0
   

Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.

 
 
Zippo
 
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 11:54 am
Quote:
Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.

By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer
15 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out...

yahoo news


"But..but, Mr al-Maliki what exactly is our oil doing under your sand, sir?" ~ Bush & Co
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,749 • Replies: 41
No top replies

 
username
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 12:16 pm
good, can we go home now?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 02:43 pm
So much for the second lack of progress report in September...let's get the hell out of there while opportunity is at hand.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 03:30 pm
Brand X wrote:
So much for the second lack of progress report in September...let's get the hell out of there while opportunity is at hand.


Yeah, mission accomplished!

http://www.newyorkslime.com/osama-mission-accomplished-01.jpg
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 06:48 pm
no problem dude. here's the keys. good luck. and f*&k you very much. Laughing
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 08:59 pm
Zippo
Hi there Very Happy

Hey, I asked a lot of soldiers in the area I live in if they thought it was time for the USA to leave and they ALL said NO, not yet. All these soldiers (men & women) have served in Iraq at least once if not more. I even met a soldier who said he was present when Suddam Hussein was found. He said it was tempting to just shot him but they all knew it was not the right thing to do.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 09:34 pm
There are legions of Iraq war vets who say we should get out now and that we should have never gone in, in the first place.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 10:10 pm
You are going to have opinions supporting both sides but I choose to support the decisions of the active military and the ones in charge that are
currently in Iraq. I am not saying I am right. I don't know who is right or if anyone is.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 10:30 pm
TTH wrote:
I choose to support the decisions of the active military and the ones in charge that are
currently in Iraq.


Ah. And do you choose to support their opinions as well?

Here are some results from a poll from last year:

Quote:
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
  • Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay "as long as they are needed"
  • While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
  • Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
  • Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11, most don't blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
  • Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
  • Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq "immediately," while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay "as long as they are needed."
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2007 11:46 pm
I do agree with invading Iraq. 9/11 was a direct attack on USA soil and the ones who played a role in anyway needed to be dealt with.
Suddam Hussein taunted the USA per the UN agreement and gave the impression he had WMD. It was time for someone to finally take action.

Suddam Hussein was given the opportunity to step down before the USA came in. He didn't step down, he choose to let this invasion take place.
I blame him.

I would like to see our soldiers leave as soon as they can as long as the Iraq people have a stable government in place. I don't feel we should
leave those people with an unstable government. I personally would like to see us be able to leave within the next year.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 12:40 am
TTH wrote:
I do agree with invading Iraq. 9/11 was a direct attack on USA soil and the ones who played a role in anyway needed to be dealt with.
Suddam Hussein taunted the USA per the UN agreement and gave the impression he had WMD. It was time for someone to finally take action.

Suddam Hussein was given the opportunity to step down before the USA came in. He didn't step down, he choose to let this invasion take place.
I blame him.

I would like to see our soldiers leave as soon as they can as long as the Iraq people have a stable government in place. I don't feel we should
leave those people with an unstable government. I personally would like to see us be able to leave within the next year.


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 for the umpteenth time. If we want to wait for a stable Iraqi government, we may wait another ten, twenty or fifty years. Saddam was effectively in check and was no threat to us except that he wanted to trade oil for euros.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 01:02 am
Well, since we don't agree, we might as well agree to disagree. That is one of the things I love about the USA-freedom of speech. It gives us the right to voice our opinion. I just hope for everyone's sake that we can withdraw soon.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 01:14 am
'American troops can leave "any time they want."

Do we laugh or cry.

Hey where's haliburton ?

I have to laugh. Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 01:31 am
I wonder if Bush will try to keep the mercenaries and even hire new ones to continue the occupation after the Republicans ace in and demand that the troops come home?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 01:37 am
I didn't think about that. I suppose we would have to assume that even when it's over, it aint over.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 07:10 am
TTH wrote:
I do agree with invading Iraq. 9/11 was a direct attack on USA soil and the ones who played a role in anyway needed to be dealt with.


Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

You know, it's all fine when you're around your buddies, and everybody just voices the same opinion - that Iraq had to be invaded because of the role it played in the terrorist attacks.

But if you state this opinion here (which you can do, of course... freedom of expression and all that), you should be prepared to be asked about what made you arrive at this conclusion.

