Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 14, 2007.
all right then!
I've felt this way for a long time
His government wouldn't last two weeks without us.
And look how swimmingly it's going with us!
Puppets aren't known for their longevity.
You are absolutely right! So, why are you supporting this mess?
New York Times
you are likely right. I have said several times on these forums, when the iraqi gov't (alll branches) tells us to go, then it's time to go.
Iraq doesn't need the US. ok
But that that misses the point. The US isn't in Iraq to help Iraqis, it is there to further other interests altogether...
I can't wait till they leave. Then we can all talk about... wait what will we talk about?
What happened to this statement?
Maliki asked us to leave, and suddenly you require all of Iraq to want us to leave before you think it's time to leave?
Are you suggesting that Iraqi politicians dictate US foreign policy and troop deployment? Seriously?
As has been said, the lie is now finally exposed for those who chose not to see it before. The US is not, and never has been, in Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
So nobody wants us there. Our people don't, their people don't, their gov doesn't. And yet, we're still there.
Didn't Bush just say something about leaving when they ask us to? Even though they've been asking us to go? I wonder what the new story will be.
I'm pretty sure all of this has simply been said out of frustration. The U.S. was the problem, and the U.S. is the only one who can provide the solution, but isn't providing it. The Iraqis are simply fed up, but I do believe that if the U.S. was to withdraw too suddenly, there's a good chance the situation in Iraq will deteriorate even more to the point of no return.
If the sectarian violence ended, Iraq could certainly rebuild on its own. No America telling it how it should run its new government.
The spread of democracy is ridiculous, IMO. Hussein was never a threat. The world is much more dangerous now that Iraq has been invaded. America needs to stop sticking their nose in other countries' business.
Did nobody even read the Times article concerning the foreign minister's opinion on a US pullout?
Then why in the hell are we still there?
To further other interests!
You attempt to generate controversy where there is none. The statements are in accord.
Are you suggesting the US has no obligation to follow the will of the lawfully and democratically elected government of Iraq? Seriously?
no, i'm left with the impression that you're trying to weasel your way out of an earlier-stated position. changed your mind? fine, just own up to it.
Please demonstrate the logical incompatability of the two statements.
About how quickly the Iranians, Turks and Al Qaida interests use the Iraqi territory to advance their own agendas. We stay and the situation might be bottled up just long enough for the Iraqi's to do something for themselves. If we leave then the front against radical Islam spreads to several other countries and we'll be back again somewhere else.
you said you'd support withdrawing once the iraqi gov't asks us to leave. yes? so when the PM says we're no longer wanted or needed, i'd have thought that would result in a mea culpa from you, not some pedantic argument about who the government actually is, or whatnot.
whatever. i'm not out to submit some kind of logical proof, only tell you that your new stance struck me as inconsistent w/ earlier statements.
In previous posts i stated that as long as the gov't (all of it - not just one branch) wants us to stay, then we should stay. A few days ago, the legislative branch voted the US to leave. I said we stay as long as the iraqi administration asks us to. A day two later Malaki asks us to leave, so okay I say leave. where's the problem?
you did? that's the bit i missed. sorry!