddingme
That was bush and mcsame's plan until Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal. mcsame went apeshet over it but then agreed after Maliki and bush agreed with obama's plan.Obama, he ain't even president yet and he has done more to establish an exit strategy than bush did in 5 years.Hilarious!

[kappys]

Weren't we supposed to be installing a puppet government in Iraq so we could keep our troops there forever and control their oil? I'm confused. :kiddingme

oops, looks like we accidentally spread some democracy

[gunns]

Looks like the puppets are trying to cut the strings.

[Garcia Bronco]

That was bush and mcsame's plan until Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal. mcsame went apeshet over it but then agreed after Maliki and bush agreed with obama's plan.Obama, he ain't even president yet and he has done more to establish an exit strategy than bush did in 5 years.Hilarious!

We've been drawing down troops for a couple of months now.

[The Lone Bolt]

That was bush and mcsame's plan until Obama called for a 16 month withdrawal. mcsame went apeshet over it but then agreed after Maliki and bush agreed with obama's plan.Obama, he ain't even president yet and he has done more to establish an exit strategy than bush did in 5 years.Hilarious!

But if that was "bush and mcsame's plan" then why didn't they install the puppet gov't when they had the chance? Why did they allow an independent and democratic gov't to take power if it was "all about oil?"

[Bob]

Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- would really like to know....

[Rigs11]

But if that was "bush and mcsame's plan" then why didn't they install the puppet gov't when they had the chance? Why did they allow an independent and democratic gov't to take power if it was "all about oil?"

It is a puppet government, just wait until US troops are gone. Maliki is not going to last.

http://www.scps.nyu.edu/about-scps/newsroom/news/2007/07/iraq-scenarios.html

[TailgateNut]

But if that was "bush and mcsame's plan" then why didn't they install the puppet gov't when they had the chance? Why did they allow an independent and democratic gov't to take power if it was "all about oil?"


:rofl: Let's see how long your "independent and democratic goverment" stays "independent and democratic" after we are out of the picture.

[Rigs11]

If you don't believe it was for oil your stupidity is astounding.

http://www.iraqoilreport.com/2008/07/27/us-state-dept-investigates-iraqi-oil-contracts/

[TailgateNut]

If you don't believe it was for oil your stupidity is astounding.

http://www.iraqoilreport.com/2008/07/27/us-state-dept-investigates-iraqi-oil-contracts/


his stupidity is astounding regardless. He still believes in his feeble mind that Bush has not lied to the American public.:spit:

[The Lone Bolt]

It is a puppet government, just wait until US troops are gone. Maliki is not going to last.

http://www.scps.nyu.edu/about-scps/newsroom/news/2007/07/iraq-scenarios.html

How are we going to install a puppet gov't after our troops are out?

And why didn't they install a puppet gov't in the first place? Why did they allow the current Iraqi gov't to take control (which is now pressing for a US troop withdrawal)? You still haven't explained that.

And what if you're wrong and a stable democracy prevails in Iraq, the one that we installed and is currently asking for a timetable for withdrawal? How does that fit in with the "all about oil" theory?

You are predicting that the Maliki gov't will collapse and will be replaced with a US puppet gov't. OK. Here's my prediction:

All of the "Afghan pipeline" theorists have been bending over backwards to explain the lack of a pipeline all of these years later (and yet still insist that if you don't believe it was all about oil/natural gas in Afghanistan your stupidity is also "astounding").

I see something similar happening in a few years with Iraq: there will be no evidence that we stole any oil, we will not have installed a gov't that guaranteed any special oil deals for US oil companies, and we will not have left any troops behind to "control" the oil.

And just like with the Afghan pipeline theorists, the "all about oil" Iraq war theorists will be bending over backwards inventing excuses.

[The Lone Bolt]

his stupidity is astounding regardless. He still believes in his feeble mind that Bush has not lied to the American public.:spit:

Is that what I believe? You sure about that?

How about providing a link to any such statements I made.

[Rigs11]

How are we going to install a puppet gov't after our troops are out?

And why didn't they install a puppet gov't in the first place? Why did they allow the current Iraqi gov't to take control (which is now pressing for a US troop withdrawal)? You still haven't explained that.

And what if you're wrong and a stable democracy prevails in Iraq, the one that we installed and is currently asking for a timetable for withdrawal? How does that fit in with the "all about oil" theory?

You are predicting that the Maliki gov't will collapse and will be replaced with a US puppet gov't. OK. Here's my prediction:

All of the "Afghan pipeline" theorists have been bending over backwards to explain the lack of a pipeline all of these years later (and yet still insist that if you don't believe it was all about oil/natural gas in Afghanistan your stupidity is also "astounding").

I see something similar happening in a few years with Iraq: there will be no evidence that we stole any oil, we will not have installed a gov't that guaranteed any special oil deals for US oil companies, and we will not have left any troops behind to "control" the oil.

And just like with the Afghan pipeline theorists, the "all about oil" Iraq war theorists will be bending over backwards inventing excuses.

No genius, the puppet government is already installed.Once we leave that government is going down.

As for the oil I posted this already but it looks like I'll have to again.

http://www.iraqoilreport.com/2008/07...oil-contracts/

[The Lone Bolt]

No genius, the puppet government is already installed.Once we leave that government is going down.

As for the oil I posted this already but it looks like I'll have to again.

http://www.iraqoilreport.com/2008/07...oil-contracts/

Why would a puppet gov't insist that we set a timetable for withdrawal, especially if there is a chance they will lose power as a result?

Wouldn't we have ordered our "puppets" to accept a permanent US presence no matter what Uncle Mookie wants?

If they're our "puppets" how do you explain that international observers declared the elections free and fair?

If they're our "puppets" why does the international community universally recognize the Maliki gov't as legitimate? Even the Arab nations who hate us (and Iran) recognize the Maliki gov't. Can you explain that? Shouldn't they be screaming "puppets" and refuse to recognize the Maliki gov't?

What evidence do you have that the Iraqi elections were rigged?

BTW, your link is dead.

[Rigs11]

Why would a puppet gov't insist that we set a timetable for withdrawal, especially if there is a chance they will lose power as a result?

Wouldn't we have ordered our "puppets" to accept a permanent US presence no matter what Uncle Mookie wants?

If they're our "puppets" how do you explain that international observers declared the elections free and fair?

If they're our "puppets" why does the international community universally recognize the Maliki gov't as legitimate? Even the Arab nations who hate us (and Iran) recognize the Maliki gov't. Can you explain that? Shouldn't they be screaming "puppets" and refuse to recognize the Maliki gov't?

What evidence do you have that the Iraqi elections were rigged?

BTW, your link is dead.


the inability of the iraq government to outlaw or prosecute Blackwater "employees" is one example of puppet government.they must abide by US rules as per the Coalition Provisional Authority.See the link.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=233815

puppet governments can and do oppose their rulers however. See saddam hussein.

vote rigging:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/30/international/middleeast/30iraq.html

if were gonna play this game,please provide some links that support your views.

[NYBronco]

Looks like we're needed more in Georgia. Time to move on and return in a couple more years to start the search for WMD's again.

[sisterhellfyre]

Looks like we're needed more in Georgia. Time to move on and return in a couple more years to start the search for WMD's again.

"Not over there. Maybe under here..."

Regards,
m.

[cutthemdown]

The fact Iraqis are strong enough to say get the hell out is a sure sign we won. What a great job our troops did over there the last yr or so. I say bring them home and let's have a party.

[The Lone Bolt]

the inability of the iraq government to outlaw or prosecute Blackwater "employees" is one example of puppet government.they must abide by US rules as per the Coalition Provisional Authority.See the link.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=233815

Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq was revoked by the Iraqi Government on September 17, 2007

On September 23, 2007, the Iraqi government said that it expects to refer criminal charges to its courts in connection with a shooting involving Blackwater guards.[79] However, on October 29, 2007, immunity from prosecution was granted by The U.S. State Department, delaying a criminal inquiry into the September 16 shootings of 17 Iraqi civilians.[80] Immediately afterwards, the Iraqi government approved a draft law to end any and all immunity for foreign military contractors in Iraq, to overturn Order 17. The U.S. Department of Justice also said any immunity deals offered to Blackwater employees were invalid, as the department that issued them had no authority to do so.[81]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA

Yes, the CPA was TEMPORARILY in charge in Iraq, but the CURRENT GOV'T reversed Blackwater's immunity as above.

Once again, is this the act of a "puppet" gov't?


puppet governments can and do oppose their rulers however. See saddam hussein.

Do puppet governments routinely tell their "masters" to get the hell out and take all of their troops with them?

You have some bizzare ideas of what constitutes a "puppet" gov't.

vote rigging:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/30/international/middleeast/30iraq.html

if were gonna play this game,please provide some links that support your views.

So because there were some initial claims by disgruntled Sunnis (who were unhappy that they were no longer the unquestioned rulers of Iraq) that were untimately unsupported, this proves fraud? You also have some very low standards of proof.

From your own article:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 29 - An international elections monitoring group that gave a preliminary endorsement to Iraq's parliamentary vote two weeks ago has agreed to send observers back into Iraq to investigate allegations by Sunni Arab and secular Shiite parties that widespread vote-rigging tainted the results.

The International Mission for Iraqi Elections, a Jordan-based monitor, said it would dispatch two investigators from the League of Arab States and one from Canada and one from a European nation. The group previously said that based on early indications, the Dec. 15 election appeared to have "generally met international standards."

The IMIEs results of that investigation:

The team did not receive definitive evidence of . . . significant shortcomings in the conduct of the elections

http://www.imie.ca/pdf/team_report.pdf

Once again, where's your proof that the election which brought the current Iraqi gov't to power was fraudulent?

And you still haven't explained why even Iran recognizes the Iraqi gov't., as well as the entire international community.

So you are suggesting that you are smarter than all the world's governments combined? That you can see that the current gov't in Iraq is a "puppet" because you're so much more clever than they are?

Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

Is that your final answer?

[Rohirrim]

The fact Iraqis are strong enough to say get the hell out is a sure sign we won. What a great job our troops did over there the last yr or so. I say bring them home and let's have a party.

You're right. It's nice to know that even if the leadership ****s up so badly they should all be incarcerated, our service people will still pull their nuts out of the fire.

[Hotrod]

Demand away **** heads we will leave when were damn well ready. Then when we chose to leave I hope the new spinless pukes in charge over there get their just deserts for bitching.

[Rigs11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA

Yes, the CPA was TEMPORARILY in charge in Iraq, but the CURRENT GOV'T reversed Blackwater's immunity as above.

Once again, is this the act of a "puppet" gov't?




Do puppet governments routinely tell thier "masters" to get the hell out and take all of their troops with them?

You have some bizzare ideas of what constitutes a "puppet" gov't.



So because there were some initial claims by disgruntled Sunnis (who were unhappy that they were no longer the unquestioned rulers of Iraq) that were untimately unsupported, this proves fraud? You also have some very low standards of proof.

From your own article:



The IMIEs results of that investigation:



http://www.imie.ca/pdf/team_report.pdf

Once again, where's your proof that the election which brought the current Iraqi gov't to power was fraudulent?

And you still haven't explained why even Iran recognizes the Iraqi gov't., as well as the entire international community.

So you are suggesting that you are smarter than all the world's governments combined? That you can see that the current gov't in Iraq is a "puppet" because you're so much more clever than they are?

Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

Is that your final answer?

No one is saying that I'm more clever except you. a puppet government was installed in iraq.Just because they choose to have us leave now does not mean that they weren't a puppet government.Only after obama called for a withdrawal did this even get voiced by iraqi leaders, perhaps the political climate in the US was not the point were iraqi leaders could voice this.Did you ever think of that?So all of a sudden Iran is your benchmark on who decides if Iraq has a legitimate government?the same iran who according to you has a crazy leader that is hellbent and we should bomb?that's rich.

[The Lone Bolt]

No one is saying that I'm more clever except you. a puppet government was installed in iraq.Just because they choose to have us leave now does not mean that they weren't a puppet government.Only after obama called for a withdrawal did this even get voiced by iraqi leaders, perhaps the political climate in the US was not the point were iraqi leaders could voice this.Did you ever think of that?So all of a sudden Iran is your benchmark on who decides if Iraq has a legitimate government?the same iran who according to you has a crazy leader that is hellbent and we should bomb?that's rich.

Well Iran's got'v hates us, so wouldn't they call out the Iraqi gov't if they really were "puppets?" Of course they would. They'd be falling all over themselves to do so.

And yes, we did appoint a previous administration that could be (cynically) described as "puppets." But I don't see how the present Iraqi Gov't can reasonably be called a "puppet" gov't. you referred to "the inability of the Iraq government to outlaw or prosecute Blackwater" as proof that they are puppets. I showed that they do in fact have that ability and they exersized it. Isn't that proof then that they are not puppets?

You really have failed to back up your characterization of the current Iraqi administration as a "puppet" regime.

[cutthemdown]

You're right. It's nice to know that even if the leadership ****s up so badly they should all be incarcerated, our service people will still pull their nuts out of the fire.

I agree 100% This war was planned so bad, advertised for the wrong reasons, poorly executed, all of this. People giving credit to politicians who voted either for or against is pretty funny. It's some 20 yr old kid who proved to Iraqis we were not going to just leave when things were in total chaos by fighting and not running away. Eventually Iraqi soldiers start to do that also. Then more of them etc etc.

True the pumped money to the Sunni to make it happen but who cares if some money helps that's also a good plan.

Basically the troops and the taxpayers deserve the credit for being able to draw down the troops. We paid for it and they did the dirty work.

except for the incarcerated part I still don't think it's criminal.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The fact Iraqis are strong enough to say get the hell out is a sure sign we won. What a great job our troops did over there the last yr or so. I say bring them home and let's have a party.Won what, explain...

As soon as we are gone Iran will continue to annex them, Turkey will continue attacking and invading the north and the radical religious sunnis and shiites will continue to fight each other for oil money and power.

Over 4,000 Americans killed, tens of thousands wounded, over 3 trillion dollars in debt passed on to our children and theirs and hundreds of thousands of Americans entering the VA medical care system.

Exactly what did we "win"?

[Rohirrim]

Tell us what we've won Don Pardo! ;D

[TailgateNut]

Won what, explain...

As soon as we are gone Iran will continue to annex them, Turkey will continue attacking and invading the north and the radical religious sunnis and shiites will continue to fight each other for oil money and power.

Over 4,000 Americans killed, tens of thousands wounded, over 3 trillion dollars in debt passed on to our children and theirs and hundreds of thousands of Americans entering the VA medical care system.

Exactly what did we "win"?


Bush got his "REVENGE". That's all folks. Now PAY UP (the conservative party has run up one hell of a credit card tab).


BTW: Osama is still running around loose, laughing it up!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Over 4,000 Americans killed, tens of thousands wounded, over 3 trillion dollars in debt passed on to our children and theirs and hundreds of thousands of Americans entering the VA medical care system.

Exactly what did we "win"?

The rightards would like to distract you from these inconvenient facts and turn your attention to more important matters, e.g., who John Edwards is diddling, today's Paris Hilton update, etc., etc.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

BTW: Osama is still running around loose, laughing it up!

