Sen. Hagel (R) calls for withdrawal from Iraq

[MoTaVa]

Get off the 'Iraq had nothing to do with 9/1' spiel. Thats like telling someone fire is hot.

Its very rare you ever hear of a stable happy productive member of a free society becoming a terrorist. Its more often a very desperate citizen of a country whose government is not a democracy. A person that has probably lived in poverty his or her whole life while their leaders live in palaces, because they are corrupt inhuman thieves. Then a religious zealot that has a radical twisted view and an end game agenda comes along and uses this poor victims desperation against him.
If we don't give those people freedom, those zealots will continue to prey upon them. Freedom is a good thing, why do you think they oppose it so hard. I'll tell you why. Its because if that whole region was free and happy and productive, there would be no recruitment for the end of the infidel radicals. They'd go extinct and they are terrified of that. Just look how hard they are trying to beat down a free democratic government in Lebanon as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. Why fight against freedom, whats so scary about freedom, unless you want to rule the world.
So while Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, successfully turning Iraq into a free democratic society has everything to do with contributing to the prevention of further such attacks in the distant future.

[Thorgrim]

What makes you think corporations would not just come in and take all the profits/money instead of a dictatorship?

You need a growing prosperous middle class to avoid terrorism...not democracy

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

Get off the 'Iraq had nothing to do with 9/1' spiel. Thats like telling someone fire is hot.

Its very rare you ever hear of a stable happy productive member of a free society becoming a terrorist. Its more often a very desperate citizen of a country whose government is not a democracy. A person that has probably lived in poverty his or her whole life while their leaders live in palaces, because they are corrupt inhuman thieves. Then a religious zealot that has a radical twisted view and an end game agenda comes along and uses this poor victims desperation against him.
If we don't give those people freedom, those zealots will continue to prey upon them. Freedom is a good thing, why do you think they oppose it so hard. I'll tell you why. Its because if that whole region was free and happy and productive, there would be no recruitment for the end of the infidel radicals. They'd go extinct and they are terrified of that. Just look how hard they are trying to beat down a free democratic government in Lebanon as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. Why fight against freedom, whats so scary about freedom, unless you want to rule the world.
So while Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, successfully turning Iraq into a free democratic society has everything to do with contributing to the prevention of further such attacks in the distant future.

Your type needs to be reminded that 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq frequently because you use them together so often in the same sentence the general population actually thinks they are related. I think some times you guys say it so often you actually start to believe it yourself. Furthermore if you disconnect Iraq from 9/11, disconnect it from the war on terror, disconnect it from wmd, suddenly the justification to actually go there fades away.

I am not against freedom, but I am against imposing democracy via our rifles. They would have a hell of a time recruiting anti-west people if we didn't fuck with their affairs. Just read about what we have done there and you will understand why there are so many willing to fight against us. It doesn't help they have nothing to lose so they resort to terrorism. If we didn't meddle in their affairs since the 1950s they'd have no reason to attack us and would only be concerned with attacking each other in the civil wars they have been fighting for hundreds of years.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

Get off the 'Iraq had nothing to do with 9/1' spiel. Thats like telling someone fire is hot.

Its very rare you ever hear of a stable happy productive member of a free society becoming a terrorist. Its more often a very desperate citizen of a country whose government is not a democracy. A person that has probably lived in poverty his or her whole life while their leaders live in palaces, because they are corrupt inhuman thieves. Then a religious zealot that has a radical twisted view and an end game agenda comes along and uses this poor victims desperation against him.
If we don't give those people freedom, those zealots will continue to prey upon them. Freedom is a good thing, why do you think they oppose it so hard. I'll tell you why. Its because if that whole region was free and happy and productive, there would be no recruitment for the end of the infidel radicals. They'd go extinct and they are terrified of that. Just look how hard they are trying to beat down a free democratic government in Lebanon as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. Why fight against freedom, whats so scary about freedom, unless you want to rule the world.
So while Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, successfully turning Iraq into a free democratic society has everything to do with contributing to the prevention of further such attacks in the distant future.

