"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

quick... who said these quotes 2 months into war?

Wasn't that GWB himself when Clinton was in office?  I think it was Kosovo.  To coin a phrase so many of our "conservative" friends used when speaking of Kerry:

FLIP-FLOP ;)


I guess that was a little too obvious.

Kosovo was different though.  The UN backed us there.

Bush's new exit strategy:  We will leave when every Iraqi is dead.

Oh please.  We all know the insurgence is on its last legs, our Vice Pres told us so.  Ten, 12 years from now it will be over (Rumsfeld).  Doesn't that qualify as an exit strategy?

Here's a relavent quote from a new novel by Christopher Moore:

"He'd been playing Barbarian George's Big Crusade on the PlayStation at his friend Sam's house, and they'd just gotten into the infidel territory and killed thousands of the 'Rackies, but the game just didn't have any way to exit."

It had nothing to do with the plot of the novel, but i thought it was a great quote.

Here's a relavent quote from a new novel by Christopher Moore:

"He'd been playing Barbarian George's Big Crusade on the PlayStation at his friend Sam's house, and they'd just gotten into the infidel territory and killed thousands of the 'Rackies, but the game just didn't have any way to exit."

It had nothing to do with the plot of the novel, but i thought it was a great quote.


A very good analogy, since this is all a game to the neocons at Lil' Georgie's elbow.

Ummmmm... uno problemo.... even he doesn't know what his exit strategy is.....  ::)

The UN backed us there.


So?

So?


so the UN doesn't invade countries based on a personal vendetta

they don't go in to remain there indefinitely. 

they have support of other countries


I'd love a neocon to explain why it's ok for Bush to keep is in Iraq indefinitely with no clear goals, but why Kosovo should have a clear exit plan two months after the invasion.

I will start to care about "Exit Strategy", when sombody starts to worry about our "Exit Strategy" from Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

To me, this is nothing but political BS, it has *nothing* to do with the military mission.  There is nothing that disgusts me then when somebody uses our Servicemen (and women) as a political football.

I will start to care about "Exit Strategy", when sombody starts to worry about our "Exit Strategy" from Germany, Japan, and South Korea.


While there has been some out cry in recent years about the behavoir of GIs at some of the Japanese bases, these countries do not want us to leave.  They also reside in very strategic locations.  Do you seriousily think South Korea would welcome a full US withdrawal from the border? 

Compare and contrast that with the situation in Iraq.  While the location is certainly strategic, do you think the Iraqis want us there?  Those other countries aren't being occupied by America.  They host bases.  We're not just hosting bases in Iraq, we're policing it and dealing with attacks.

It's like comparing apples and oranges.

While there has been some out cry in recent years about the behavoir of GIs at some of the Japanese bases, these countries do not want us to leave.  They also reside in very strategic locations.  Do you seriousily think South Korea would welcome a full US withdrawal from the border? 

Compare and contrast that with the situation in Iraq.  While the location is certainly strategic, do you think the Iraqis want us there?  Those other countries aren't being occupied by America.  They host bases.  We're not just hosting bases in Iraq, we're policing it and dealing with attacks.

It's like comparing apples and oranges.


Well, considering that the vast majority of insurgents captured are not Iraqi but foreign nationals, I would say that they are being invaded by hostile powers.  And yes, for the most part we are very welcome by the common people there.

I live outside of an Army base, and have contact with them almost daily.  And a lot of them have already been "over there".  Overall the people of Iraq seem to appreciate having a government that they no longer have to fear.  The mass killings are over and the terror of a police state is gone.  Now if we have the fortitude to help them remove the foreign insurgents, they will really know peace.

And I have been in Japan.  I served there for over a year.  I myself have seen protests in the street demanding the withdrawl of US forces.  I have seen the same thing over the past 20 years in Germany and Korea.  I have yet to see anything like that from Iraq (with the exception of those led by Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and even he changes his mind on what he wants).

In fact, while Shi'i clerics are traditionally the most vocal against US policy, those in Iraq are curiously among the loudest in support of our actions there.  Add to that the Kurds, who for the first time in generations are not having to live in fear, and how can anybody possibly say that the people of Iraq do not want us there?

In fact, while Shi'i clerics are traditionally the most vocal against US policy, those in Iraq are curiously among the loudest in support of our actions there.  Add to that the Kurds, who for the first time in generations are not having to live in fear, and how can anybody possibly say that the people of Iraq do not want us there?


Do you seriousily think it's safe enough anywhere in Iraq for people to gather and protest?  Maybe that's why there's no protests against the US presence there.

Fact of the matter is, Bush and company stated before the war, that Iraq would not become a breeding ground for terrorists.  Now they say their plan all along was to lure the terrorists to Iraq.  Everytime the situation changes, they revise history.

Do you seriousily think it's safe enough anywhere in Iraq for people to gather and protest?  Maybe that's why there's no protests against the US presence there.


I see.  And that is not really Moqtada al-Sadr having his protests against the US Military being there?  I guess it is a very clever CGI or special effect.

There have been plenty of protests.  But they are almost always be extreemists (al-Sadr, former Ba'ath party Grand Poobahs, etc) and not by the "common people".  In fact, the biggest protests I have seen in recent months have been those protesting against the fanatics flooding in from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries and turning their country into a war zone.

You seem to think we are the bad guys here.  But while people from other countries are blowing up markets, Mosques, schools, and hotels you are silent.  Last time I checked, the US Military was not planting car bombs in front of civilian buildings, shooting elected officials, nor was it attacking police stations to take weapons.

