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

[Unlimited]

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

you mean like pre-invasion iraq?....

[AROCES]

you mean like pre-invasion iraq?....

An Iraq that started a war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, fired scud missiles at Israel, attacked the Kurds with Chemical weapon, on going sanctions, embargoes, no fly zone, UN Resolutions, a tyrannical regime led by Saddam's 2 sons. NO, I don't mean a pre invasion Iraq.

[AROCES]

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

Yes

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

In other words, SURRENDER. Give victory to the Terrorist and make the Iraqi now Truly hate us foir abandoning them after making them taste a little bit of freedom and democracy.

[Bill Hill]

I know the liberals and the far right would be happy for the Iraqis to still be living under Saddam Hussein while the UN sends in its ineffective ‘complete joke’ inspectors.. but at least the US is trying to make the world a safer place and install democracy to the middle east. God Knows, they need it.

Edited May 5, 2007 by billyhill

[Lt_Ripley]

Bush Should Sign Troop Withdrawal Bill, Retired General Says

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush should sign legislation starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Oct. 1, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom said Saturday.

'I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him,' Odom said, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.

Odom, an outspoken critic of the war who served as the Army's top intelligence officer and headed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, delivered the address at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. He said he has never been a Democrat or a Republican.

The general accused Bush of squandering U.S. lives and helping Iran and al-Qaida when he invaded Iraq.

'The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place,' he said. 'The president has let (the Iraq war) proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. He lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies.'

Odom said he doesn't favor congressional involvement in the execution of foreign and military policy, but argued that Bush had been derelict in his responsibilities. This week Congress passed an Iraq war spending bill that would require Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq on Oct. 1.

http://www.ftimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=1...amp;TM=50868.07

New Survey: Iraqis Want a Speedy U.S. Exit -- and Back Attacks on Our Forces

By E&P Staff

Published: November 21, 2006 10:20 AM ET

NEW YORK Past surveys have hinted at this result, but a new poll in Iraq makes it more stark than ever: the Iraqi people want the U.S. to exit their country. And most Iraqis now approve of attacks on U.S. forces, even though 94% express disapproval of al-Qaeda.

At one time, this was primarily a call by the Sunni minority, but now the Shiites have also come around to this view. The survey by much-respected World Public Opinion (WPO), taken in September, found that 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis in Iraq want us to leave within a year. The number of Shiites making this call in Baghdad, where the U.S. may send more troops to bring order, is even higher (80%). In contrast, earlier this year, 57% of this same group backed an "open-ended" U.S. stay.

By a wide margin, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they're preventing -- and that day-to-day security would improve if we left.

Support for attacks on U.S. forces now commands majority support among both Shiites and Sunnis. The report states: "Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq and would not withdraw its forces from Iraq even if the Iraqi government asked it to. If the U.S. were to commit to withdraw, more than half of those who approve of attacks on US troops say that their support for attacks would diminish."

The backing for attacks on our forces has jumped to 61% from 47% in January.

Among Iraqis overall, 77% percent prefer that a strong government get rid of militias, including 100% of the Sunnis polled and 82% of Kurds.

But "the Shia population in Baghdad is more skeptical than elsewhere about the wisdom of disarming the militias," a report by WPO states. In Baghdad, Shias say they want militias to continue to protect their security (59%).

The national survey reached 1,150 Iraqis. It was conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

Nearly every opinion poll in the U.S. has shown that roughly 6 in 10 Americans also back a withdrawal within a year.

bush has made more terrorists since 911 --

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/mi...;partner=rssnyt4/30/2007 2:07:00 PM

[Lt_Ripley]

An Iraq that started a war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, fired scud missiles at Israel, attacked the Kurds with Chemical weapon, on going sanctions, embargoes, no fly zone, UN Resolutions, a tyrannical regime led by Saddam's 2 sons. NO, I don't mean a pre invasion Iraq.

but saddam was contained , had no wmd's and there were bigger threats to our security than he -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUIAq_0TE4w

Published on Friday, March 5, 2004 by the lndependent/UK

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

Blair's defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector

by Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix. (AFP/File/Sven Nackstrand)

His intervention goes to the heart of the current controversy over Lord Goldsmith's advice, and comes as the Prime Minister begins his fightback with a speech on Iraq today.

An unrepentant Mr Blair will refuse to apologize for the war in Iraq, insisting the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. He will point to the wider benefits of the Iraq conflict, citing Libya's decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction, but warn that the world cannot turn a blind eye to the continuing threat from WMD.

