Well, I think what Hippo is trying to say is that George W. Bush is absolutely right. That most Iraqis are freedom-loving, democracy-yearning, American-loving people, as opposed to those cowardly bastards influenced by fanatical religious commanders of private militias, infiltrated by Al Quaida and Iranian guerillas, etc. etc. Our only remaining hope of snatching victory from the daily slaughter of American troops and Iraqui civilians, is to remain in Iraq and keep our forces there until they are eligible for social security. When it suits the president's purpose, these enemies of democracy, these forces of evil, these "insurgents" threaten my very "homeland security". We have no choice other than to listen to the wise counsel of the "Decider in Chief". Hasn't his record earned the respect of the civilized world?

"... most Iraqis are freedom-loving, democracy-yearning, American-loving people..."

Damn, I wish that some of them would come over here. The immigrants we get from that interesting corner of the world seem to hit the ground running, eager to change our nation into one like the one they came from: hag-ridden by sharia law and other tribal traditions that made their places of origin the hell-holes that they are.

Quitting Iraq would mean more than just packing up and leaving:

'... The United States took a step in the right direction by attending the March Baghdad summit of Iraq's neighbors and speaking directly to Iran and Syria about Iraqi security. Now the United States and Britain should work with the United Nations or the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to call a six-plus-two meeting on the model of the generally successful December 2001 Bonn conference on Afghanistan. The Iraqi government, including the president and both vice presidents, would meet directly with the foreign ministers of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to discuss the ways regional actors could help end the war as the United States and Britain prepare to depart. Unlike the Baghdad summit, this conference would have to issue a formal set of plans and commitments. Recent Saudi consultations with Iranian leaders should be extended.

The Saudi government should then be invited to reprise the role it played in brokering an end to the Lebanese civil war at Taif in 1989, at which communal leaders hammered out a new national compact, which involved political power-sharing and demobilization of most militias. At Taif II, the elected provincial governors of Iraq and leaders of the major parliamentary blocs should be brought together. Along with the US and British ambassadors to Baghdad and representatives of the UN and the OIC, observers from Iraq's six neighbors should also be there.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has credibility with Iraq's Sunnis, especially now that he has denounced the US occupation as illegitimate. They could trust his representations, which would include Saudi development aid in places like Anbar province. Since the Sunnis are the main drivers of violence in Iraq, it is they who must be mollified, bribed, cajoled and threatened into a settlement. The Shiites will have to demobilize the Mahdi Army and Badr Organization as well, and Iran will have to commit to working with the Maliki government to make that happen. A UN peacekeeping force, perhaps with the OIC (where Malaysia recently proffered troops), would be part of the solution.

On the basis of a settlement at Taif II, the US military should then negotiate with provincial authorities a phased withdrawal from the Sunni Arab provinces. The Sunnis will have to understand that this departure is a double-edged sword, since if they continued their guerrilla war, the United States could not protect them from Kurdish or Shiite reprisals. Any UN or OIC presence would be for peacekeeping and could not be depended on for active peace-enforcing. The rewards from neighbors promised at Taif II should be granted in a phased fashion and made dependent on good-faith follow-through by Iraqi leaders...' How to Get Out of Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
Well, I think what Hippo is trying to say is that George W. Bush is absolutely right. That most Iraqis are freedom-loving, democracy-yearning, American-loving people, as opposed to those cowardly bastards influenced by fanatical religious commanders of private militias, infiltrated by Al Quaida and Iranian guerillas, etc. etc. Our only remaining hope of snatching victory from the daily slaughter of American troops and Iraqui civilians, is to remain in Iraq and keep our forces there until they are eligible for social security. When it suits the president's purpose, these enemies of democracy, these forces of evil, these "insurgents" threaten my very "homeland security". We have no choice other than to listen to the wise counsel of the "Decider in Chief". Hasn't his record earned the respect of the civilized world?

Hi Frank:

If you re-read my comments on this subject I don't think I mentioned George W.Bush ,except in my opening statement in which I said that you only have 2 more years to bash Bush.

I'll stand behind anything I ACTUALLY say,but don't try to tell others what you believe I say or think.

So all of the above statements are your conclusions,your words,not mine.

I'm a big boy,Frank,and I can speak for myself.

hippolips

[QUOTE]Originally posted by babthrower:
"... most Iraqis are freedom-loving, democracy-yearning, American-loving people..."

Hi Babs:

Just to set the record straight ,those words are Frank Van's ...not mine.

hippolips

quote:

Originally posted by hippolips:
Hi Gang:
I may be the only one on this site that believes that ...

when we finally do withdraw from Iraq,it will only be with a huge loss of American lives...

we're not going to be able to just walk away.

It's not going to be that easy,but let's just watch and see.

hippolips

Apparently. we'll save lives by remaining there??? Is that your solution, or the president's ? "Let's just watch and see." ?? How does that help??

What do you guys think about this.
What if we get the leaders that are fighting eachother together in Iraq and just have them draw lines. Split the country up equally. Give them
each a few billion dollars to rebuild, and then leave.
You think that would work?

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:

quote:

Originally posted by hippolips:
Hi Gang:
I may be the only one on this site that believes that ...

when we finally do withdraw from Iraq,it will only be with a huge loss of American lives...

we're not going to be able to just walk away.

It's not going to be that easy,but let's just watch and see.

hippolips

From Frank:

Apparently. we'll save lives by remaining there??? Is that your solution, or the president's ? "Let's just watch and see." ?? How does that help??

_________________________________________________________________________________

Hi Frank:

I don't have an answer...neither does anyone else.

I just spent 20 minutes listening to General Anthony Zinni and,while he has many good ideas,even he does not have a final answer.

He says we'll get out eventually ,but will remain in the the area,but he declined to define exactly what "remain in the area" means.[which countries.etc.]

I can't believe that ,with all of the bucks Halliburton has invested in the area,we will ever really leave.

hippolips

Does the President have an answer ?

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.
------------------------------

Kurt Campbell, a Clinton administration Pentagon official who heads the Center for a New American Security, said the difficulty in finding someone to take the job shows that Bush has exhausted his ability to sign up top people to help salvage a disastrous war. "Who's sitting on the bench?" he asked. "Who is there to turn to? And who would want to take the job?"

quote:

I think what hippo is trying to say, is that, as the number of our troops decrease during the withdrawal, so will our capability to defend those still waiting to leave...

Troops are being exposed to 'cheap shots' right now, as part of Bush's latest fiasco. It has involved sending them in relatively small numbers to man police stations around Baghdad.

'To get a sense of the inevitable disaster ahead, just envision the conditions for U.S. troops stuck in police stations around Baghdad when the summer temperatures rise to over 100 degrees and tempers turn just as hot. By then, too, Iraqi insurgents will have adjusted their tactics to take advantage of isolated American soldiers.

The U.S. death toll in and around Baghdad is already increasing though the “surge” is only partially complete. In the months ahead, as more U.S. troops are exposed in less protected positions, the likelihood is that the casualty rates will grow only worse.

As The New York Times reported on April 9, “For American troops, Baghdad has become a deadlier battleground as they have poured into the capital to confront Sunni and Shiite militias on their home streets. The rate of American deaths in the city over the first seven weeks of the security plan has nearly doubled from the previous period.”' consortiumnews.com

And this in aid of a plan that is "less a military strategy than a political device".

'The “surge” was a way to buy time for Bush’s legacy – to palm off inevitable defeat on his successor – even at the cost of many more American and Iraqi lives.'