British Chief of Army suggests pulling out of Iraq

[KrustyKidd]

Didn't say dumb. I think disorganized and hostile to one another in the extreme. In some case, out of touch because they are never out with the people anymore.

This is why I say I cannot see them meeting any benchmarks.

What penalty could possibly get them to stop? There is none. They will have to want to stop and right now they don't.

Yes. A sweeping generalization of a bunch of nuts. What name do you apply to them? I vehnemously used the term sand nigger to illustrate that you lump them into a catagory of people who cannot and will not be able to become conmon sensical humans who can coexist. i don't believe that but, you seem to think that eludes them all. What then is your term for this type of person who you feel comprises the bulk of Iraqi society?

I never thought it was about the oil and Bush taking it over. Just the same, I don't think he would have sent troops to Somalia, Sudan or wherever. Iraq has always been his main focus.

Neither country was in violation of fourteen UN resolutions, immediately adjacent to Saudi Arabia nor did they have enough oil to expedite a rapid recovery from decades of oppression.

Did the the UNSC authorize invasion?

Yes they did. The term 'any means necessary' has no restriction. BTW, after sixteen years, Iraq is no longer in violation of any UNSC resolutions - coincidence? I think not.

All thanks to an easy invasion.

I think the Democrats will begin pulling troops out of Iraq. What do they have to prove there. Nothing. It won't happen till they win the presidency though.

Why? Kerry ran on a platform of Bush just doig it all wrong. Never once did he say he was going to pull troops out. So, what has changed?

I watched the whole clip of Tony Snow. They were asking him on benchmarks, times, tactics and strategy. He was juggling so fast and then whack!

To tell the truth I have no idea of who this guy is but, a benchmark is a means of measurement. Not a trigger for action.

I think Iraq is at awar with itself. It is tribal which even they won't deny. It is religious. It is political. And it is a classic civil war. They might care about their people but unlike Canadians, they kill each other over it.

There is not a civil war. Possibly if certain groups can congeal but as of now, it is a lot of violence by just as you say - tribes and sects. Most of it in defensive measures against percieved actions of other tribes and sects that were instigated by insurgents. So, if the insurgents were taken out of the [icture, how fast do you think things would settle down?

I wish you'd resist using profanity or racial slurs. It doesn't help the conversation. Given what Greg said about incendiary language, I don't think it raises the level of debate. In fact, in some cases might risk seeing you banned. I've never used those words. I've never thought those words.

Then what is your term that you vocalize these violent people who cannot cope with democracy yet participate in it by? You obviously don't think they are capable of it so what term do you use and, I will abide by it providing it makes sense.

[jdobbin]

Yes. A sweeping generalization of a bunch of nuts. What name do you apply to them? I vehnemously used the term sand nigger to illustrate that you lump them into a catagory of people who cannot and will not be able to become conmon sensical humans who can coexist. i don't believe that but, you seem to think that eludes them all. What then is your term for this type of person who you feel comprises the bulk of Iraqi society?

Neither country was in violation of fourteen UN resolutions, immediately adjacent to Saudi Arabia nor did they have enough oil to expedite a rapid recovery from decades of oppression.

Yes they did. The term 'any means necessary' has no restriction. BTW, after sixteen years, Iraq is no longer in violation of any UNSC resolutions - coincidence? I think not.

All thanks to an easy invasion.

Why? Kerry ran on a platform of Bush just doig it all wrong. Never once did he say he was going to pull troops out. So, what has changed?

To tell the truth I have no idea of who this guy is but, a benchmark is a means of measurement. Not a trigger for action.

There is not a civil war. Possibly if certain groups can congeal but as of now, it is a lot of violence by just as you say - tribes and sects. Most of it in defensive measures against percieved actions of other tribes and sects that were instigated by insurgents. So, if the insurgents were taken out of the [icture, how fast do you think things would settle down?

Then what is your term that you vocalize these violent people who cannot cope with democracy yet participate in it by? You obviously don't think they are capable of it so what term do you use and, I will abide by it providing it makes sense.

Don't think I made a sweeping generalization. I said Iraqis haven't been able to curb the violence and don't seem to be serious enough in curbing it. And once again you use a racial slur that I have never used and wouldn't even think of. I wish you would stop.

You ask for what I call the Iraqis at this moment? I call them a country at the precipice. They are choosing sectarian violence over peace.

There is dispute about how 1441 was interpreted. If there hadn't been a dispute, Canada might have been involved in the war.

Even Iraqis are starting to call it a civil war. The war is not directed solely at the U.S. or the government anymore.

I think the Iraqis have been itching to settle scores much in the same way that they were settled in the former Yugoslavia. The only difference between the two countries is the former Yugoslavia was divided up. It might be no wonder that some Iraqis are thinking of a division in the country.

I won't be drawn into the name calling on Iraqis. I think to even the most casual observer it is apparent that there is a deep sectarian division there and people are willing to kill for it.

I don't think that the U.S. can make the Iraqi government meet any benchmark simply because they lack the power or the conviction to actually stop things.

[KrustyKidd]

Dobs, good post. I don't agree with everything but as i have to run will leave you with a kudos for being level headed with pretty much most of it with no major arguments.

[Riverwind]

I think the Iraqis have been itching to settle scores much in the same way that they were settled in the former Yugoslavia. The only difference between the two countries is the former Yugoslavia was divided up. It might be no wonder that some Iraqis are thinking of a division in the country.

Anyone who thinks that Iraq can be held together should look at Yugoslavia and explain why Iraq is any different.

[jdobbin]

Anyone who thinks that Iraq can be held together should look at Yugoslavia and explain why Iraq is any different.

There was a news conference on Wednesday that was devoted to Iraq that George Bush made.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419726/

The Washington Post is saying the word "benchmarks" have been used about the war earlier on.

Bush won't say what will happen if the benchmarks are not met saying it is "hypothetical." I don't know that that will be enough.