US Will Stay In Iraq For Years

[spursfan101]

WASHINGTON - American officials say U.S. forces will be needed in Iraq long after a sovereign government is restored this summer, but they have yet to work out the terms of a continued presence.

The U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has also urged Italy and other countries to keep their troops in the country at least until December 2005, an Italian newspaper reported on Friday.
“To leave now would be a grave matter -- a sign of giving in to terrorism,” he said. “The coalition must remain united in order to stabilize Iraq.”

Over 30 countries have troops in Iraq as part of the 150,000-strong U.S.-led occupation force. Britain is the second largest contributor with 11,000 troops, while Italy has sent around 3,000. South Korea last week agreed to send 3,000 troops.

Senior Pentagon officials said Thursday they were confident that the Iraqis, once given political control, would agree U.S. troops should stay. [/size]But some outside the government question whether that would hold true once an elected Iraqi government took over.
 

[spursfan101]

And what exactly, is[/size] a war on terror?  I mean, how do we know when the war is actually over, or won for that matter?

Sorry for posing the question, I'm just ignorant. I guess it will be over when the WAR ON DRUGS [/size]is over.   :blink:  

[Ted]

I understand your concern. I think it's been pretty obvious that the U.S. would have boots on the ground in Iraq for a long time. We'll probably have a military base or two, and we'll be there in a stabilizing mode for a long time, but the scope of such a peacekeeping role needs to be better defined IMO. I also definitely think the UN should have a prominent role in the future of Iraq. In fact, I'd rather see the blue helmets in charge of peacekeeping after an Iraqi government is established.

As far as the war on terror goes . . . it seems to me that all along it's been clear that this is no two or three year campaign. That doesn't mean we have to be in actual military conflict for the next twenty years, but it does mean our intelligence and counter-terrorism efforts are going to be at a new level from now on. We'll never forget 9-11, but sometimes I think we may forget how bad it was, and how much worse it could be . . . terrorists could get their hands on a nuclear device, or they could drive a dirty bomb into downtown LA. Basically, get used to the war on terror; it's going to be around for a long time.

[Lurker]

And thanks to the war in Iraq many have conveniently forgotten our troops that are still "fighting terrorism" in Afghanistan.  Bush's entire economic stimulus is dependent upon the US having troops stationed around the world.

BRING THE BOYS HOME, GW!

[spursfan101]

Attacking Iraq against the war against terror, and tieing that in to 9-11 is blasphemous in my opinion. We were lied too. :angry:   Attacking Half-assistan was right and needed to be done.  Too bad we didn't stay to finish the job. Taliban is already coming back.

[SPURSX3]

I guess we could pull all of our troops back to home soil and see if the terrorists feel the war on terror is over to really know for sure.  yeah, let them regroup, plan, and carry out another attack on us so that we can declare "war on terror 2: back to the sand."  

yeah. thats the right thing to do... :blink:

I think we have avoided plenty of incidents becuase of hightenned security and the results of this war on terror, most of which go untold.  I saw something about a cia operation that stopped a "sleeper cell" (whatever the hell that is) in lax.  the case started in italy, following yet another TOP al qaeda operative - uh huh, they are al top al qaeda operatives it seems, they tracked him to mexico, and found that they were trying to produce weapons grade anthrax 60 miles south of the US border, they had acquired the services of a rogue russian scientist they thought had fallen off the face of the earth a decade before.  cia called in seals, seals spoke to the pres, pres auth them to nulify the situation, seals went in and cleaned shop.  they found a tape that showed a higher ranking alqaeda op in LA -the tape showed them surveying some sports arena, fbi took over and busted the dirty terror bastard...  all of this from a war on terror that has no boundaries, definition, or foreseeable outcome.  how do you expect there to be a set objective to this war when your enemy is invisible, multi ethnic, multi national??   :wacko:  :wacko:  :wacko:  

[SPURSX3]

And thanks to the war in Iraq many have conveniently forgotten our troops that are still "fighting terrorism" in Afghanistan.  Bush's entire economic stimulus is dependent upon the US having troops stationed around the world.

BRING THE BOYS HOME, GW!

the govt hasnt forgotten our troops in afghanistan, the media has and thats it.  our men and women in that country still pull operations daily, tracking down leads doing what they can.  its not over there either, it doesnt mean givew up, leave and let the vacuum of security to allow the taliban to regroup there.  then the lives already given there would have been in vain...

[Ted]

Yeah, I had lunch in a Mexican restaurant owned by the grand-nephew of a dirt farmer who lived ten miles from the anthrax site in Mexico, and now I'm a top Al Qaeda operative . . . just kidding.

101, I hope you didn't infer from my post that I think the war on Iraq is directly tied to 9-11. If you go back and read, I talked about Iraq and the War on Terror in two separate sections.

No, I don't think the war in Iraq is really making us safer from Osama. But I also don't think it's the worst or most useless thing we've ever done.

And as far as the war on terror goes: get used to it. It's a lot harder to orchestrate a major terrorist attack when you're always looking over your back. Thank heavens there are people out there with the marbles and commitment to match the fanaticism of terrorists. If we left it to some people, we'd be apologizing for our mere existence every day, begging for our lives to the people who hate our way of life, religious freedom, and liberty. Screw that!

[Ted]

Good point SpursX3. We haven't left Afghanistan, and it is a shame that the media (and in turn most of the US) has forgotten what has happened and is happening in Afgh.

In fact, I've heard rumors on NPR and the McLaughlin group that the U.S. is close to catching Osama. I listen to McLaughlin now, because he predicted the capture of Saddam within one week. I think he knows someone who knows something. Heck, they may already have Osama and are waiting till the later half of October to release the news.  Man that would piss of John Kerry so much.

[SPURSX3]

Ted, I think Osama can stay away from our troops as long as he keeps listenning to NPR.....i mean they report everything our boys do anyway right??  WHAT CHANCE DOES A DIRTY TOWEL TERRORIST HAVE?!

no, this war will not end as long as people with weapons hate us...and i dont buy into kissing thier @sses just to avoid conflict.

[Ted]

Yeah. That's the one thing I like about GW right now. He won't back down from people who'd like to have us dead. That's not to say I like a whole lot else.

I think the tax cut was too large, although I feel some form of a tax cut is always a boost to the economy. But I don't blame government for economic factors. I just don't believe they have that much control. If Clinton was such an economic genius, why did the stock market fall apart at the end of his term? It wasn't his fault.

There's a funny paradox in econo-politics today. We've got a Republican President and Congress spending like drunken sailors, and the Democrats (and some real Conservatives) are the ones complaining the loudest. If I weren't so opposed to hand-out government policies, I'd almost have to vote Democrat this year. Well, that and Kerry's slicker that Slick Willy. Where's Bill Bradley when I need him?

[spursfan101]

I guess the question to ask is:

Is the US better now that Bush has taken office? Really, ask yourself that question.  Let's talk about Bush.

Is He Honesty? Bill lied about a BJ under oath. GW's administration has lied about virtually every aspect of its policy (WMD, tax cuts, budget, ...) and has presided over a series of disasters such as the Iraq occupation (his dishonesty dragged us into war), economic stagnation(millions of jobs lost), a collapse of social services (faith based programs will solve everything?), and a letdown of environmental laws(call me a tree hugger, but this is important stuff here).

GW: What are you hiding?  This guy hides everything under the guise of national security.  This is the most secretive administration since Nixon's. Dick Cheney, wherever the hell he is, continues to stonewall on disclosing the details of his meetings in drafting the 2001 Bush-Cheney energy plan, even after a judge found in favor of the suit by the GAO.

Bush's own people are jumping ship.* Alan Greenspan, an extreme Bush partisan for the past three years, has broken with the administration by suggesting mandatory limits on tax cuts because of the unrestrained growth of the deficit.  Dare I say the persecution that Paul O'Neill took when he wrote his book saying the pres wanted to go to war before he even took office.  

Is the Patriot Act gone to far? What about the quantanamo bay and american detainees who are not charged with a crime, have no access to lawyers, and are being held indefinately under the guise of the Patriot Act?  Is this what are  founding fathers wanted?  

Religion  Why is the issue of gay marriage such an important topic for GW?  Whatever happened to the seperation of church and state?  As president, you need to put your personal beliefs aside some time.

Foriegn Policy  WHAT Foriegn policy? Villanize everybody who refused to take a stand with us?  A stand that half the American People deemed unecesary anyway?

Only 52% of people now think of Bush as "honest and trustworthy" according to a recent Washington Post poll. The administration has lied to us about everything else, why would I not think they lying about what's happening in Iraq, and may even be lying about why it went to war in the first place.  

I'm ready for a change in leadership.  ALAS, we are screwed either way.  Kerry is tied into his special interest cronies just as much as George Bush is.


 

[SPURSX3]

I guess the question to ask is:

Is the US better now that Bush has taken office? Really, ask yourself that question.  Let's talk about Bush.

Is He Honesty? Bill lied about a BJ under oath. GW's administration has lied about virtually every aspect of its policy (WMD, tax cuts, budget, ...) and has presided over a series of disasters such as the Iraq occupation (his dishonesty dragged us into war), economic stagnation(millions of jobs lost), a collapse of social services (faith based programs will solve everything?), and a letdown of environmental laws(call me a tree hugger, but this is important stuff here).

yeah, he also passed on Osama when he had the chance to kill him, i cant forgive that one, sorry sf101.  secondly it was during the clinton admin that all this huge companies cooked thier books and setup the stock scandals that damaged our economy, if bush is responsible i some way for our economy today, shouldnt bill be blamed for turning a bling eye?  or is he exempt from being "uninformed"??


GW: What are you hiding?  This guy hides everything under the guise of national security.  This is the most secretive administration since Nixon's. Dick Cheney, wherever the hell he is, continues to stonewall on disclosing the details of his meetings in drafting the 2001 Bush-Cheney energy plan, even after a judge found in favor of the suit by the GAO.  