Of course the most likely reason is that you were mislead by your government. All the statements that came from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice or Powell could indeed have you believe that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks. However, this is not true.

And even the few conservatives here on A2K who still hold a firm belief in the war will point out that the administration never actually lied about Iraq or about Saddam's role in 9/11, but rather that they relied on faulty intelligence or that Americans simply misunderstood what they said.


But let's have a look at the guys behind 9/11. These are the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks:

  • Mohamed Atta, Egyptian
  • Waleed al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
  • Wail al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
  • Abdulaziz al-Omari, Saudi Arabian
  • Satam al-Suqami, Saudi Arabian
  • Marwan al-Shehhi, from the United Arab Emirates
  • Fayez Banihammad, from the United Arab Emirates
  • Mohand al-Shehri, Saudi Arabian
  • Hamza al-Ghamdi, Saudi Arabian
  • Ahmed al-Ghamdi, Saudi Arabian
  • Hani Hanjour, Saudi Arabian
  • Khalid al-Mihdhar, Saudi Arabian
  • Majed Moqed, Saudi Arabian
  • Nawaf al-Hazmi, Saudi Arabian
  • Salem al-Hazmi, Saudi Arabian
  • Ziad Jarrah, Lebanese
  • Ahmed al-Haznawi, Saudi Arabian
  • Ahmed al-Nami, Saudi Arabian
  • Saeed al-Ghamdi, Saudi Arabian


As you can see, quite a large number of Saudi Arabians. And as you can see, quite a small number of Iraqis.

Of course you can say that it is your opinion that the United States were attacked by Iraq, that the right to freedom of speech allows you state that, and that you will just disagree with anyone who tells you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I guess that translates into something like a "right to remain ignorant". Which you do have, of course.

However, as I've only been guessing about your rationale so far, let me ask you here: what made you arrive at your conclusion that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 08:13 am
Re: Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.
Zippo wrote:
Quote:
Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.

By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer
15 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out...

yahoo news


"But..but, Mr al-Maliki what exactly is our oil doing under your sand, sir?" ~ Bush & Co

It's so easy to win arguments when you just make up motives for the opposition.

Give me one shred of evidence, or point to an existing post, that indicates we're they're for oil. I clearly remember your previous post on that topic and, upon examination, it contained no evidence of anything.

It's nothing more than your catch-all way to avoid having to actually argue your point.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 11:12 am
Re: Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.
Brandon9000 wrote:

It's so easy to win arguments when you just make up motives for the opposition.

Give me one shred of evidence, or point to an existing post, that indicates we're they're for oil. I clearly remember your previous post on that topic and, upon examination, it contained no evidence of anything.

It's nothing more than your catch-all way to avoid having to actually argue your point.


Its quite obvious to the Iraqi government officials.

Quote:
Fight for control: Iraq oil under pressure

Sunday July 15, 2007 From ( The Guardian )

"'We will lose control over Iraqi oil. Therefore, the social progress in Iraq will be curtailed substantially, because the oil companies want huge profits; they are not concerned about the environment, wages, or living conditions,' he warned. 'We will wait to see the reaction of the Iraqi people.'"

"Al Assadi said that Washington and London had put heavy pressure on the Iraqi government to persuade it to pass the new law. 'It's not logical for the US to come out empty-handed: they want their hands to be full of Iraqi oil,' he said. 'One of our criticisms is the way the law was proposed - under a veil of secrecy.'"

0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 11:22 am
TTH wrote:
Zippo
Hi there Very Happy

Hey, I asked a lot of soldiers in the area I live in if they thought it was time for the USA to leave and they ALL said NO, not yet. All these soldiers (men & women) have served in Iraq at least once if not more. I even met a soldier who said he was present when Suddam Hussein was found. He said it was tempting to just shot him but they all knew it was not the right thing to do.


Well, they are right. Nobody want's our troops removed right NOW, i'd want them to prepare for full withdrawal before December 25th, 2007, they'd be home for Christmas. Smile
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 11:31 am
Wow. I've always wondered who those people were who answered that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 in polls and such... now I know one of 'em.

(And at THIS stage of the game too... geez.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 08:37:12