Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
__Kratos__

No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq,

144 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Clocker
We need to just go ahead a split Iraq up into 3 parts (Krd Shia Sunni) and call it a day..Split the oil revenues amongst the 3 based on demographic percentages.

If the UN gripes, make them come up with something better...they will fail and then agree with the decision, realizing that splitting the country along secular lines is what should of happened long ago..

But the UN will take the credit for all of it...that is, only if it's a success..

I'm sure it'll be as simple as that! :tu:

I don't think there really is a "correct" way to handle this. Right now, it seems to me that since the US wanted to attack Iraq and establish a democracy there, it should finish what it started and do just that. Sure, it's gonna take time. But that's what the people in power then wanted to do, or so they claimed. Maybe the US troops there should take more of a supervising role, empowering the Iraqi to do more themselves. Then again who knows.

Edited by Clocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
Oh, Clinton saw no holes, but Bush was able to see the holes and because he wants to make his buddies rich. He said, the heck with my legacy and 2nd term in office, my friends needs to get rich and I'll just take the gamble and hope the American people won't find out I lied.

You do have a very comical theory,.

but they did find out he lied....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrucePrime
I am no supporter of Clinton. The intelligence he used was wrong...

And Bruce, as Far as Bush's dealings with the Taliban. Please refer to the article below from before Sept. 11.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01...umns/052201.htm

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban

By Robert Scheer

Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times

========

Bush's Enron buddies were freinds with them too.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...20497texasvisit

1996-September 11, 2001: Enron Gives Taliban Millions in Bribes in Effort to Get Afghan Pipeline Built

Enron continues to encourage the Taliban about the pipeline even after Unocal officially gives up on the pipeline in the wake of the African embassy bombings (see December 5, 1998). An investigation after Enron’s collapse in 2001 (see December 2, 2001) will determine that some of this pay-off money ended up funding al-Qaeda. [Associated Press, 3/7/2002]

===============

Please Watch the Video

Oh, now he’s done done it. Keith Olbermann and the folks at Countdown has put together exactly what the Bush administration was given prior to 9/11...

=================

Gotta love this too:

U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law."

I love how Clinton was "just wrong" where Bush is a liar. It was so full of holes, that Clinton supported, even until after Bush was in office, the sanctions regime, and was proclaiming up and down to anyone who would listen that Hussien had WMD. I guess it suddenly discovered on Jan 21, 2001 that all the intelligence was wrong. The gymnastics you have to go through to absolve Clinton of any blame are quite amazing. You didn't happened to be raised by a group of Chinese acrobats, did you?

Anyhow...

The information you give to support your point is contradictory. Either Bush was in cahoots with the Taliban, or he wasn't. First you bash him for being in bed with them, then you bash him for not allowing them to try Bin Laden.

First off, the US government should not have given any money to the Taliban for any reason. Second, I'm not going to fault Enron (or UNOCAL, which Clinton supported) for trying to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. Third, least you forget, the Taliban had previously tried Bin Laden for the African Embassy Bombings, and found him to be "a person without sin"; another trial would have just been a farce to find him innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
I love how Clinton was "just wrong" where Bush is a liar. It was so full of holes, that Clinton supported, even until after Bush was in office, the sanctions regime, and was proclaiming up and down to anyone who would listen that Hussien had WMD. I guess it suddenly discovered on Jan 21, 2001 that all the intelligence was wrong. The gymnastics you have to go through to absolve Clinton of any blame are quite amazing. You didn't happened to be raised by a group of Chinese acrobats, did you?

Anyhow...

The information you give to support your point is contradictory. Either Bush was in cahoots with the Taliban, or he wasn't. First you bash him for being in bed with them, then you bash him for not allowing them to try Bin Laden.

First off, the US government should not have given any money to the Taliban for any reason. Second, I'm not going to fault Enron (or UNOCAL, which Clinton supported) for trying to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. Third, least you forget, the Taliban had previously tried Bin Laden for the African Embassy Bombings, and found him to be "a person without sin"; another trial would have just been a farce to find him innocent.

It's the CIA with all their tailored intelligence misleading the presidents....and they are working for the guys who got them elected so it will always be corrupted...If bush could make a buck for a pal dealing with the taliban so be it....this guy is a corrupted,dishonest, outright liar...why would he be above dealing with the taliban; and the bin laden family?...it's just business....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stardrive
Back to the original topic. Here's a truly conservative viewpoint. I don't want any more of my hard earned money or my adult children's hard earned money going down a never ending hole in Iraq. 500 Billion dollars in enough already (plus all the uncounted tons of their own shrinkwrapped money we shipped back to them). In fact, it's way more than enough.

