U.S. plans to pull troops out of Iraq

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050803%2F0211474295.htm&ewp=ewp_news_0705troops_home

It's about time.

nice title

Your Full of Shit DooMer87

hmm well i tried to be creative.

I want to see one true news source give this news rather than two shitty news sources.

Fiend said:

I want to see one true news source give this news rather than two shitty news sources.

Reuters ok for you?
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-02T174306Z_01_SCH263694_RTRUKOC_0_IRAQ-WITHDRAWAL.xml


Patrick J. Buchanan?
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleidh12

Gen. George W. Casey, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq?
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1542

, astonishingly claims that security in Iraq has improved and that substantial U.S. troop withdrawals are possible by as early as next spring.

British Foreign secretary Jack Straw?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02515647.htm

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in comments published on Tuesday.

In an interview with Britain's Financial Times newspaper, Straw said it was crucial Iraq's draft constitution was ready by a mid-August deadline to pave the way for a troop withdrawal

of course there are elections in the US in 2006 aren't there? probably after the elections the withdrawal will cease to happen?

WTH would any domain structure be like cnn.netstape.cnn.com

Also, is something significant missing from this thread? I can't figure out what the ruckus is about.

Isn't it time to pull the troops out?
Is it worth over 36,000 dead and wounded US citizen's lives?
For what?
Saddam had WMD? He didn't
Saddam was involved in 9/11? he wasn't
Saddam was a bad man? he was, but the US gov put him there
Oil? Well we can all see how the price has rocketed
Please tell me what on earth is worth the lives of 1,800 (probably really 6,000 as Bush doesn't count anyone that died on the way to Germany hospitals or on the way home)
WMD? there is only one country that has used WMD in Iraq and that is America, Napalm, and Phosporus, probably tactical nukes in falujah ( the troops have removed meters of soil depth from sites in falujah)

Argh Fodders, stop taking the correct position and thereby hurting the credibility of said position.

You know that when the US pulls out, it's just going to spill its seamen all over the world anyway.

Danarchy said:

You know that when the US pulls out, it's just going to spill its seamen all over the world anyway.

thats scary.

because i was thinking along the same lines when i read the title haha

but seriously this is good news.

Hmmm... this is beginning to look credible.

fodders said:

WMD? there is only one country that has used WMD in Iraq and that is America, Napalm, and Phosporus, probably tactical nukes in falujah ( the troops have removed meters of soil depth from sites in falujah)

Depleted Uranium

fodders said:

Saddam was a bad man? he was, but the US gov put him there

I was pretty sure the US Government didn't instill him in power, he took that when he and his party took over the country from the sitting ruler and he was eventually placed in leadership. We did however fund him all throughout the 80s because he hated Iran too.

Nightmare Doom said:

Your Full of Shit DooMer87

It's You're Damnit! And...great...It is about time...

Comiclez said:

It's You're Damnit! And...great...It is about time...

I was referring to his label

Yeah, why would that change anything?

You Are, present and past tense can be shortened to You're

Your is ownership.

fodders said:

Saddam was a bad man? he was, but the US gov put him there

That doesn't mean he should still be there though. Britain, the US and other western nations have a moral obligation to tidy up the mess they've made in Iraq (and the wider middle east in general) over the past few decades.

Western countries have been making short sighted foreign policies to suit their petty national interests for far too long, which is the primary reason we are in this current situation.

We put Saddam in power, it was our brutal regime that slaughtered countless thousands of innocents, so it's our responsibility to restore the freedom that we took away from the Iraqi people.

DooMAD said:

... so it's our responsibility to restore the freedom that we took away from the Iraqi people.

By killing 100,000 innocents? Cool!

DooMAD said:
Western countries have been making short sighted foreign policies to suit their petty national interests for far too long, which is the primary reason we are in this current situation.

And you know well this invasion of Iraq is a direct and unaltered continuation of those policies; an expansion of said policies, to be exact. The US swept most of the rest of the UN aside, which was doing a good job at keeping Iraq quite harmless, to further mutilate Iraq and hold sway over a portion of the world brimming with oil, with false pretexts about Iraq being dangerous or being directly associated to the twin towers' incident.

If you accept personal responsibility for the actions of your state, you are accepting any condemnation associated with its actions. If things go well and the world remains relatively civilized, in the future your tax money will pay reparations and damages in Iraq.

myk said:

The US swept most of the rest of the UN aside, which was doing a good job at keeping Iraq quite harmless

Harmless to whom, exactly? Certainly not to the people who were beaten/tortured/raped/murdered/etc. Less people will suffer and die in Iraq now that they can govern their own country.

It's unfortunate that it took the completely unrelated events of 9/11 to bring about this action, even more so that there are suspicions of other motives such as oil, but it still needed to be done.

myk said:

in the future your tax money will pay reparations and damages in Iraq.

Sounds fine to me. The government have spent it on worse things in the past. If that's the price our governments pay for their short sighted policies, maybe they'll think twice in future (though I doubt it).

DooMAD said:

It's unfortunate that it took the completely unrelated events of 9/11 to bring about this action, even more so that there are suspicions of other motives such as oil, but it still needed to be done.

If 9/11 WAS engineered to be an excuse, Iran had better look out, and the people in the US who may be on the receiving end of the next 9/11 had too...

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons."

Not to mention of course that Iran (with a right-wing government that the US probably helped to gaining power), has started up it's nuclear programme again and refusing all attempts to stop it. (WMD's, UN resolutions and regime change anyone?)

And that the idea of Iran being the main oil transit route from Asia getting lots of support:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050805/325/foydt.html

Looks like the US is positioning it's pieces, ready to strike.


(and I expect to be saying "I told you so" in a few months or whenever the next 9/11 takes place and the US takes over the Iran section of the world's oil supply)

DooMAD said:
Harmless to whom, exactly?

You and me (i.e, the rest of the world.) And don't tell me the Bush administration went to the trouble of lying about something as serious as WMDs to help the poor Iraqui people against a cruel dictator; and it's not like they implied responsibility (of having helped Saddam in the past, or something) either. That is simply the only thing they found they could posiibly say as a justification then (not caring too much because the point was militarily securing the area.)

Certainly not to the people who were beaten/tortured/raped/murdered/etc. Less people will suffer and die in Iraq now that they can govern their own country.

Less people? There is constant strife in Iraq now. There is no guarantee that the US will leave because Iraq will be safer than ever, more like because of the political and economic costs to the US. The US set a "friendly" government in the Middle East once again; this time it brought in its own forces (currently apparently about to leave or be diminished) in addition to financing it, causing direct and explict damage itself (as opposed to working from the background and letting the natives kill each other.)

Also, the current definition of "democracy" being used by the US here is a system of corporate/media/military backed power which has been forcefully implanted in a foreign country with a different political culture by the US and US freindly faction interests. The vaule of voting as a validation is degraded hundredfold in relation to democratic activity in the "western world," which is already in question due to the heavy meddling of information and means from economic groups of power.

Democracy stems from the health and determination of a nation by choice of the people, and will not be sustained by a trampled, misled and himiliated people upon which it is supposely placed by another who displayed utterly undemocratic means to do so (keep in mind the nation which implanted the "democracy" said "fuck you" to the UN, the democratic house of the world, in sake of something false.)