Even though Bush has taken all of the steps W*GS criticizes Clinton for not
taking.

[The Lone Bolt]

Won what, explain...

As soon as we are gone Iran will continue to annex them, Turkey will continue attacking and invading the north and the radical religious sunnis and shiites will continue to fight each other for oil money and power.

Over 4,000 Americans killed, tens of thousands wounded, over 3 trillion dollars in debt passed on to our children and theirs and hundreds of thousands of Americans entering the VA medical care system.

Exactly what did we "win"?

Weren't you the one saying not too long ago the "nobody" is in charge in Iraq?

Things have gotten progressively better there. While there's no guarantee that will continue don't you think you're excessively bleak outlook for Iraq clashes with the current trends?

And what did we win? I believe that time will show that the world, us included, will be far better off without Saddam in charge in Iraq.

[Rohirrim]

Weren't you the one saying not too long ago the "nobody" is in charge in Iraq?

Things have gotten progressively better there. While there's no guarantee that will continue don't you think you're excessively bleak outlook for Iraq clashes with the current trends?

And what did we win? I believe that time will show that the world, us included, will be far better off without Saddam in charge in Iraq.

I really don't know how you can believe that. It was not our job to do. It was not our (more than) 4,000 lives to give up. It was not our trillion dollars to flush. What part of - this little neocon adventure has bankrupted America and made us ten times weaker- don't you get? This country has taken such a massive wrong turn. We say Washington was our greatest president and yet we ignore everything he said. We are not the world's ****ing policeman. How can you possibly call something a success that, first, we were lied into, and second, we had no need to do in the first place?

Twenty years from now Iraq will mean nothing. Just like Vietnam, where we wasted 58,000 American lives. What was the importance of Vietnam? Zip. What is the importance of Iraq? Zip.

[TailgateNut]

Weren't you the one saying not too long ago the "nobody" is in charge in Iraq?

Things have gotten progressively better there. While there's no guarantee that will continue don't you think you're excessively bleak outlook for Iraq clashes with the current trends?

And what did we win? I believe that time will show that the world, us included, will be far better off without BUSH in charge.


Fixed it for you. You misspelled the "dictators" name!

[TailgateNut]

I really don't know how you can believe that. It was not our job to do. It was not our (more than) 4,000 lives to give up. It was not our trillion dollars to flush. What part of - this little neocon adventure has bankrupted America and made us ten times weaker- don't you get? This country has taken such a massive wrong turn. We say Washington was our greatest president and yet we ignore everything he said. We are not the world's ****ing policeman. How can you possibly call something a success that, first, we were lied into, and second, we had no need to do in the first place?

Twenty years from now Iraq will mean nothing. Just like Vietnam, where we wasted 58,000 American lives. What was the importance of Vietnam? Zip. What is the importance of Iraq? Zip.


Ding, Ding, ****ing Ding!

...but in the same breath, you are wasting your time attempting to convince the Bush Defense Team of that reality!

[The Lone Bolt]

I really don't know how you can believe that. It was not our job to do. It was not our (more than) 4,000 lives to give up. It was not our trillion dollars to flush. What part of - this little neocon adventure has bankrupted America and made us ten times weaker- don't you get? This country has taken such a massive wrong turn. We say Washington was our greatest president and yet we ignore everything he said. We are not the world's ****ing policeman. How can you possibly call something a success that, first, we were lied into, and second, we had no need to do in the first place?

Twenty years from now Iraq will mean nothing. Just like Vietnam, where we wasted 58,000 American lives. What was the importance of Vietnam? Zip. What is the importance of Iraq? Zip.

It continues to amaze me at the staggering denial of some here of the recklessness and defiance of Saddam and the obvious inability of the corrupt and ineffective UN to take meaningful action to address a PAINFULLY OBVIOUS threat.

You really need to do your homework.

[BroncoInferno]

It continues to amaze me at the staggering denial of some here of the recklessness and defiance of Saddam and the obvious inability of the corrupt and ineffective UN to take meaningful action to address a PAINFULLY OBVIOUS threat.

You really need to do your homework.

The stone cold fact was that we had Sadaam contained. After the Gulf War, he barely so much as stepped a big toe outside Iraq. His goal was to stay in power, plain and simple.

[The Lone Bolt]

The stone cold fact was that we had Sadaam contained. After the Gulf War, he barely so much as stepped a big toe outside Iraq. His goal was to stay in power, plain and simple.

The stone cold fact is that the "containment" policy was falling apart and on the verge of collapse. Do your homework.

And his pattern of repeated, reckless, unjustified invasions of his neighbors suggests strongly what we could expect from him once the containment policy disappeared.

[TailgateNut]

It continues to amaze me at the staggering denial of some here of the recklessness and defiance of Saddam and the obvious inability of the corrupt and ineffective UN to take meaningful action to address a PAINFULLY OBVIOUS threat.

You really need to do your homework.

LOL

[TailgateNut]

The stone cold fact is that the "containment" policy was falling apart and on the verge of collapse. Do your homework.

And his pattern of repeated, reckless, unjustified invasions of his neighbors suggests strongly what we could expect from him once the containment policy disappeared.


You need to get your head out of Bushs' lap!

[BroncoInferno]

The stone cold fact is that the "containment" policy was falling apart and on the verge of collapse. Do your homework.

Actually, containment was a success because, well, he was contained. He had not done a thing since the Gulf War. Perhaps it's you who should do some homework.

And his pattern of repeated, reckless, unjustified invasions of his neighbors suggests strongly what we could expect from him once the containment policy disappeared.

Containment policy wasn't going to disappear. That's the story the neo-con's tried to sell to go into war (which you apparently took the hook on), and we know much of the case was fabricated or just plain wrong. Again, he had not done anything since Gulf, so containment was working. Even had he tried to invade another country (which there is no evidence he was planning to do), he would have gotten his teeth kicked in again and scurried back home just like with Kuwait.

[The Lone Bolt]

Actually, containment was a success because, well, he was contained. He had not done a thing since the Gulf War. Perhaps it's you who should do some homework.



Containment policy wasn't going to disappear. That's the story the neo-con's tried to sell to go into war (which you apparently took the hook on), and we know much of the case was fabricated or just plain wrong. Again, he had not done anything since Gulf, so containment was working. Even had he tried to invade another country (which there is no evidence he was planning to do), he would have gotten his teeth kicked in again and scurried back home just like with Kuwait.


:bs:

You too are poorly informed.

[Rigs11]

It continues to amaze me at the staggering denial of some here of the recklessness and defiance of Saddam and the obvious inability of the corrupt and ineffective UN to take meaningful action to address a PAINFULLY OBVIOUS threat.

You really need to do your homework.

Obvious threat how? With his oh so scary scud missiles?Or the chemical weapons we gave him?

[BroncoInferno]

:bs:

You too are poorly informed.

Um, no. Demonstrate to me the clear threat that Sadaam posed to us or the region. He didn't have the "stockpiles" that were promised. He basically had the saem army he had during the Gulf War. You obviously have guzzled too much of the neo-con kool-aid if you think your view is "informed."

[TailgateNut]

Um, no. Demonstrate to me the clear threat that Sadaam posed to us or the region. He didn't have the "stockpiles" that were promised. He basically had the saem army he had during the Gulf War. You obviously have guzzled too much of the neo-con kool-aid if you think your view is "informed."


Don't allow LoneBush err:Bolt to bother you, he just spits out what Bush shoved in.

[The Lone Bolt]

Um, no. Demonstrate to me the clear threat that Sadaam posed to us or the region. He didn't have the "stockpiles" that were promised. He basically had the saem army he had during the Gulf War. You obviously have guzzled too much of the neo-con kool-aid if you think your view is "informed."

And what in your wild imagination would have prevented him from reconstituting his WMD and massive military machine once the containment policy was toast?

Answer: not a DAMN thing.

[The Lone Bolt]

Obvious threat how? With his oh so scary scud missiles?Or the chemical weapons we gave him?

Only a matter of time before he was ready to resume his reckless violent invasions and conquest of the ME. Anyone who believes otherwise is utterly clueless and naive.

[BroncoInferno]

Don't allow LoneBush err:Bolt to bother you, he just spits out what Bush shoved in.

It's amusing, really. He spends all his time parsing the minutest aspect of any criticsm against Bush, practically demanding mind reading as the only adequate proof of his deceit, yet the utter lack of evidence that Sadaam was an immediate danger to anyone--let alone us--doesn't seem to bother him. Can you say double-standard?

[BroncoInferno]

Only a matter of time before he was ready to resume his reckless violent invasions and conquest of the ME. Anyone who believes otherwise is utterly clueless and naive.

And your evidence of this is...?

(and remember, your Mr. Where's the Evidence)

[The Lone Bolt]

It's amusing, really. He spends all his time parsing the minutest aspect of any criticsm against Bush, practically demanding mind reading as the only adequate proof of his deceit, yet the utter lack of evidence that Sadaam was an immediate danger to anyone--let alone us--doesn't seem to bother him. Can you say double-standard?

Umm . . . look over Saddam's history as a violent, reckless, brutal tyrant and get back to me.

[TailgateNut]

And what in your wild imagination would have prevented him from reconstituting his WMD and massive military machine once the containment policy was toast?

Answer: not a DAMN thing.


Reconstituting his WMDs?

Do you have a model of Bushs' Terror alert "traffic light in your living room?:spit:


I forgot, he had a MASSIVE MILITARY MACHINE.:rofl:

[BroncoInferno]

And what in your wild imagination would have prevented him from reconstituting his WMD and massive military machine once the containment policy was toast?

Answer: not a DAMN thing.

And why was the containment policy toast? Sadaam was a stubborn bastard at times, sure, but at the end of the day it prevented him from amassing the "stockpiles" that would be necessary to pose a danger to us or his neighbors (this is evidenced by the fact that no stockpiles have ever been found since we took over). And he had not done a thing since the Gulf War. And there is no evidence that he was actively planning to do anything. Where is your evidence that shows otherwise?

[TailgateNut]

Umm . . . look over Saddam's history as a violent, reckless, brutal tyrant and get back to me.


History will say the same about your hero!

[The Lone Bolt]

And your evidence of this is...?