You see, I suspect that the Neocons on this board will say that it's not. That they want to spend more. I suspect they are no longer Republicans or conservatives. Neocon is now a political movement that wants never ending war and subservience to a unitary executive (i.e. dictator).

And I would like to further add that as the neocon movement chants "give war a chance" and using terms like "cut and run" our tax dollars are being sucked into an Iraqi black hole. A vortex where dollars go in and never come out. How much money is enough? How long is long enough? Face it, the Mid-East and Iraq in particular are going to have thier secular war and bloodbath if we are there to referee it or not. It's time we let them work out thier own problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clocker
I love how Clinton was "just wrong" where Bush is a liar. It was so full of holes, that Clinton supported, even until after Bush was in office, the sanctions regime, and was proclaiming up and down to anyone who would listen that Hussien had WMD. I guess it suddenly discovered on Jan 21, 2001 that all the intelligence was wrong. The gymnastics you have to go through to absolve Clinton of any blame are quite amazing. You didn't happened to be raised by a group of Chinese acrobats, did you?

Anyhow...

The information you give to support your point is contradictory. Either Bush was in cahoots with the Taliban, or he wasn't. First you bash him for being in bed with them, then you bash him for not allowing them to try Bin Laden.

First off, the US government should not have given any money to the Taliban for any reason. Second, I'm not going to fault Enron (or UNOCAL, which Clinton supported) for trying to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. Third, least you forget, the Taliban had previously tried Bin Laden for the African Embassy Bombings, and found him to be "a person without sin"; another trial would have just been a farce to find him innocent.

I agree with you on lot your points such as the Taliban trial becoming a farce. However, the difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush started the war, on very questionable grounds, ESPECIALLY in retrospect. I don't remember everything that was going on back then but really, the amount of cover-ups was noticeable even up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
I agree with you on lot your points such as the Taliban trial becoming a farce. However, the difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush started the war, on very questionable grounds, ESPECIALLY in retrospect. I don't remember everything that was going on back then but really, the amount of cover-ups was noticeable even up here.

the war started when those buildings fell....afghanistan was a just war..it was a terrorist hellhole...Iraqs another story...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrucePrime
I agree with you on lot your points such as the Taliban trial becoming a farce. However, the difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush started the war, on very questionable grounds, ESPECIALLY in retrospect. I don't remember everything that was going on back then but really, the amount of cover-ups was noticeable even up here.

The United States was at war with Iraq for a long time; Clinton bombed Iraq several times, the largest being during Operation Desert Fox. Bush just put boots in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cinders

Why should the US continue to stay in Iraq (for whatever excuse or reason to keep us there) if Iraq's neighbors can't even commit to help Iraq?

Will Iraq's Neighbors Help?

Thursday, May. 03, 2007

By SCOTT MACLEOD/SHARM EL-SHEIKH

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to the regional conference on Iraq underway in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to remind Iraq's neighbors of their stake in helping end the conflict in the country. An Iraq that is unstable, she told them, will be "a force of instability for the region." None of Iraq's neighbors would disagree with that. But the problem is that most of them differ with Rice, as well as with the Iraqi government, on how to end the slaughter and achieve peace.

Rice called the meeting an "opportunity to signal strong support" for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, but many of Iraq's neighbors see the Maliki government as part of the problem. Although al-Maliki came to office through democratic elections and is supported by Washington, Arab governments in Sunni Muslim countries see the Shi'ite prime minister as an ally of Iran who is helping Tehran extend its influence in Iraq. "Al-Maliki is not representing all of Iraq's people," an Arab diplomat told TIME on the sidelines of the conference. "He is too Iranian. He's serving Iran's interests."

Arab officials complain that al-Maliki has dragged his feet on opening up the government to Iraqis who served in Saddam Hussein's regime, and that the manner in which the former dictator was executed last December was a deliberate provocation of the Sunnis. They say that al-Maliki has done little to dismantle Shi'ite militias such as the Mahdi Army, and suspect that he arranged for its leader, Moqtada Al-Sadr, to take refuge in Iran to escape arrest. Arab officials see the recent dismissal of some officers from the Iraqi armed forces as a purge orchestrated by al-Maliki because they were too aggressive in fighting the Mahdi Army.

Full article here: TIME

This coincides with the recent CNN Article: Shadowy Iraq Office Accused of Secretarian Agenda

We can argue on this topic till the cows come home and THEN some.. but as LONG as Iraq's neighbors feel the way they do (and rightly so with Maliki in there) , then how the HELL is the US staying there (again for whatever the d@mn reason it is this time..) going to help and make a difference??

Edited by Cinders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

The Iraqi government is set to go on a two month vacation...so it doesnt much matter... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clocker
The United States was at war with Iraq for a long time; Clinton bombed Iraq several times, the largest being during Operation Desert Fox. Bush just put boots in Iraq.

Yes, and it does make a difference. A difference of around 500 billion, depending on who you ask of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrucePrime
The Iraqi government is set to go on a two month vacation...so it doesnt much matter... :wacko:

I think our Congress takes a longer vacation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
I think our Congress takes a longer vacation.

lol...our country isnt a total shambles...yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Back to the original topic. Here's a truly conservative viewpoint. I don't want any more of my hard earned money or my adult children's hard earned money going down a never ending hole in Iraq. 500 Billion dollars in enough already (plus all the uncounted tons of their own shrinkwrapped money we shipped back to them). In fact, it's way more than enough.

You see, I suspect that the Neocons on this board will say that it's not. That they want to spend more. I suspect they are no longer Republicans or conservatives. Neocon is now a political movement that wants never ending war and subservience to a unitary executive (i.e. dictator).

Getting the job done actually does not translate to wanting it forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EmpressStarXVII
Getting the job done actually does not translate to wanting it forever.

What would you consider a job done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Saying that "everyone else did it" is not a defense. They tried that at Nuremberg.

That is the problem, only Bush is being accuse of doing it and not everyone who bought into the same intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
but they did find out he lied....

Who? Who found out and why not come up to Congress. Tenet is making the blame game, while he has a lot of explaining to do.

See where we are? Accuse Bush of lying, when no one is actually trying to find out what went wrong with an INACCURATE INTELLIGENCE. If there is no politics maneuvering here, all concern should try to find out what happen when even the Clinton Administration was saying Saddam had WMD and is a threat.

Was it a lousy job by the CIA? Did Saddam try to embarass us?

Instead, all the opposition focus on is Bush lied and score some political points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

he didnt care what the intelligence said...they were going into iraq from the day he was elected...like perle said iraq has to pay for 9/11 :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
he didnt care what the intelligence said...they were going into iraq from the day he was elected...like perle said iraq has to pay for 9/11 :wacko:

Accusations, myths and theories. 2 YEARS was given for Iraq to comply with UN Resolutions and come out clean. 2 YEARS for anyone to come out, LIKE Perle to say what they are saying now. 2 YEARS for Tenent to resign and tell the whole Media what was going on if he really was concern.

And everyone came out AFTER when we went in AND VERIFIED there is no WMD.

Figure it out... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Nothing to figure. They were scared of the unitary dictator with his congress behind him. I think it was pure fear of going against W.

Saying Clinton did it is a cop out. Bush is the president now. We're in a his war now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003
Nothing to figure. They were scared of the unitary dictator with his congress behind him. I think it was pure fear of going against W.

Saying Clinton did it is a cop out. Bush is the president now. We're in a his war now.

Exactly, especially given the Bush Crime family's record of disposing of people who don't fall in line.

This is Bush's War... This is the extreme Right's War... This is not America's War, and this is not what Congress authorized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Nothing to figure. They were scared of the unitary dictator with his congress behind him. I think it was pure fear of going against W.

Saying Clinton did it is a cop out. Bush is the president now. We're in a his war now.

Fear? And now that they have to sell a book, they fear no more?

Why did Bush wait for 2 years if it was all a lie? 2 years is a lot of time for Saddam, Tenent, Perle and everyone else to make their case then.

And you all know it makes sense and does not support an act of lying about a war, that is why all you can say is they were scared of Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Exactly, especially given the Bush Crime family's record of disposing of people who don't fall in line.

This is Bush's War... This is the extreme Right's War... This is not America's War, and this is not what Congress authorized.

Clinton wants to reauthorize the war. She lying then or you are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
What would you consider a job done?

To establish an Iraq that is not hostile to the world and it's neighbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003
To establish an Iraq that is not hostile to the world and it's neighbor.

So you think a US backed Regime would not be hostile to it's neighbors? :rofl:

And the reason Byrd and Clinton are seeking the reauthorization bill is so they can END the authorization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.