But, in an exclusive interview, Mr Blix said: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."

And it appeared yesterday that the Government shared that view until the eve of war, when it received the Lord Goldsmith's final advice.

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorize military action.

Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."

He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.

The Attorney General's opinion has come under fresh scrutiny since the collapse of the trial against the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun last week, prompting calls for his full advice to be made public.

Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more skeptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.

It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war.

Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorizing force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."

In the interview, ahead of the publication next week of his book Disarming Iraq: The search for weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blix dismissed the suggestion that Mr Blair should resign or apologize over the failure to find any WMD in Iraq.

But he suggested that the Prime Minister may have been fatally wounded by his loss of credibility, and that voters would deliver their verdict. "Some people say Bush and Blair should be put before a tribunal and I say that you have the punishment in the political field here," he said. "Their credibility has been affected by this: Bush too lost some credibility."

He repeated accusations the US and British governments were "hyped" intelligence and lacking critical thinking. "They used exclamation marks instead of question marks."

"I have some understanding for that. Politicians have to simplify to explain, they also have to act in this world before they have 100 per cent evidence. But I think they went further."

"But I never said they had acted in bad faith," he added. "Perhaps it was worse that they acted out of good faith."

The threat allegedly posed by Saddam's WMD was the prime reason cited by the British government for going to war. But not a single item of banned weaponry has been found in the 11 months that have followed the declared end of hostilities.

Mr Blair will argue that similar decisive action will need to be taken in future to combat the threat of rogue states and terrorists obtaining WMD.

blix was just about done and going to give his final report stating no wmd's were found ------- meaning bush wouldn't have been able to invade. and bush wasn't going to let that happen which is why he by invading earlier forced blix out of Iraq.

[Bill Hill]

Islam creates terrorists not George Bush. I don’t blame the US for wanting to pull out… but mark my words, the terrorists will be gunning for you and the western world in general- again!

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

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

Kind of the way all those people Clinton were around over the years died in strang ways. Hmmm.

[Stardrive]

Islam creates terrorists not George Bush. I don’t blame the US for wanting to pull out… but mark my words, the terrorists will be gunning for you and the western world in general- again!

Radical Islam is already gunning for the EU from the inside. I feel kinda bad for the peacefull believers of Islam because they are going to feel the reprocussion's of western ire when the radicals push us to far. Like in elementry school, when one (or more) students do something bad, and the rest of the class does nothing to stop them and/or remains silent, the whole class is punushed. I think they do something like this in the military also. Teaches discipline and respect.

The reason most american's don't support the Iraq war is because it is going nowhere fast, draining our tax dollars, all the while making the oil companies filthy stinking rich. In addition, the Iraqi's resent our occupation there. Our military is not the worlds referee, so it's time we get out the way to let them have the civil war they so badly want. Let them find thier own way like we did.

[Clocker]

Well, I agree with AROCES on one point here: right now the mission is to establish an Iraq that is not hostile. I mean the US did already enter there so there's really not much point in debating that; we all have our opinions on whether it was right or not to go there (I think it wasn't a good decision.) At the moment situation is that the US is there, and if they leave Iraq now it will either become a like Iran, or like Afghanistan used to be. I don't really like either option, and no one else probably does. The problem with "bringing democracy to middle-east" is that the people there are highly uneducated (yes, even more so than in the US ) and on top of that highly religious. With a full democracy the people will most likely quickly elect an Islam fundamentalist government, much like what happened in Iran. I think we should have left things go with the flow over there, but the situation being what it is, we gotta make sure it's not gonna be an even deeper hell for the people there. My two cents.

[AROCES]

'Lt_Ripley' date='May 5 2007, 03:09 PM' post='1660958']

but saddam was contained , had no wmd's and there were bigger threats to our security than he -

NOW you can say he has no WMD for we went in and verified it.

UN continues on with it's Sanction, emabargo, No fly zone, Resolutions after Resolutions, weapons inspector(headed by Hans Blix) can't get the job done and Saddam was able to buy some allies and the head of UN himself. You call that contained???

Edited May 6, 2007 by AROCES

[Stardrive]

The problem with "bringing democracy to middle-east" is that the people there are highly uneducated (yes, even more so than in the US )

Then why is'nt Finland one of the world leaders in high technology.

[AROCES]

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

OH YES! We surely need another Resolution and authorization from an organization headed by Kofi who Saddam had corrupted and bought.