Any basic knowledge of the history of that part of the world would reveal that various factions of what is now Iraq have been fighting each other for centuries. Now they have the "freedom" that you on the right enjoy harping about so much. They have a freely elected government, and the people have spoken: They've elected a Shiite majority which now has the support of the Iranian leadership, which is one of Bush's countries in the so-called "axis of evil." Hell, ALL the factions are free in Iraq now-Free to kill each other and everybody else who gets in the way, especially American troops. Western style democracy is obviously not working, and some of you on the right STILL don't "get it." Amazing, simply amazing. Our country has been in existence for 230 years, and Bushco was arrogant, ignorant, and clueless enough to think that we are going to impose our idea of "freedom" on a war-like people who have been around for thousands of years. It won't happen. Ain't "freedom" wonderful? Duh.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Failure is a bad thing. And in this world of uncertainties a very major possibility in Iraq!

But what makes me sick to my stomach is the people in this country who will celebrate that failure!

here is a few things that give me visceral unease, ..., i really wish they didnt

the failure to see the Iraq effort already has failed, ..., (this would be the case even if the coalition stayed the course & eventually did bring about a stable democractic govt)

insisting upon framing the problem & solution primarily in terms of US party political point-scoring

seeking to demonise 'the other' upon spurious 'i can read their minds' grounds

failure to openly, willingly & very loudly accept the blame & shame for allowing a group of arrogant, stupid idealogues to sieze control of US foreign policy & deliberately use destabilisation as a policy tool

failure to condemn as massively inept said idealogues

other thing make me 'feel sick' as well but they're of less relevance here

[avsp]

UK defence minister announces intentions of phased handover of security to Iraqis, with concomitant troop level drawdown. Significant number of troops to remain as 'backup'

BBC NEWS | UK | UK troop levels in Iraq to fall

Originally Posted by bbc article

The number of UK troops in Iraq is set to be "significantly lower by a matter of thousands" at the end of next year, the defence secretary has said.

Des Browne said it was hoped that local Iraqi forces would take control of Basra, in the south of the country, in the spring.

But a "drawing down" of troops did not mean a withdrawal because the Iraqis would still need back-up, he said.

The UK has about 7,000 troops in the south of Iraq, mostly around Basra.

Mr Browne restated Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett's assertion that British-controlled Maysan province could transfer to Iraqi control in January, followed by Basra shortly afterwards.

But a handover did not mean a withdrawal of troops, he said.

"Even when all of the provinces are handed over, we will still be providing a force to mentor and back up the Iraqi army and police and to protect coalition supply routes," he said.

"I do not believe it is right to give precise numbers, nor to assume what the next 12 months will hold.

"But I can tell you that by the end of next year I expect numbers of British forces in Iraq to be significantly lower by a matter of thousands."

He would not allow "a single one of the 7,000 total British soldiers, sailors and air personnel to stay in Iraq longer than necessary", he said.

He also warned that insurgent attacks could rise in the coming weeks and months.

"As we move towards handover, perversely, the number of attacks on us may increase," he said.

Iran 'concern'

Mr Browne said lasting progress in Iraq could only be achieved with "security, politics and economy" with security having priority.

And he called on Iraq's neighbours to play their part in helping its reconstruction, saying the behaviour of Iran remained "a deep concern".

"It has influence inside Iraq, the power to turn up or down the heat, to turn on or off the dialogue," he said.

"It is not using that influence well."

The message to Iran was simple, he said.

"Be a constructive partner. Help yourself - as well as the wider region - or face increasing isolation."

'Vague reassurances'

Conservative defence spokesman Liam Fox questioned Mr Browne's decision to "put timelines on all of this".

"It may well be affected by events which leads to disillusionment back at home," he said.

"Also, setting a timeline is a green light for insurgents to try to disrupt that timetable."

Lib Dem defence spokesman Nick Harvey, meanwhile, said "vague reassurances" were not enough.

"The government must urgently lay out its plan for a phased withdrawal of troops and the transfer of security to the Iraqi security forces," he added.

Last week, announcing plans to hand over the remaining British-controlled provinces to the Iraqis, Mrs Beckett said leaving too early would make the bloodshed "even worse".

A UN report has said the Iraqi death toll hit a record high in October, with more than 3,700 people killed in the continuing violence.

UK govt position has become much more desparate since head of UK Army said a month or so ago that the contined presecence of Coalition troops can on occasion 'exacerbate the problem' & that forces should leave 'sooner rather than later'

Further Dannatt went on to say that the continued occupation was 'breaking' the army

It is totally unprecedented in modern times for a person such as Dannatt to make such comments publically. He had to seek permission to make them & thus Blair must have known what he was going to say. Its hard to imagine excatly what he must have threatened Blair with. It is somewhat typical of the spineless, two-faced, content-free Mr Blair to try to circumvent the impact of the statement by saying that he 'totally agreed with everything he said'