Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: txrangerette
He meant (and I think he was wrong even in this) that we should have transfered sovereignty to Iraqis almost immediately. IOW we would have still been there in full force, but once sovereignty is transfered we are not officially an "occupying force" (although try to 'splain that to al Jazeera or your average lefty).
116 posted on 02/19/2005 7:44:41 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: Stultis

Since our troops had just toppled the government, there was no one to transfer sovereignty to. A new government had to be created, which is what has been happening for the past year and a half. By the end of this year, a constitution will be written, the new government will be solidified, the Iraqi security forces will be much stronger and numerous, several thousand more terrorists will be dead and the rest will be too demoralized to fight anymore. Then, we can start to leave.
Would it have been great if there had been no insurgency, and power could have been transferred within the first year? Yes. But, we had to play the hand we were dealt.


118 posted on 02/19/2005 8:39:32 PM PST by Newtoidaho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

To: Stultis

Which Iraqis? There had to be a legitimate process. I thank you for clarifying his point. It concerned me that it's a severe criticism the Left would love, and at the same time, very nebulous and "iffy".


125 posted on 02/20/2005 3:42:05 AM PST by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson