1
   

Our Troops Must Stay

 
 
Greyfan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2005 08:13 pm
A survey done by a British organization in Iraq recently found that 85% of the Iraqi people want the U. S. and its allies to leave.

I am sorry that I do not recall any details about the methodology or the organization, but the number, if true, is sobering.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2005 08:39 pm
We all know that internal enemies in most countries sometimes come to a temporary truce in order to drive out the foreign invaders.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 07:55 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901850.html

Quote:
RAMADI, Iraq, Nov. 29 -- Outside Ramadi's city auditorium, the mortar rounds fell, two, then three, each rattling the concrete walls slightly. Inside, locked in an intense debate about what it would take for American troops in Iraq to withdraw, none of the camouflaged Marines or robed Sunni Arab tribal leaders even flinched.

"We all want the withdrawal," Nasir Abdul Karim, leader of Anbar province's Albu Rahad tribe, told scores of the armed Marines and Sunni sheiks, clerical leaders and other elders at the gathering Monday in Ramadi, 60 miles west of Baghdad. "We all believe it is an illegitimate occupation, and it is a legitimate resistance."

"We're committed to withdrawing," responded Brig. Gen. James L. Williams of the 2nd Marine Division, "as soon as we have strong units" in the Iraqi army to replace U.S.-led forces. "I understand the resistance," Williams added, commenting later that he was referring to the peaceful opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq. "But you must understand we're military people. People who are shot at will shoot back."

The spirited exchange in Ramadi came at the largest meeting yet between those suspected of supporting the Iraqi insurgency and the U.S. forces battling them. The comments by the tribal leaders, and similar remarks to reporters Tuesday in Fallujah, 30 miles away, offered fresh evidence of how the debate in the United States about pulling out troops is also echoing through Iraq. President Bush is expected to address growing public sentiment for withdrawal in a speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis.

Nowhere is support for a U.S. military exit stronger than in Anbar province in western Iraq, heart of the Sunni insurgency, where fighters control whole communities along the Euphrates River, and where money and materiel flow in from neighboring Syria. Elsewhere in Iraq, many people who resent the U.S. presence say they fear factional struggles and upheaval if the U.S. troops leave too quickly. But in Anbar cities such as Ramadi and Fallujah, the calls for a pullout are enthusiastically applauded.

The people of Fallujah love Cindy Sheehan," declared Farouk Abd-Muhammed, a candidate for National Assembly in Dec. 15 elections, referring to the mother of a slain Marine who became a U.S. antiwar activist. He spoke Tuesday at a pre-election meeting of local leaders in Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad, scene of the largest U.S. offensive of the war in November 2004.

Abd-Muhammed described watching recent television reports with his family showing Americans waving banners that read "Stop the war in Iraq."

"I salute the American people because we know after watching them on satellite that they are ready to leave," Abd-Muhammed said.

"We know that there are now voices, even in the Congress, that want America to leave Iraq as soon as possible," said Fawzi Muhammed, an engineer who is the deputy chairman of Fallujah's reconstruction committee. "It makes us feel very happy and comfortable because it is the only solution to the problems in Iraq."

Unlike Fallujah -- seen now by some U.S. commanders as a model of cooperation between Sunni leaders and the military -- people in Ramadi appear to know comparatively little of the debate in the United States over the war. Fighting here, including insurgent bomb attacks, knocked out most of the provincial capital's communications to the outside world, and U.S. forces were able to restore a vital fiber-optics cable only this month.

But the distrust -- and the disconnect -- between the U.S. forces and the Iraqis here runs strong. Sunday, the day before the meeting, was the first "zero casualty" day the city had experienced in some time, Williams said.


I am not sure what to make of this. Just thought it was interesting.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:16 am
Greyfan wrote:
A survey done by a British organization in Iraq recently found that 85% of the Iraqi people want the U. S. and its allies to leave.

And the other 15% wanted the US and its allies to stay so it would be easier to kill them all.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:17 am
talk72000 wrote:
We all know that internal enemies in most countries sometimes come to a temporary truce in order to drive out the foreign invaders.


Hmmm. Is that an argument for staying until they are so sick of us that they unite against us, thus avoiding civil war?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:20 am
I have read that there is an old Arab saying: Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, all of us against you.

Joe, you are an irredeemably bad man . . . i greatly enjoy your wit . . .
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:25 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Greyfan wrote:
A survey done by a British organization in Iraq recently found that 85% of the Iraqi people want the U. S. and its allies to leave.

And the other 15% wanted the US and its allies to stay so it would be easier to kill them all.


Considering the extremely low mortality rate of US and coalition troops in Iraq, they are doing a poor job.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:31 am
I'm sure that is an unending source of consolation for the families of the 2,000 GIs they managed to bumble into killing . . .
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:32 am
McGentrix wrote:
Considering the extremely low mortality rate of US and coalition troops in Iraq, they are doing a poor job.

But they don't lack encouragement:

http://img.citypages.com/imagebank/articles/24_1182/24_1182a11417_m.jpg

"Bring 'em on!"
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:34 am
Setanta wrote:
I have read that there is an old Arab saying: Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, all of us against you.

Joe, you are an irredeemably bad man . . . i greatly enjoy your wit . . .

Right back atcha.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:39 am
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Considering the extremely low mortality rate of US and coalition troops in Iraq, they are doing a poor job.

But they don't lack encouragement:

http://img.citypages.com/imagebank/articles/24_1182/24_1182a11417_m.jpg

"Bring 'em on!"


That is a good picture.

I am sure there are people in the US that would rather have a president beg for mercy from the Islamic terrorists and say something like "Please don't attack us anymore!", but I prefer a president that doesn't back down in the face of adversity. I appreciate the fact that our troops have the full support of the administration and that they are not afraid to challenge the sick, demented terrorists hiding like the rats they are.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:41 am
If you had a trowell, you could not lay on the idiotic and hateful conservative rhetoric any more thickly, McG . . .

My hat would be off to you, but it takes so damned long to fix one of these up . . .
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:44 am
You prefer a president who blindly flails about attacking other countries to one who goes after the actual terrorists and then thoughtfully searches for a solution to a phenomenon called terrorism.

McG, I can't believe that you think that the only alternative to what this president has done is to "beg for mercy". How very narrow.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:57 am
"blindly flails about attacking other countries"?

There are no easy solutions to terrorism. It must be eradicated and being nice is not the answer.

I did not say that was the only alternantive, merely the one alluded to by so many.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:58 am
I just heard your President say that he will settle for nothing less than complete victory for freedom...over the evil terrorists.

He even alluded to WW2 victory over fascism and WW3? victory over communism. So WW4 is a fight to the death for Freedom over Evil.

Is Mr Bush completely mad? Does he expect anyone with an ounce of intelligence to actually believe this stuff?

How will we know when we have secured complete victory over evil?
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:58 am
A couple pages back, momma angel wanted to know what the troops thought. The troops have been coming home and because of what they saw in Iraq are finding themselves compelled to run for office on the Democratic ticket.

That should tell you something.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:00 am
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:
A couple pages back, momma angel wanted to know what the troops thought. The troops have been coming home and because of what they saw in Iraq are finding themselves compelled to run for office on the Democratic ticket.

That should tell you something.



The troops of a Democratic bent are coming home and running on the Democratic ticket.

The troops of a Republican bent are re-upping and staying in the service until the job is done.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:04 am
McGentrix wrote:
"blindly flails about attacking other countries"?

There are no easy solutions to terrorism. It must be eradicated and being nice is not the answer.


No, but neither is overreaction. If I bulldozed your neighbor's house because your kitchen had a roach problem, I think you'd probably see some room for improvement in my decision-making process.

Quote:
I did not say that was the only alternantive, merely the one alluded to by so many.


Nope, nobody has alluded to "begging for mercy" as a valid response to terrorism. The only people who bring it up are those who wish to construct a strawman they can attack in order to avoid acknowledging serious mistakes with far-reaching consequences that exacerbate the terrorism problem rather than do anything to reduce it.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:04 am
McGentrix wrote:
"blindly flails about attacking other countries"?

There are no easy solutions to terrorism. It must be eradicated and being nice is not the answer.

I did not say that was the only alternantive, merely the one alluded to by so many.


Terrorism cannot be eradicated.
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 01:10 pm
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:

Terrorism cannot be eradicated.


Especially since America is so good at it. I suggest we cease our terrorism of the world before we expect any improvement of the problem.
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 06:14:14