(and remember, your Mr. Where's the Evidence)

His history of reckless, unjustified invasions of his neighbors and willingness to use WMD.

Nobody can predict the future with 100% accuracy. How can YOU prove that he would have behaved himself? You can't of course. We can only look at the history to see what it suggests for the future.

IMO there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Saddam was reformed and would have behaved himself from now on.

[Rigs11]

Only a matter of time before he was ready to resume his reckless violent invasions and conquest of the ME. Anyone who believes otherwise is utterly clueless and naive.
I see so you are clairvoyant now?It's this "what if" mentality that has sunk the bush admin and actually created more terrorists. Hey you might rob a bank, we should throw your ass in jail.

[BroncoInferno]

Umm . . . look over Saddam's history as a violent, reckless, brutal tyrant and get back to me.

Umm . . . look over Saddam's actions and military capabilities since the end of the Gulf War (when containment was implemented) and get back to me.

[TailgateNut]

Where is your evidence that shows otherwise?


BushCo told him!
:giggle:


.....and Bush never lies!

[TailgateNut]

His history of reckless, unjustified invasions of his neighbors and willingness to use WMD.

Nobody can predict the future with 100% accuracy. How can YOU prove that he would have behaved himself? You can't of course. We can only look at the history to see what it suggests for the future.

IMO there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Saddam was reformed and would have behaved himself from now on.


We need PROOF that he would have not BEHAVED!

[The Lone Bolt]

I see so you are clairvoyant now?It's this "what if" mentality that has sunk the bush admin and actually created more terrorists. Hey you might rob a bank, we should throw your ass in jail.

OK, I concede that I cannot guarantee that he would have resumed his long-standing pattern of violent and unjustified invasions of his neighbors. What makes you think he would not have (other than clinging to the fantasy that the "containment" policy could have been sustained indefinitely)?

[The Lone Bolt]

We need PROOF that he would have not BEHAVED!

And I need PROOF that he would have.

If you're demanding absolute proof then so can I.::)

[BroncoInferno]

His history of reckless, unjustified invasions of his neighbors and willingness to use WMD.

Nobody can predict the future with 100% accuracy. How can YOU prove that he would have behaved himself? You can't of course. We can only look at the history to see what it suggests for the future.

IMO there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Saddam was reformed and would have behaved himself from now on.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Sadaam did decide to invade one of his neighbors. What kind of condition was his army in? We steamroled (from a military perspective) the army he had in three weeks. We would have kicked his teeth in just like during the Gulf War. Hell, his army was in worse shape than it was even then, while ours and our allies were more advanced. He knew all that, too, which is why he probably would not have tried anything.

[The Lone Bolt]

Umm . . . look over Saddam's actions and military capabilities since the end of the Gulf War (when containment was implemented) and get back to me.

Irrelevant once the containment policy was history. Next.

[TailgateNut]

And I need PROOF that he would have.

If you're demanding absolute proof then so can I.::)

LOL You are such a wind up toy!ROFL!

[BroncoInferno]

Irrelevant once the containment policy was history. Next.

But it wasn't history. You are claiming it would have been, but you don't have any evidence to back it up. NEXT.

[BroncoInferno]

This is rich. LoneBolt wants us to read Bush's mind to prove his deceitfulness, yet we are "naive" for not accepting his evidence deficit claim that containment policy was going to end and that Sadaam was going to reimplement a WMD program and invade a neighbor. Talk about a disconnect.

[The Lone Bolt]

Let's say for the sake of argument that Sadaam did decide to invade one of his neighbors. What kind of condition was his army in? We steamroled (from a military perspective) the army he had in three weeks. We would have kicked his teeth in just like during the Gulf War. Hell, his army was in worse shape than it was even then, while ours and our allies were more advanced. He knew all that, too, which is why he probably would not have tried anything.

Obviously he would have wanted to rebuild his military and WMD, probably inlcuding nukes, before attempting another invasion.

And before you say it I've presented ample evidence of Saddam's nuclear weapons program on this board before so look it up for yourself if you need more confirmation.

[The Lone Bolt]

But it wasn't history. You are claiming it would have been, but you don't have any evidence to back it up. NEXT.

Read "The Threatening Storm" by Ken Pollock. You now have the source with all the supporting evidence you need.

[TailgateNut]

Irrelevant once the containment policy was history. Next.


If we had continued to "contain him" it wouldn't have cost us thousands of lives, tens of thousands of life altering injuries and trillions of dollars, even if we had continued to do so for years!

...but Bush and your ilk had to somehow convince the public that they have a set of cajones, not that they actually do, but to give the impression.

[TailgateNut]

Read "The Threatening Storm" by Ken Pollock. You now have the source with all the supporting evidence you need.



Where's the proof in a book which is based on opinion!

[The Lone Bolt]

If we had continued to "contain him" it wouldn't have cost us thousands of lives, tens of thousands of life altering injuries and trillions of dollars, even if we had continued to do so for years!

...but Bush and your ilk had to somehow convince the public that they have a set of cajones, not that they actually do, but to give the impression.

We couldn't have continued to contain him for much longer. That's the flaw in your argument.

And then I believe we would have had to go to war with him anyway. Only by then he would have been much better armed.

