Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

[Damocles]

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

NY Times Link...

 

[Cypress]

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

NY Times Link...

A president with credibility and diplomatic skills would be able to get the Arab League to send troops to stabilize iraq. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have a vested interest in a stable iraq.

We have the incompetent and thoroughly disrespected bush though.

 

[Gaffer]

The first mistake made by the administration was letting the iraqis write a constitution based on islamic law. which makes islam a state religion. They can't have a democratic society with a state religion.

 

[Battleborne]

Yup!

The first mistake made by the administration was letting the iraqis write a constitution based on islamic law. which makes islam a state religion. They can't have a democratic society with a state religion.

This is called a Theocracy...one would think the Libs would be pounding the table on this issue rather than just bash GW!

 

[Gaffer]

your soooo right BB. I don't understand the lib mentality as these guys go against absolutely eveything they stand for.

They will bring Bush down if it costs them the world.

 

[Jarod]

This is called a Theocracy...one would think the Libs would be pounding the table on this issue rather than just bash GW!

I was back when it happened. All the Con's claimed it was not a Theocracy. Dixie and Toby at least.

BTW where is Toby, aint seen him since the big win!

 

[Onceler]

This is called a Theocracy...one would think the Libs would be pounding the table on this issue rather than just bash GW!

Kind of a dumb thing to say. Iraqi's can do whatever they want; I'm concerned about theocracy HERE, not there.

It's like me saying - hey, you're a conservative - why aren't you complaining about the high taxes in Sweden?

 

[Battleborne]

Kind of a dumb thing to say. Iraqi's can do whatever they want; I'm concerned about theocracy HERE, not there.

It's like me saying - hey, you're a conservative - why aren't you complaining about the high taxes in Sweden?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! asleep at the wheel eh' lib?

 

[maineman]

he's not asleep at any wheel. he made a valid point. Dubya and company made a big deal out of the fact that Iraq wrote their own constitution. Why should anyone in America have the right to complain about what is or is not contain in the constitution of another state?

I am certain that a Iranian aligned shiite theocracy was not exactly what Dubya had in mind when he was talking about a vibrant multicultural democracy in Iraq that would shine like a beacon of freedom throughout the middle east.... but once you open Pandora's Box, you really don't have a lot of room to complain about what flies out, do you?

 

[Onceler]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! asleep at the wheel eh' lib?

Um, no...just pointing out that your attempt at "gotcha politics" was infantile & pretty ineffective in this case.

I've got a hunch that I could down a few liters of cough syrup & still trounce you pretty handily in any debate there, con, at least if that's the best response you can muster....

 

[Battleborne]

Sorry Commander...

he's not asleep at any wheel. he made a valid point. Dubya and company made a big deal out of the fact that Iraq wrote their own constitution. Why should anyone in America have the right to complain about what is or is not contain in the constitution of another state?

I am certain that a Iranian aligned shiite theocracy was not exactly what Dubya had in mind when he was talking about a vibrant multicultural democracy in Iraq that would shine like a beacon of freedom throughout the middle east.... but once you open Pandora's Box, you really don't have a lot of room to complain about what flies out, do you?

He was being a hypocrite...he does not want a Theocracy in the US but says it's okay in the ME...and he further stated he does not give a hoot about how they operate over in the ME...so why does he even care how the US government handles the war...he is not in the fire and all....Gaffer brought up a good point and then was bashed by hypocrite...personally I believe the war was not prosecuted all out at the start..this would have ended what we now are seeing...imho

 

[maineman]

how is it hypocritical to be willing to allow other states the right to design a constitution that is to their liking while concurrently expressing a desire to avoid a similar theocratic fate for one's OWN country?

 

[Cypress]

I was back when it happened. All the Con's claimed it was not a Theocracy. Dixie and Toby at least.

BTW where is Toby, aint seen him since the big win!

Yeah, I remember spending three years on FP going round and round with bush fans who stood indignantly, with hands on hips, and proclaimed they were not enabling a theocracy in iraq -- even though we told them they were.

 

[Battleborne]

Okee Dokee...

Um, no...just pointing out that your attempt at "gotcha politics" was infantile & pretty ineffective in this case.

I've got a hunch that I could down a few liters of cough syrup & still trounce you pretty handily in any debate there, con, at least if that's the best response you can muster....

Why don't you just volunteer and go to the ME and show them and us how it is done...wear a heavy collar though losing ones head can be painful! Then again if the Libs get their way the few million Muslims now implanted here will create the same Theocracy y'all do not want...and they will take your heads on our soil!...Have nice dreams though...sing Kumbia and all!