I suppose the only thing billy did was lie about the lewinsky thing?  I suppose thier was no dealing and wheeling behind closed doors???  do you really think cheney will be ousted?  bill was impeached and still stayed in office. big deal.  and dont tell me the clintons didnt help thier friends out by getting them the insiode scoop and oipenning doors for them financially.

Bush's own people are jumping ship.* Alan Greenspan, an extreme Bush partisan for the past three years, has broken with the administration by suggesting mandatory limits on tax cuts because of the unrestrained growth of the deficit.  Dare I say the persecution that Paul O'Neill took when he wrote his book saying the pres wanted to go to war before he even took office.  

im sorry, who has left LATELY??  

Is the Patriot Act gone to far? What about the quantanamo bay and american detainees who are not charged with a crime, have no access to lawyers, and are being held indefinately under the guise of the Patriot Act?  Is this what are  founding fathers wanted?  

in short, screw the bastards at gitmo.  they didnt give two s#its about trying to kill us, i wont be giving them the pitty BS just becuase we are the "Civilized" country.  i would rather not be a sucker and NOT give them a chance at hurting us again.

Religion  Why is the issue of gay marriage such an important topic for GW?  Whatever happened to the seperation of church and state?  As president, you need to put your personal beliefs aside some time.

he leads by his own convictions, just as every Pres has before.  if the man is faithful, so be it.  I wouldnt allow us to show these extremists that we are bwoing to them in any way by all of sudden being more accomodating to thier culture, hell no, i would end up giving them the same reaction, letting them know that this is a judao-christian majority here and we are not afraid of them.

Foriegn Policy  WHAT Foriegn policy? Villanize everybody who refused to take a stand with us?  A stand that half the American People deemed unecesary anyway?

tough times call for tough measure, ask libya, pakistan, and iran  all may not like us but there attack stances against us have dropped significantly becuase of his policy.

Only 52% of people now think of Bush as "honest and trustworthy" according to a recent Washington Post poll. The administration has lied to us about everything else, why would I not think they lying about what's happening in Iraq, and may even be lying about why it went to war in the first place.  


I think those stats are scewed.  the liberals do not have a majority in this country and i would bet that the real numbers are much higher in favor of dubya, regardless if he lied or not.  it is his posisition on everything that people side with.

 

ahem......
 

[Ted]

I hear you 101. It seems like every election ( especially a second-term election for President) is a choice of the lesser of two evils. I have many of the same concerns you do; I think the difference between us is that I (probably due to my political leanings) don't always assume the worst.

I don't blame Bush for the economic downturn. I blame the Internet bubble and 9-11. Everything I'm studying about macroeconomics in MBA school right now tells me that although large deficits are serious business, they are not the economic apolcalypse that many make them out to be.

I don't assume that Bush lied about WMD. I assume he, and/or his intelligence people, screwed up on WMD. We weren't the only country who was wrong about WMD. AND I don't have a problem with him wanting Saddam out. Saddam is BAD, a killer, a rapist, a child-killer, torturer. If I were president, I'd want to do something about people like him, too. But I wouldn't lie about wanting him out; I'd just say it straight out.

I don't see Bush making a huge issue out of gay marriage, at least not for a Republican. You posted yourself that his reticence to really do anything is pissing off many of his supporters. Yet now he's making it a big deal? Anyway, if it's a big deal to a majority of the people, then the president should probably at least give it a few minutes thought, no?

Foreign policy isn't a total disaster right now, but it's not exactly peachy either. I hate alienating our allies. But I also detest the weakness displayed by many of our allies. The French may be weenies, cheese-eating surrender monkeys totally, diametrically opposed to everything Conservatives stand for, but they're still our allies. Burning bridges is never a good idea, even if you are twice as powerful as any other ally.
 

[Randy]

Religion Why is the issue of gay marriage such an important topic for GW? Whatever happened to the seperation of church and state? As president, you need to put your personal beliefs aside some time.

he leads by his own convictions, just as every Pres has before. if the man is faithful, so be it. I wouldnt allow us to show these extremists that we are bwoing to them in any way by all of sudden being more accomodating to thier culture, hell no, i would end up giving them the same reaction, letting them know that this is a judao-christian majority here and we are not afraid of them.

Umm, we aren't a democracy here, we are a republic.  The difference?  In a republic, the masses choose someone to make decisions based on what they feel is best -- not what the feel the people want.  

One thing that I am so amazed at is that most Americans believe that lying under oath is no big deal.  Perjury USED to be a HUGE deal -- now, it's no biggie.  Just a couple of points:  1)  Our court system is one place a person SHOULD be held to his word (you realize that Chris Webber got a stiffer penalty from the NBA than the President of the United States did for perjury?); 2) The President should be held to a higher level of integrity, not a lower one; 3) Umm, if he lied about something as stupid as a bj, hmm, wonder what else he would lie about?