Iraq NOT part of Terror War (Anymore)

[rwriter]

TWISI, the Iraq situation has changed, since about last August, in two ways:
1) Because no link to Anti-US terror groups prior to 9/11/01 have come anywhere close to being proved (and most have been dis-proved), I say that the Iraq situation is no longer part of the "War on Terror". It's a separate issue.
2) Clearly, since US forces have been the pre-eminent power in Iraq since April 03, it's not a war anymore.
It's an occupation, whether we call it one or not.
Surely that's what the Iraqis think now.

Where do we go from here on Iraq? I say hold elections ASAP, let whoever's not under suspcision of Saddam-era crimes run,
and who cares what happens after that -- it's their problem, not ours.

Thought?:cof:

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by rwriter
TWISI, the Iraq situation has changed, since about last August, in two ways:
1) Because no link to Anti-US terror groups prior to 9/11/01 have come anywhere close to being proved (and most have been dis-proved), I say that the Iraq situation is no longer part of the "War on Terror". It's a separate issue.
2) Clearly, since US forces have been the pre-eminent power in Iraq since April 03, it's not a war anymore.
It's an occupation, whether we call it one or not.
Surely that's what the Iraqis think now.

Where do we go from here on Iraq? I say hold elections ASAP, let whoever's not under suspcision of Saddam-era crimes run,
and who cares what happens after that -- it's their problem, not ours.

Thought?:cof:

I don't know if I agree with all of whatyou said, but I believe we should extricate ourselves from Iraq ASAP also.

We ought to stay in some form to continue to help rebuild their infrastructure(schools, hspitals, security forces), but we need them to hold elections and begin to take more control of running their country.

 

[Annie]

Interesting that is the one consistancy, the 'control' will be handed over 6/30, no wavering. Actually I think we shall soon hear the left argue that this is just stubborness on the administration's point.

They are not going to want the power turn over, they want to yell occupation as the uninformed are still doing. We shall see.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Interesting that is the one consistancy, the 'control' will be handed over 6/30, no wavering. Actually I think we shall soon hear the left argue that this is just stubborness on the administration's point.

They are not going to want the power turn over, they want to yell occupation as the uninformed are still doing. We shall see.

If the EU were to assume command, the left will want it turned over in a heartbeat.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by rwriter
TWISI, the Iraq situation has changed, since about last August, in two ways:
1) Because no link to Anti-US terror groups prior to 9/11/01 have come anywhere close to being proved (and most have been dis-proved), I say that the Iraq situation is no longer part of the "War on Terror". It's a separate issue.
2) Clearly, since US forces have been the pre-eminent power in Iraq since April 03, it's not a war anymore.
It's an occupation, whether we call it one or not.
Surely that's what the Iraqis think now.

Where do we go from here on Iraq? I say hold elections ASAP, let whoever's not under suspcision of Saddam-era crimes run,
and who cares what happens after that -- it's their problem, not ours.

Thought?:cof:

I am laughing at this dude!

Links have been proven over and over you just continue to ignore them.

We call it an occupation ourselves. We treat is as an occupation. So who is saying it is not an occupation? It will be an occupation until 30 June when we pass over rule of the country to the governing council.

Exactly. Do you watch the news? What do you think 30 June is all about??

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Interesting that is the one consistancy, the 'control' will be handed over 6/30, no wavering. Actually I think we shall soon hear the left argue that this is just stubborness on the administration's point.

They are not going to want the power turn over, they want to yell occupation as the uninformed are still doing. We shall see.

Not sure what you mean exactly but...

re: the June 30th takeover-

I actually sort of dread this day. Given the continued violence and instabilty, the recent Chalabi investigation, and assasinations of Council Leaders(can't remmebr if the recent one was a 1st or 2nd) Idon't see this going smoothly.

But it has to happen sometime, and I'm of the opinion that the sooner the better. I DO THINK that once governance is more under Iraqi control, Iraqis will feel more reassured and anti-US opinion will diminish.

What do you think?

 

[Annie]

EU doesn't want to take over, even if they did, they wouldn't be able so it's moot.

The dems are all about winning in November, which means Bush must fail, Kerry is NOT likable-he can't win under present circumstances, which is aying quite alot about his unlikability.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
EU doesn't want to take over, even if they did, they wouldn't be able so it's moot.

What are you talking about?

You ought to pay attention to what the EU and US are doing regarding Iraq.

1. They DO want to take over
2. They ARE working on an agreement.
3. THEY CAN

-IT isn't moot.

You like to disregard my statements with a wave of your hand, and thats fine--If you want to ignore reality.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NewGuy
What are you talking about?

You ought to pay attention to what the EU and US are doing regarding Iraq.

1. They DO want to take over
2. They ARE working on an agreement.
3. THEY CAN

-IT isn't moot.

You like to disregard my statements with a wave of your hand, and thats fine--If you want to ignore reality.

I was wondering if she isn't a bit tipsy this morning, I have had trouble understanding what she is talking about as well. Thanks for the clarification, lol.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Kathianne
The dems are all about winning in November, which means Bush must fail, Kerry is NOT likable-he can't win under present circumstances, which is aying quite alot about his unlikability.

I must be tipsy too, I understand this part:

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
I must be tipsy too, I understand this part:

I'm all about winning in November but not to the point that I hope things get worse in Iraq.

Your telling me the following makes sense?

"Kerry is NOT likable-he can't win under present circumstances, which is aying quite alot about his unlikability."


Pass the Pabst...

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I'm all about winning in November but not to the point that I hope things get worse in Iraq.

Your telling me the following makes sense?

"Kerry is NOT likable-he can't win under present circumstances, which is aying quite alot about his unlikability."


Pass the Pabst...

Take Jersey as an example. Kerry should have this state locked up, instead his numbers suck there.
The man has zero charisma, something Bubba had plenty of.

Unless something drastic happens to push him over the top, his chances of being elected are not as good as he would have you believe.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
Take Jersey as an example. Kerry should have this state locked up, instead his numbers suck there.
The man has zero charisma, something Bubba had plenty of.

See, know I now you're not drunk.
You got a point there.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by nycflasher
See, know I know you're not drunk.
You got a point ther.

Still wondering about you though!!

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Still wondering about you though!!

lol, my keyboard DOES have a bit of a drinking problem.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
I am laughing at this dude!

Links have been proven over and over you just continue to ignore them.

We call it an occupation ourselves. We treat is as an occupation. So who is saying it is not an occupation? It will be an occupation until 30 June when we pass over rule of the country to the governing council.

Exactly. Do you watch the news? What do you think 30 June is all about??

Iraq had links to terrorists, particularly palestinians, but not to 9/11 or Al Qaeda. The Hussein government and Al Qaeda were on opposite ends of the Islamic ideoligical spectrum.

There is no plan to turn over rule in Iraq to the governing council. A UN envoy is currently trying to put together a transition government to turn LIMITED authority over to. The role of that government will be to prepare Iraq for elections next year. Real authority will still rest with the occupation authority which plans to maintain 135,000 US troops in Iraq well into next year.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by nycflasher
"Kerry is NOT likable-he can't win under present circumstances, which is aying quite alot about his unlikability."

Okay, what is likeable about him? He has not been shown to have much integrity because, while this is getting old, he has flip-flopped on quite a few issues. He hasn't said what he will do in Iraq accept stay the course now, which what Bush has been saying all along. He said he'll do it differently, not only in Iraq but job creation, though he hasn't gone into specifics.

Kerry, however, is not an unlikeable person, but he isn't likeable. That's the problem. He isn't anything. He is bland and has the most nap inspiring drawl I've ever heard.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Iraq had links to terrorists, particularly palestinians, but not to 9/11 or Al Qaeda. The Hussein government and Al Qaeda were on opposite ends of the Islamic ideoligical spectrum.

There is no plan to turn over rule in Iraq to the governing council. A UN envoy is currently trying to put together a transition government to turn LIMITED authority over to. The role of that government will be to prepare Iraq for elections next year. Real authority will still rest with the occupation authority which plans to maintain 135,000 US troops in Iraq well into next year.

When did Bush say this was a war against the 9-11 gang? Never. He has said all along this is a War on Terrorism. No matter where the terrorist hide!

How can there be an occupation authority if we claim (as you previously stated) we are not occupying them? Make up your mind.

To remind you of what you said:

It's an occupation, whether we call it one or not.

We are handing over governmental control on the 30th of June. The military will continue to provide security under a separate "umbrella" while we continue to train and equip Iraqi's to protect themselves. We cannot turn the security over to them until they are ready and they can't hold elections until they have security in place. There is a time-table and a plan regardless of whether your or the democrats want to admit it.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Bern80

Kerry, however, is not an unlikeable person, but he isn't likeable. That's the problem. He isn't anything. He is bland and has the most nap inspiring drawl I've ever heard.

On this we are in agreement. I'm pretty sure democratic voters did not support him in the primaries because of his charm. Exit polls suggest that a plurality of dems felt that Kerry was the candidate who would be most likely to beat dubya in the general election.

I don't want to speak for all progressive voters, but for me, the ccandidate that best articulated a progressive agenda in the primary debates was Kucinich. But it is generally accepted that Kucinich could neither get the nomination or beat Bush so many progressives opted for the more moderate Kerry because the one thing that has united dems more than anything in this election is our desire to make Debya, like his daddy, a one term president.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
When did Bush say this was a war against the 9-11 gang? Never. He has said all along this is a War on Terrorism. No matter where the terrorist hide!

How can there be an occupation authority if we claim (as you previously stated) we are not occupying them? Make up your mind.

As I previously stated? I think you are smoking too much of that stuff. Of course it is a military occupation. I never said otherwise.

The Bush administration went to great lengths to tie Iraq to 9/11. From the now disproven meeting between M. Atta with Iraqi intelligence in the Czech Repubic to the war resolution passed by Congress which specifically invokes the 9/11 attack as a rational for war in Iraq. More importantly, Bush constantly linked to two issues in his speeches and statement, often in the same sentence.