user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
The ballot should read->
Would the U.S. government pull its troops out of Iraq if the insurgents stopped attacking?
No. All that would do is remove one convenient excuse -- just as in the "War Rationale of the Week" that followed the debunking of the WMD excuse.
we leave when Funny Rummy & Chatty Cheney say we leave
Survey SAYS........!
They aren't going to take any chances with that oil. The U.S. is presently building four massive military installations in Iraq, that will cost the U.S. taxpayers several hundred billion dollars to complete. The U.S. may draw down, but we won't leave completely unless the Iraqis ask us to. The neo-cons in the White House think they can make it like post-war Germany, with U.S. bases sprinkled all over, for decades after the war.
If thing were peaceful in Iraq and the Iraq forces were strong enough to defend themselves against neighbouring countries
the US would pullout. What reason would there be to stay?
If the US forces leave Iraq will they have access to Iraqs oil? Who here thinks they won't?
"They" being America
If by a miracle the insurgency suddenly petered out, you can betcha they'd find *some* fallacious reason to stay.
Zig
Why do they want to stay?
Not if they all stopped *breathing*.
Hell no -- the Republicans love this war. They need it as a scare tactic so they can keep getting re-elected.
^Republicans love this war? Uhmm have you been reading the paper?
Some B&W don't read the news. They prefer to be told how to think!
First of all,'the insurgents are not going to stop," and secondly,"The U.S. Is there for the long haul and will not pull out." It's all about oil and power. We had no threat from Iraq when we invaded and still have no threat.
^ That's the trouble. Some of us read the news and think for ourselves. 
ClosetIguana: It seems they want a permanent power base in the area from which to commandeer future assaults. They've also made it abundantly clear they're prepared to protect that oil supply at any cost.
"What reason would there be to stay?"
We still don't know what reason there was to go.
"NEWSWEEK: Balad Air Base in Iraq Evidence That U.S. Planning to Stay For a Long Time.
Despite all the political debate in
Washington about a quick U.S. pullout from Iraq, the vast Balad Air Base, a
15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots
located 43 miles north of Baghdad, is hard evidence that the Pentagon is
planning to stay in Iraq for a long time-at least a decade or so, according
to military strategists.
With 27,500 landings and takeoffs a month, Balad is second only to
London's Heathrow Airport in traffic worldwide, Brig. Gen. Frank Gorenc,
the base commander, tells Newsweek Senior Editor Michael Hirsh in the
current issue. In an interview with Newsweek, Gorenc said he's
"normalizing" the giant Balad airfield, or gradually rebuilding it to U.S.
military specs. The Saddam- era concrete is considered too substandard for
the F-16s, C-130s and other aircraft that fly in and out so regularly they
crack the tarmac. "It's safe to say Balad will be here for a long time,"
says Gorenc.
The Balad Air Base is an image of what America's
long- term plans for Iraq look like. It's one of four "superbases" where
the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces.
There is ample evidence elsewhere of America's long-term plans. The new
$592 million U.S. embassy being built at the heart of Baghdad's
"international zone" is "massive ... the largest embassy to date," says
Maj. Gen. Chuck Williams, head of the State Department's Overseas Building
Operations office. In an interview with Newsweek, Williams called it the
"most ambitious project" his office has undertaken in its history.
Officials in both the executive branch and Congress say they are unaware of
any serious planning, or even talk inside the national -security
bureaucracy, about a full withdrawal."
Cranky
The US has bases in almost half the countries on the planet.
Do you consider theses countries occupied (as Iraq is presently occupied)?
Zig
The US could easies do those two things without having it's military stationed in Iraq. Remember the Gulf War Part I? Kuwait was attacked and they only reason why Bush Sr got other countries involved was because of politics. The US could have easily handled the entire operation (and did so for the most part).
^ Things are quite a bit different now than they were under Bush 41, ClosetIguana.
Back at the time of the Gulf War, strong-arming Saddam was all that was deemed to be be required by the powers-that-be.
Now it's a whole new ball game. A whole new Pax Americana in the making.
Zig
So you're saying America can't commandeer future assaults or protect that oil supply with the present gov. unless being positioned in Iraq?
No, but it would ensure a more expedient position for future forays into say, Iran and Syria.
So...if I'm following you...this war with Syria or Iran would have to happen before the next election (just in case). Or are the Democrats in on the Middle East over-throw theory? Just follow your theory through to the end.
Yes,if the insurgency was defeated next week monday we would be out of Iraq by monday evening.
I am pretty sure secret service/CIA/MI5/MI6/covert operations are responsible for all those IEDs, bombs and explosives that are killing so many civilians. Don't believe me? Then take a look at this true story about 2 British soldiers captured last year by Iraqi Police. They were dressed up to look like arab terrorists and they had in their car all the materials and equipment of a terrorist: Bombs, explosives, anti-tank rocket launcher, timers, triggers, etc. when the Basra police arrested them. They even shot and killed an Iraqi police officer!
Go to antiwar .com and look at article No 7366
(remove the spaces)
antiwar .com
/ justin/ ?articleid=7366
The "elites" want to keep this war going so they can keep stealing from the US Treasury and amass tens of billions of dollars in profits.
Human life is no longer important. Power, wealth and control is more important to these fear and war mongers.
'this war with Syria or Iran would have to happen before the next election (just in case).'
I'm almost certain some type of assault on Iran is planned before the next election; Syria may be farther down on the agenda.
I would hope that there would be a complete reshaping of policy under a future administration, but too often foreign policy and military intervention is decided well in advance by 'Think Tanks' such as the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, etc.
*L* classic paranoid conspiracy theorist.
"GO TO suchandsuch.com and see (insert any conspiracy website, they all fit the bill, I'm sure AntiwarDOTcom is a VERY reliable and unbiased source of information hahaahah)"
I am shocked that the respected news media completely missed out on British troops dressing up as terrorist to kill their own and others, I mean, thank GOD for the powerful ANTIWARdotCOM news team for getting in there and finding out that this HORRIBLE stuff is going on.
Honestly, I'm cracking up, it's hardly even worth arguing, it's so funny to read what you post here.
Zig
OK, by the next election if we don't see US troops transfering from Iraq to Iran (as your premiss states) then would admit this theory is a stretch at best?
CI: I don't expect we'll see a land invasion; perhaps an aerial assault?
What is this 'theory' you speak of?
It's fairly well documented that Iran is the next target in this administration's firing line.
an aerial assault can easily be done with an aircraft carrier.
Your "theory" is that the US doesn't want the military to leave Iraq so they could use it to 1 stage other attacks and 2 protect their oil interests.
...you've finetuned your theory to include Iran and Syria into the plan.
'you've finetuned your theory to include Iran and Syria into the plan.'
It's a possibility. In the case of Iran it's more of a probability. But no, I don't think we'll ever see a complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Plans for massive US 'enduring' bases have already been drawn up, and Halliburton has been awarded several no-bid multi-million dollar contracts to repair Iraq's oil infrastructure.
That speaks volumes.
Zig
As I mentioned to Cranky the US has military bases on half the planet. This doesn't quaify them as being occupied simply protected from their neighbors.
OK then, we shall see I guess.
If we see an aerial assault on Iran stationed out of Iraq before the next election I'll admit I was wrong.
Reading now doesn't it seem a bit far fetched?
I guess if your going to believe Bush orchestrated 9/11 then this is well within reason.
*you're
|
|
