Is it even possible to leave Iraq?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I'm beginning to wonder if the "terrorists", the Saudi's, Bin Laden or whomever was responsible for 9/11 is just sitting and waiting until the war dies down to launch another terrorist attack.

Reason being is that a lot of Saudis (and countless others) are making huge money as long as this war is running.

Another attack would start it all back up again. The terrorists are profiting from it all. They are hitting it from both sides, and we are being played.

Were stuck in a cat and mouse game with an invisible enemy that may never end. We are woven into the core of a region that has been at war essentially forever...

I hate to say it, but over the next 5 years I see this thing heading towards nukes. If that's even possible to consider. The U.S. will have to endure another attack or series of attacks and get the entire world involved with hopes of a solution otherwise. The alternative is mass scale destruction in the middle east out of desperation.

Get the entire world involved hmmm.. oh wait, but that's what should have happened (and tried to happen) after the first 9/11. When 9/11 #2 happens (which is extremely likely) that's puts us full circle with nothing accomplished.

Back to square 1 for another spin on the merry go round.

This time Green pill or Red...

Fuck!

Alex_Coe

Calm down, young grasshopper. Sober up, and try to eat something. The world is not exploding. Smoke a joint and go watch some TV, and you'll realize everything is OK.

...Don't worry, you'll probably be dead long before before this planet explodes in a mushroom cloud.

OUT!

not4u

too much money in using resourses and remaking them.
im not even sure another attack would hold any truth.
Terrorists don't even care about our freedom - they care about that our freedom has lead to THEFT by the greeds of neocons and foolishness of everyones mindless indulgance

we have to get better people.

gimme convenience or death, i am guilty and i don't want to be,
i'd rather walk.
We all gotta relearn how to walk.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Alex_Coe wrote:

Calm down, young grasshopper. Sober up, and try to eat something. The world is not exploding. Smoke a joint and go watch some TV, and you'll realize everything is OK.

...Don't worry, you'll probably be dead long before before this planet explodes in a mushroom cloud.

OUT!

Thanks for the suggestion...however that's nothing new to me Can you address anything I said re Iraq and ending military presence?

PJ_Saluki

The war's endgame

Published March 11, 2007

Most Americans have one central question about the war in Iraq: When will it end? President Bush insists that it won't end until there's a modicum of security in the country and the democratically elected government can defend itself.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it will end no later than Sept. 1, 2008.

That's the core of the plan that House Democrats are now advancing, with a vote possible before the end of the month. Unlike an earlier resolution that was all talk and no teeth, this bill is clear and powerful, a message to friend and foe in Iraq.

Under the new plan, the president would have to certify by July 1 of this year, and again by Oct. 1, that the Iraqi government is making progress toward securing the country, allocating its oil revenues and creating a fair system for amending its constitution.

If he certifies that such progress is being made, U.S. troops would not begin withdrawing until March 1, 2008. Redeployment would be complete by Sept. 1, 2008. If he could not, however, the timetable would move up. All U.S. combat troops would have to be out sooner. (A separate but similar Senate proposal--with a goal for troop redeployment of March 31, 2008--already seems to be dead.)

Democrats, though, have a problem: Some conservatives in their own party are balking at this bill, arguing that it would restrict the U.S. military. And that has House leaders in the unseemly position of trying to buy off Democratic votes by loading up the bill with pork-barrel spending.

Even if Democrats can buy off enough of their own members to pass this bill, Bush has signaled that he would veto it.

So House Democrats face a choice. They can press for legislation that is certain not to become law, or they can take the political risk of engaging with the White House on language that could become law. They would be wise to choose the latter. An agreement may be a long shot, but it would be in the best interest of the U.S.

U.S. forces are stepping up efforts in Iraq with the hope of stabilizing Baghdad. Bush has touted "progress" in recent days, though that's hard to judge because the administration still hasn't publicly detailed specific military, economic and political benchmarks for the Iraqis. Nor has the president said what will happen if the Iraqis fail to meet those goals. Americans deserve better answers.

Deadline or not, what the House plan won't do--can't do--is end U.S. responsibility for Iraq. The Democrats may force American troops out of Iraq on Sept. 1, 2008. But the U.S. will still have responsibility for what happens in Iraq after a U.S. military pullout. It's not a certainty that the Iraqi government will fall and that sectarian violence will overrun the country. But there's a good chance that conditions will worsen if the U.S. leaves before Baghdad is secured, before the government can stand on its own.