In fact, the most well known insurgent in Iraq is Abu Musab Al Zarquai.  And last time I checked, he is not from Iraq at all.  However, Saddam did invite him in after the Al-Queda operative was wounded fighting against US forces in Afganistan.  If we are so hated, then why is it that the vast majority of those fighting us are not from Iraq?

I see a rising body count myself, but it is caused by the insurgents.  And if there is anything to be learned in the past 10-15 years, it is that you do not run away from things like that.  We did that in Somalia after "Blackhawk Down", and look what it has gotten us and the rest of the world.  Osama exporting his terrorism globally, and a continuing genocide in Somalia.

Instead of worring about why the US is not pulling out of Iraq fast enough to suit you, why not worry about something that really matters, like the genocide that is taking place all over Africa.

I do not like seeing our military fighting overseas.  But if they leave now, Iraq will more then likely descend into another Lebanon.  And people like Osama will set up their bases again, and we will be right back to where we were in 2000. 

Bush's new exit strategy:  We will leave when every Iraqi is dead.

But not before the last drop of oil has been pumped out of the ground.

I love how these Bush Administration apologists always drag in the post WWII occupations, but they never want to mention the direct analog to Iraq war: Vietnam.  We had to own up to the fact that a decisive military victory was impossible in Vietnam, but we didn't do this until we had been in it for over 10 years, had our government lie to us many times, and illegally killed millions of civilians with saturation bombing. 

And we are not the bad guys.  The Bush Administration and their idealogue neo-con advisors are among the bad guys, IMO.

Do you seriousily think it's safe enough anywhere in Iraq for people to gather and protest?  Maybe that's why there's no protests against the US presence there.


The more and more I thought about this statement the last day or so, the more it bothered me.  Finally, I realized why it bothered me so much.

In short, you are accusing the US Military of useing terror to "suppress" the people of Iraq.

Oh, you do not come out and say it, but that is the short simple version of what you just said.

OK, so why don't we just pull out right now.  Do you think that will make it safer in Iraq?  Do you think the terrorists will just pack up and go home?  Is Abu Musab Al Zarquai and Moqtada al-Sadr going to stop killing Iraqi officials and be happy with the way things are now?  Are Shi'ia, Suni, Christians, Jews, Kurds, Druuze, and all the other religious factions going to just live together peacefully?  Are the remnants of the Ba'ath party going to just disband itself?  I don't think so.

We got into this mess because the UN was to busy turning the misery of the people of Iraq into money for their own pocket.  As long as they had their little "Oil for Food" racket going, they were not going to let anything interfere with it.  To me, there is nothing more disgusting then watching people profit off the misery and suffering of others, or of watching people wring their hands and flaggelate themselves, but do nothing more then give it lipservice.

I find it interesting that whenever the topic of genocide comes up, there are people that try to stay as far away from it as they can.  As if pretending it does not exist will make it go away.  In Iraq, unless you were part of the Ba'ath party, you were not counted.  Shi'ia, Druze, Jewish, Christians, and most notably Kurds were treated horribly in Iraq.  If you think this can be denied, then I invite you to go over there and visit the mass graves.

I also invite you to visit Somalia, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and every other place where people have wanted the US out of.  Have any of these places gotten better after we left?  We left Somalia before the mission there was finished.  Has the war, famine, slaughter, and genocide ended there?  We stayed in Yugoslavia until the mission was accomplished.  I can't remember the last time I heard of attrocities commited in that country.

But obviously I have a hidden agenda.  I am a Conservative, a Christian, and a Republican.  Obviously, I could *not* care about human life.  I spent 10 years in the Marines because I like to see suffering, never mind that most of that suffering was my own.  I know that the "Intellectual Elite" consider the military to be mindless robots who only do what they are told because they are to stupid to know or do anything else.  So obviously they are commiting atrocities in the name of President Bush, and it is not their fault.

We got into this mess because the UN was to busy turning the misery of the people of Iraq into money for their own pocket.  As long as they had their little "Oil for Food" racket going, they were not going to let anything interfere with it.  To me, there is nothing more disgusting then watching people profit off the misery and suffering of others, or of watching people wring their hands and flaggelate themselves, but do nothing more then give it lipservice.


No, we got into this mess because the UN was not dumb enough to do it.  Big difference.  Waiting another year wouldn't have impacted the US one iota.  Not one.  Saddam wouldn't be any more or any less entrenched, he couldn't rebuild his army.  There wouldn't be a huge terrorist breeding ground with lots of US soldiers for targets.  The Bush administration is tied via it's supporters to the Oil for Food program, and the more it's investigated, the more they find.

The point of this thread wasn't whether we should be there, it was what are the milestones for withdrawal.  Well, it's time for the president to provide a status report about the progress towards stability (the first step for a withdrawal of forces).  It's required by Congress.

President Bush is facing a legal deadline to deliver what he has been most resistant to providing: a set of specific benchmarks for measuring progress toward military and political stability in Iraq.

Under a little-noticed provision of the defense spending bill passed by Congress in May, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld has until July 11 to send Capitol Hill a "comprehensive set of performance indicators and measures of stability and security" two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein

The information required is specific and detailed. It includes measures of the security environment, including the number of engagements per day, the count of trained Iraqi forces and more. It orders up indicators of economic activity. It directs Rumsfeld to provide -- either in public or in classified annexes -- an estimate of U.S. military forces needed in Iraq through the end of calendar 2006 and the criteria the administration will use to determine when it is safe to begin withdrawing forces.