 

[Onceler]

"He was being a hypocrite...he does not want a Theocracy in the US but says it's okay in the ME...and he further stated he does not give a hoot about how they operate over in the ME...so why does he even care how the US government handles the war...he is not in the fire and all....Gaffer brought up a good point and then was bashed by hypocrite...personally I believe the war was not prosecuted all out at the start..this would have ended what we now are seeing...imho"

Hey, idiot...there is an enormous difference between how the US handles the war, and how the Iraqi's decide they want to be governed.

You really shouldn't vote if you can't discern the difference...

 

[Battleborne]

Take a real close look around....

how is it hypocritical to be willing to allow other states the right to design a constitution that is to their liking while concurrently expressing a desire to avoid a similar theocratic fate for one's OWN country?

There are sleepers in our country as we debate this issue...notice Mosques going up all around our country? Michigan is for the most part Mecca Jr...Wake up and smell the coffee...I have a question for you since you are retired military and all...And since the Military is made up of approximately 75% conservatives and 25% liberals...You being a Lib and all...What do you think of the Don't ask-Don't tell policy"? Because I am getting the impression that you hate GW and the conservatives based on this issue!

 

[Battleborne]

Nice try...

"He was being a hypocrite...he does not want a Theocracy in the US but says it's okay in the ME...and he further stated he does not give a hoot about how they operate over in the ME...so why does he even care how the US government handles the war...he is not in the fire and all....Gaffer brought up a good point and then was bashed by hypocrite...personally I believe the war was not prosecuted all out at the start..this would have ended what we now are seeing...imho"

Hey, idiot...there is an enormous difference between how the US handles the war, and how the Iraqi's decide they want to be governed.

You really shouldn't vote if you can't discern the difference...

Can you debate without calling names? I think not as you sound like a broken record!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yeah, I remember spending three years on FP going round and round with bush fans who stood indignantly, with hands on hips, and proclaimed they were not enabling a theocracy in iraq -- even though we told them they were.

And you are just as wrong now as you were then. Iraq didn't form a theocracy. A true theocratic government, is controlled by the church, the ONLY church allowed within the country. It is a governmental structure which not only is based on religious doctrine, but is operated by it as well.

In Iraq, they adopted a Constitution which based itself on Islamic belief and principles, much the same as our Founding Fathers forged a Constitution on Judeo-Christian belief and principles. Do they give religious powers a lot of control within the workings of the government? Perhaps, but so did Americans in the beginning, it has taken us more than 200 years to weed out the religiously-rooted constraints in the Constitution, some are still being debated to this day. In the beginning of our nation, most all educational and welfare issues were delegated to the churches, and largely handled by the churches for many years.

There is no doubt in my mind, if some of you pinheads were around back when America was mulling over the Constitutional Convention and reading the Federalist Papers, you would have sworn we were establishing a theocracy! It took us nearly two decades to iron out all of our differences and tweak our Constitution, and we weren't split into 3 factions of vehement historic waring enemies. Can we at least give Iraq as long as we had, to get their act together?

 

[Cypress]

And you are just as wrong now as you were then. Iraq didn't form a theocracy. A true theocratic government, is controlled by the church, the ONLY church allowed within the country. It is a governmental structure which not only is based on religious doctrine, but is operated by it as well.

In Iraq, they adopted a Constitution which based itself on Islamic belief and principles, much the same as our Founding Fathers forged a Constitution on Judeo-Christian belief and principles. Do they give religious powers a lot of control within the workings of the government? Perhaps, but so did Americans in the beginning, it has taken us more than 200 years to weed out the religiously-rooted constraints in the Constitution, some are still being debated to this day. In the beginning of our nation, most all educational and welfare issues were delegated to the churches, and largely handled by the churches for many years.

There is no doubt in my mind, if some of you pinheads were around back when America was mulling over the Constitutional Convention and reading the Federalist Papers, you would have sworn we were establishing a theocracy! It took us nearly two decades to iron out all of our differences and tweak our Constitution, and we weren't split into 3 factions of vehement historic waring enemies. Can we at least give Iraq as long as we had, to get their act together?

Since you're virtually always wrong, I'm going to assume Iraq is turning into a theocracy, when you say they aren't:


Another Dixie Prediction Goes Horribly Wrong
http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=2108&highlight=dixie+prediction

Another Dixie Prediction Down the Toilet Bowl
http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=1980&highlight=dixie+prediction

Dixie Prediction Update
http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=176&highlight=dixie+prediction

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Since you're virtually always wrong, I'm going to assume

Well of course you are Prissy, that was the reason it was so important to you, to establish a database of my words, to portray me as always being wrong. It lets you get away with assuming, when you can't really debate.

I understand completely!