It is possible--perhaps not likely, but possible--that the White House and Congress could find agreement on a policy that puts pressure on Iraqi leaders without putting a straitjacket on U.S. field commanders.

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

RolandTD20Kdrummer

not4u wrote:

too much money in using resourses and remaking them.
im not even sure another attack would hold any truth.

What does truth have to do with what militants in the middle east think of the United States and exploiting it?

Have you any idea of the many many ways to profit from a war?

not4u

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What does truth have to do with what militants in the middle east think of the United States and exploiting it?

Have you any idea of the many many ways to profit from a war?

wasn't bush's fathers father a secret accountant for adolf hitler. Was it HE who saw how much profit can be made from war?
I am sorry but this is information that is there.

Bu2

we sat down and talked with Iran and Syria this weekend. While I am all for a troop pull-out, and having our military come home NOW, I am beginning to understand why we need to sit around over there and help stabilize Iraq.

But I still don't understand why we need to send more troops to do that. And I still don't understand how Cheney can get on TV today and say that we have to stay until we "win" this, and there's a "victory". If we're over there simply to stabilize and secure Iraq, what is there for the US to "win"? What the hell "victory" is he talking about?

not4u

when it comes to war 'winning' is a fallacy. unless you cleanse and dammit that means everyone, dammit....

Alex_Coe

Everytime we walk into another war, there's people calling it the end of life as we know it...

I'll tell you what. On March 12th, 2012, if the continent has sunk into the ocean, then I'll officially admit I made a booboo. Until then, get a grip.

Our most lieral threat for the time being is Iran. And that situation can almost definitely solved diplomatically.

North Korea, too, is a situation that will diffuse itself if we handle it diplomatically.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Alex_Coe wrote:

Everytime we walk into another war, there's people calling it the end of life as we know it...

Our most lieral threat for the time being is Iran. And that situation can almost definitely solved diplomatically.

North Korea, too, is a situation that will diffuse itself if we handle it diplomatically.

That is our present situation. Things change. What I'm getting at is that were stuck with being involved over there. There is no pulling out. If the terrorists wanted to start up another war with us or keep us in the region, they could do it. They already made us jump once, actually It was pretty easy for them. If the US decides stop the war and pull out Islamic militants can kick start it all back up if they want to, and they keep pocketing cash through their various outlets and ties.

gossardstradlin

Sure, you can always leave, but think of the consequences of a sudden pullout. There are always consequences for actions, and we seem to have gotten ourselves in a big pickle. I agree with whoever said talking to Syria and Iran was a step in the right direction.

This business of not talking to countries because they don't do as we say is so .... middle school.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

not4u wrote:

wasn't bush's fathers father a secret accountant for adolf hitler. Was it HE who saw how much profit can be made from war?
I am sorry but this is information that is there.

"George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html

http://nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Website and trailer:
http://iraqforsale.org/

Full movie:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155&q=iraq+for+sale

not4u

i love our soldiers

RolandTD20Kdrummer

watch from 52 mins to about 58 minutes....blatant cash grabs from the American taxpayers.

Haliburton was charging $45 for a 6 pack of Arabic brand coca-cola made locally in Iraq...and that's nothing...it gets much worse.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155&q=iraq+for+sale

Cosmo

I see it like this... Who benefits if we leave?
Iran would be the biggest winner. They will get the Shi'ite block they were unable to achieve in 8 years of war with Saddam Hussein. They would be able to share in the vast oil reserves that are in Iraq.
Syria would benefit... even if they are heavily Sunni. They hate Israel as much as Iran/Iraq and would have a greater ability to legerage their influence.
Losers... Israel, for obvious reasons.
Saudi Arabia would lose because they hate the Persians almost as much as they hate us. Well, maybe not as much... more like they hate the perians as much as the typical American hates the French. A greater Iranian block would not be in their best interests. The same goes for Kuwait, U.E.A., Bahrain, Qatar and other moderate states such as Egypt.
No one over there wants us to leave because they do not want a centralized civil war to expand into a regional war that spills over into their borders.
...
Besides... we broke it, we bought it. We have to take on the responsibility to fix it because our wreckless actions created the situation that exists. We can't just say, "Well, Iraqis... we blew up all your shit... took out your government... dismantled your security... now, you have to fix it yourself". That makes us a lot worse than than we already are. We fucked up... we have to pay for it.
I don't like it... not one bit. But, realistically... there's not an easy fix for this.