[TailgateNut]

Obviously he would have wanted to rebuild his military and WMD, probably inlcuding nukes, before attempting another invasion.

And before you say it I've presented ample evidence of Saddam's nuclear weapons program on this board before so look it up for yourself if you need more confirmation.



You've presented "ample EVIDENCE" of his nuclear weapons program? Is that the same type of proof which Bush couldn't proove?

[The Lone Bolt]

Where's the proof in a book which is based on opinion!

How do you know it's based only on opinion and contains no proof when you haven't read a word of it?

[The Lone Bolt]

You've presented "ample EVIDENCE" of his nuclear weapons program? Is that the same type of proof which Bush couldn't proove?

Huh?

Whatever. I've supported this position. If you weren't here or not paying attention then too bad. Do your homework.

[TailgateNut]

We couldn't have continued to contain him for much longer. That's the flaw in your argument.

And then I believe we would have had to go to war with him anyway. Only by then he would have been much better armed.


You're an IDIOT and have now reached the status of the Dbrule's and Codeman's of the cyberworld.
Welcome to my Ignore list. Aside from a swift upper cut (which you obviously need) that's all I can do. Dealing with you is akin to arguing with a teenager (who also "knows it all").

Good bye and good ridance!



May you roast in Bush Hell for the rest of your natural but twisted life!

[BroncoInferno]

We couldn't have continued to contain him for much longer. That's the flaw in your argument.

How does that constitute a "flaw in [his] argument" when your rebuttal is merely a factless assertion, an attempt to read the future?

[Rohirrim]

Read "The Threatening Storm" by Ken Pollock. You now have the source with all the supporting evidence you need.

In the first place, I'm not too fond of anybody who (even obliquely) steals the title of one of Churchill's finest works, but secondly, much of Pollack's analysis is pure rhetoric and opinion as well. Also, we must remember that one of the key elements of Pollack's analysis required a force of over 250,000 troops, as Shinseki recommended, and as Bush ignored.

As I was reading Pollack's dismissal of deterrence as a viable strategy, I could not help reflecting that in 1947 a stronger case than his could have been made that the least risky course for dealing with Stalin following World War II would have been to invade the Soviet Union and depose the tyrant before he could acquire nuclear weapons. Yet deterrence worked, even though the danger to the United States from a nuclear-armed Soviet Union was incomparably greater than the one that could be posed by a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein may be more inclined to risk taking than the Soviet leaders were, but his means for making mischief in the world are much more limited. His passion is to stay in power and, if possible, to dominate the region. If he had nuclear weapons, he would step up blackmail attempts against his neighbors. But his bluff could be called, since he would avoid using nuclear weapons or supplying them to terrorists unless he was attacked directly and was convinced that his end was imminent. Soviet leaders before Gorbachev also would probably have used nuclear weapons if they had faced military defeat. This is one of several reasons the United States avoided making ''regime change'' an avowed element of cold war deterrence.

In sum, Pollack is not convincing when he argues that deterrence (or deterrence plus some vigorously enforced containment measures) is a more risky course in the long run than invasion. An invasion would be trumpeted by many in the Islamic world as an attack on Islam. Never mind that this would be a lie; it would be widely believed and might well increase the number of misguided youths placing themselves at the disposal of Al Qaeda or other instruments of suicidal terrorism. If many Muslims concluded that the attack was against Islam, Arab governments supporting the United States could be threatened by domestic violence.

Muslim outrage could also make it much more difficult to keep the nuclear materials now in Pakistan out of terrorist hands. The Pakistani public has been encouraged to consider its nuclear weapons ''Islamic bombs.'' President Pervez Musharraf seems to be making a serious effort to bring Islamic fanatics under control, but most likely their sympathizers still infest his government. Even a successful invasion of Iraq could have the perverse effect of increasing the threat we had tried to eliminate. While Saddam Hussein can, with determined effort, be deterred, Osama bin Laden and his like cannot.

Most of Pollack's analysis is thoughtful and balanced, particularly that dealing with the Arab world. Therefore, it is unfortunate that in his final chapter Pollack damages his argument by rhetorical excess. He goes so far as to equate policies of containment and deterrence with the appeasement of Hitler in 1938. In fact, containment and deterrence are opposites of appeasement. Such misplaced comparisons smack of hysteria, and damage Pollack's credibility.

''The Threatening Storm'' is a timely and important contribution to the current debate. It deserves a wide readership, if only (but not only) because it demolishes certain myths that some proponents of invasion have cultivated. If the Bush administration proceeds to mount an invasion to remove Saddam Hussein without meeting all of the conditions Pollack specifies, only an improbable streak of luck will stave off a more serious terrorist threat to American lives and property. And even if Pollack's conditions are met, the risks of invasion may be greater than he believes.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E2D6163AF933A15753C1A9649C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

And as some analysts are now predicting, Bush may have created a powerful Shiite horn right across the ME, against which Saddam was a wedge. This new reality may prove to be far more destructive to U.S. interests than Saddam could have ever hoped to become.

Plus, Musharraf now faces impeachment. The lid on the Pakistani boiling pot might be coming off.