[AROCES]

Then why is'nt Finland one of the world leaders in high technology.

The booze?

[Bob26003]

Kind of the way all those people Clinton were around over the years died in strang ways. Hmmm.

Your rebuttals are childish........ Dont you have anything better to say than "but but but..... Clintion"

[ninjadude]

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.

I'm trying to figure out what you're meaning. They waited because in case you haven't noticed Bush is at about the lowest rating for a president ever. He has people in his regime quiting and being charged with crimes right and left and there is finally congressional investigations of all his regimes possible wrongdoing.

Why did Bush wait 2 years for what?

[ninjadude]

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

Unless I'm mistaken she wants to DEauthorize the war.

[ninjadude]

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

By that definition alone we're done. Time to bring the troops home.

[AROCES]

I'm trying to figure out what you're meaning. They waited because in case you haven't noticed Bush is at about the lowest rating for a president ever. He has people in his regime quiting and being charged with crimes right and left and there is finally congressional investigations of all his regimes possible wrongdoing.

Why did Bush wait 2 years for what?

If Bush was lying, he would not give anyone a chance to prove or expose his lies and just go into Iraq right away. Why then did he bother going to the UN and gave the Weapons inspector a chance to do their job? A war would be a good distration then if you argue about the ACCUSATIONS, not charges of crimes.

[Bob26003]

Bush kicked the inspectors out Aroces. Hans Blix was calling for more time saying they were making progress.

Edited May 6, 2007 by Bob26003

[brave_new_world]

Wars, factions, and fighting," said Socrates as he looked forward from his last hour, "have no other origin than this same body and its lusts. ... We must set the soul free from it; we must behold things as they are. And having thus got rid of the foolishness of the body, we shall be pure and hold converse with the pure, and shall in our own selves have complete knowledge of the Incorruptible which is, I take it, no other than the very truth." (Socrates)

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Your rebuttals are childish........ Dont you have anything better to say than "but but but..... Clintion"

You have no room to talk with your bleeding heart. I never bring up Clinton by the way.

[AROCES]

Bush kicked the inspectors out Aroces. Hans Blix was calling for more time saying they were making progress.

You know very well that Kofi Anan and Saddam are profiting from the Oil for Food program while Hans blix keeps saying he needs more time. Actually, UN has been monitoring Saddam for more than 10 years and yet Hans Blix needs more time.

[Bob26003]

You know very well that Kofi Anan and Saddam are profiting from the Oil for Food program while Hans blix keeps saying he needs more time. Actually, UN has been monitoring Saddam for more than 10 years and yet Hans Blix needs more time.

Remember, the reason Saddam kicked the UNSCOM inspectors out was because of CIA spies.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/18/...bush/index.html

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The U.N.'s former chief weapons inspector has attacked the "spin and hype" he says the United States and Britain used when warning about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Hans Blix's comments on Thursday came hours after U.S. President George W. Bush said there was no evidence that Iraq's ousted president was involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks -- disputing an idea held by many Americans.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," Bush said. But he added: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with ... September 11." (Full story)

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Washington argued that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat and that Saddam's government had close links to al Qaeda -- the terrorist network run by Osama bin Laden.

However Blix told British radio Thursday that Washington and London "over-interpreted" intelligence about Saddam's weapons.

Comparing the two countries to medieval witch-hunters, Blix said the British and U.S. governments convinced themselves Iraq posed a threat based on evidence that was later discredited -- including forged documents about alleged attempts to buy uranium for nuclear weapons.

"In the Middle Ages when people were convinced there were witches they certainly found them. This is a bit risky," Blix said.

A pre-war British dossier on Iraqi weapons "led the reader to the conclusions that are a little further reaching" than was the case, Blix said.

"What in a way stands accused is the culture of spin, the culture of hyping," he said.

"We know advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms that we don't quite believe in, but we expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility."

He added that the coalition should have allowed U.N. weapons inspectors to continue working. They were pulled out on March 18 after three months -- two days before the U.S.-led invasion.

In the five months since Saddam's overthrow, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group -- composed of 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts -- has failed to uncover any banned weapons.

===========

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

This comes from Scott Ritter, UN cheif Weapons inspector during seven years of the inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Bob26003

[Bob26003]

You know very well that Kofi Anan and Saddam are profiting from the Oil for Food program while Hans blix keeps saying he needs more time. Actually, UN has been monitoring Saddam for more than 10 years and yet Hans Blix needs more time.

You live in a dream world, how old are you?