[The Lone Bolt]

How does that constitute a "flaw in [his] argument" when your rebuttal is merely a factless assertion, an attempt to read the future?

He too is making an attempt to read the future, and it's his assertion that is factless, not mine. I have presented a source with supporting evidence.

[The Lone Bolt]

Well Ro I think you should read it yourself instead of relying on other people's opinions.

[The Lone Bolt]

You're an IDIOT and have now reached the status of the Dbrule's and Codeman's of the cyberworld.
Welcome to my Ignore list. Aside from a swift upper cut (which you obviously need) that's all I can do. Dealing with you is akin to arguing with a teenager (who also "knows it all").

Good bye and good ridance!



May you roast in Bush Hell for the rest of your natural but twisted life!

Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel!:flower:

[Rohirrim]

Well Ro I think you should read it yourself instead of relying on other people's opinions.

If I tacked that onto my reading list I'd get to it by sometime next year. ;D

Right now I'm going through Shelby Foote's The Civil War, which I read about every five years. That takes a while. I think it's a moot point anyway as Bush didn't follow the recommendations.

[That One Guy]

Honestly, there's so much more to this story that just isn't out there. I'll see if I can find any of it unclassified and throw some in. Saddam was all about trying to protect himself and his image and he'd have given the WMD to anyone that would've taken em to prevent being caught red handed. Let me see what I can find...

[baja]

Honestly, there's so much more to this story that just isn't out there. I'll see if I can find any of it unclassified and throw some in. Saddam was all about trying to protect himself and his image and he'd have given the WMD to anyone that would've taken em to prevent being caught red handed. Let me see what I can find...

Ya lets see what you can find Hilarious!

[That One Guy]

Ya lets see what you can find Hilarious!

That's exactly my point, I'll see what I can find.

Take for example the Gulf War. Less than 3 years removed from a decade long war with Iran, Saddam flies his Air Force into Iran and other surrounding countries rather than letting the US destroy them. Did he really expect the enemy was going to just babysit 'em for him and everything would be good when he was ready to pick em up? This is the level that Saddam went to in order to resist losing to the Americans. If he's willing to give his entire Air Force to Iran and surrounding neighbors, don't you think he'd be willing to get rid of any WMD or evidence of his attempts at procuring such? In 1991 he was facing losing his planes and preferred to instead essentially hand them over to his enemies. In 2003 he was facing death if captured and losing everything... why would he even consider keeping WMD in country?

Now, that's simply my opinion... if I can find anything, like I said, I'll elaborate.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is rich. LoneBolt wants us to read Bush's mind to prove his deceitfulness, yet we are "naive" for not accepting his evidence deficit claim that containment policy was going to end and that Sadaam was going to reimplement a WMD program and invade a neighbor. Talk about a disconnect.

:yep:

Gotta love that Bush lemming double standard, eh?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's amusing, really. He spends all his time parsing the minutest aspect of any criticsm against Bush, practically demanding mind reading as the only adequate proof of his deceit, yet the utter lack of evidence that Sadaam was an immediate danger to anyone--let alone us--doesn't seem to bother him. Can you say double-standard?

Yep.

According to LoneBushBot's misunderstanding of how the law works, the burden of proof requires that The Amazing Kreskin read Bush's mind and ascertain whether Smirk believed he was telling the truth in every instance that he made false statements about the Iraqi "threat."

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually, containment was a success because, well, he was contained. He had not done a thing since the Gulf War. Perhaps it's you who should do some homework.

That's correct.

Colin Powell said Iraq was not a threat

22 Sept 2003

Writing in the Daily Mirror, John Pilger reveals that both US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Bush's closest adviser Condaleeza Rice said, in 2001, that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed and no threat - putting the lie to their own propaganda.

Exactly one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.

"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=229

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Only a matter of time before he was ready to resume his reckless violent invasions and conquest of the ME. Anyone who believes otherwise is utterly clueless and naive.Geeeezus, you still spouting the Bush doctrine at this point shows you are the one who is completely ignorant. His air force was destroyed, his army in complete disarray and he NO WMD at all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/)

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I Knew Before the Invasion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html)

By Bob Graham
Sunday, November 20, 2005; Page B07

In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "[M]ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) Washington withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability. The United States and the UK, along with other countries and intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he must be prevented from building any more. Inspections by the U.N. restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[1] but hadn't turned up any evidence of actual WMDs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in March 2003.

Great controversy emerged when no stockpiles of WMDs were found, leading to accusations that the United States, its President George W. Bush in particular, had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country. While various leftover weaponized WMDs and weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have been found, most weapons inspectors now believe that Iraq's chemical weapons program did indeed cease production after 1991v

[Spider]

Meh ....... all the evidence is clear , and if Lone bolt wasnt on hippie lettuce he would see it also

[Northman]

Tell them we can pull out now if they want. Why wait 2 years?

[That One Guy]

Tell them we can pull out now if they want. Why wait 2 years?

If the government really wanted to be dicks, that'd be the perfect way to do it. They wouldn't know how bad they need us until we were gone. They've been screaming "We can do it ourselves from here" since 05 when I was there last. There's no way they could handle it then, I can't really say of their current state but I'd bet it's not what they think.