Daily Telegraph: The American Army Withdraws from Iraq Next December

Al Mendhar ^ | 2005 May 4

[Wiz]

The Daily Telegraph, British newspaper, revealed a confidential document that have been distributed among high rank American military officials, which states that the American occupation army scheduled next December, as a date for handing the security responsibility to the Iraqi army and security units and withdrawal from Iraq.

In its issue, published today, Monday, the newspaper stated that it is the first time a date is specified for ending the control of the American forces over the rebellion in Iraq.

It explained that this suggestion shows that the American army would start in withdrawal from guarding and hence the gradual withdrawal from the country as a whole.

[SlowBoat407]

Along with the silliness (which is definitely needed), I'd like to offer this:

Diesonne, if you are still checking in, you seem to have fallen prey to a crowd that bitterly hates the United States but has nothing save tired rhetoric to offer. Your words are void of any fresh look at the situation, and instead have the stale stench of a moldy philosophy that seeks to tear down this nation's efforts to defend and protect not only itself, but others from the horror of tyrants such as Saddam Hussein.

Kitty thinks you smell funny.

[RushCrush]

[Grampa Dave]

Yep, when you play around with his sign in name, Diesonne, you get his real intent:

"Die, sonny"

Real nice sign in name for a public forum. "Die Sonny!"

[Darksheare]

"I hope this comes true and this Iraq mis-adventure can end (for U.S. at least). Think of the troops."

Aren't you special.

Think of the troops indeed, a variation of "Think of the CHIIIIllllDreeen!"
And, for your information, a good portion of FR is current military service, has family serving, prior service, or are joining up to serve.

OOps for you.
Run along now junior before you get hurt.

[Darksheare]

Wow.
11 whole posts to your name, and they all sound like the wording isn't quite natural for you.
Like leftist slogans are more natural for you, like your post 11 here in this thread.

[Darksheare]

I especially like his leftist talking point of Iraq Misadventure.

[Grampa Dave]

Yep, he is as cute as a baby rattlesnake.

[MikefromOhio]

I hope this comes true and this Iraq mis-adventure can end (for U.S. at least). Think of the troops.

Last time I checked, something around 95% of the troops didnt think it was a mis adventure. Don't be an idiot.

[Darksheare]

Yeah.
They're so adorable, especially when they spontaneously burst into flames screaming leftist drivel.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Think of the kittens.

[billbears]

I am the cautious long-term-planning rational type of guy who wants a transparent accountable government that guarantees individual freedoms and provides for rule of law and provides for fair and vigorous capatilist competition

Actually that's a fair assessment of what the government of this nation of states should be. Accountable, transparent, and not up to involving itself in the internal affairs of the separate and sovereign states. Or involving itself in 'spreading democracy'. I fully realize neither of the major parties respect that nor want it, but it was the intent of the Framers for our political system to become one big football game of namecalling of choosing sides. Unfortunately that intent has not survived.

America is a country of doers. We don't sit on our hands. That is how Iraq got into the shape it did. If America relied on "caution" as you put it, half the world would be speaking German.

Actually that's very doubtful but keep up the hyperbole. As for a 'country of doers' I would suggest you go back and read Washington and Adams on interfering with the affairs of other nation states and what it leads to. Until that failure President Wilson, this practice, while at times occurring, was not commonplace on such a large and regular scale.

God willing there are still some conservatives that will be around, long after the interventionists have been chased off, that may be able to salvage what is left of the Republic

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[katana]

Not sure where you get your information, but the Daily Telegraph is a British print broadsheet newspaper that was founded in 1855. It's been available on-line for about ten years and is a usually reliable source for information and news stories from a conservative (not necessarily Tory) point of view.

[Darksheare]

I hope it comes true and your troll misadventure comes to an end (for you at least).
Think of the Kittens.

[MeekOneGOP]

Real nice sign in name for a public forum. "Die Sonny!"

Yep!

bump!

[Allosaurs_r_us]

God willing there are still some conservatives that will be around, long after the interventionists have been chased off, that may be able to salvage what is left of the Republic

I suppose then we should sit on our hands and wait for the terrorists to come to us then. Hell that's a good idea! Let's sacrifice our own civilians in order to keep up your idea of the Republic. Better yet why don't we just join the EU. Then we can let them and the UN let us know how we should govern this country. I am positive they would just as soon have us stand idly by while they make their deals with our enemies. But of course if we didn't "meddle" in foreign affairs we would have no enemies, right, except perhaps the ACLU who thinks G-d is a four letter word. I suppose you are a supporter of that upstanding organization too!

If we turn our backs on world politics, the Republic as we know it will not survive. I am all for fighting these fanatics on their own soil. Without our intervention in some areas, the world would certainly shrink in around us.

I suppose you are also against allowing the people of Iraq their freedom. Do you seriously think they were going to get it by themselves? Suddenly Insane controlled every facet of their lives, making any kind of rebellion all but impossible. Do we not have a certain responsibility to help those who wish to fight for the same principals as we ourselves take for granted?

[billbears]

If we turn our backs on world politics, the Republic as we know it will not survive

Funny that. It seemed to survive for 120 years before we started becoming involved in European wars. Wonder how that was?

I am all for fighting these fanatics on their own soil. Without our intervention in some areas, the world would certainly shrink in around us.

Well considering it hasn't been tried long term since Wilson's worthless intervention, I can't very well see how you can make that argument

I suppose you are also against allowing the people of Iraq their freedom.

Your supposition is wrong. I don't care one way or the other. I may wish them well, even pray for their freedom, but it's not the business of the government of this nation of states to ensure their freedom. It's clear to see from your fallacious and emotionally based arguments that you have discounted all of Adam's speech. But to be a good Republican, I suppose that's required these days.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

It's clear to see from your fallacious and emotionally based arguments

 

What? Huh? Emotionally based? Fallacious? What exactly is false about my arguments? I don't believe I quoted any facts, therefore how can any of it be false? It is merely a philosophy. While philosophy can be based on facts, it in itself is not a fact, therefore could not be fallacious. While you seem to be able to use big words, the only one you impress is likely yourself.

 

I believe I can explain my philosophies best with a little piece another FReeper once sent me, when I believe we ran into another one of you typical "set on ours hands and do nothing" doves.

 

There are two kinds of people in this world. The sheep and the sheep dogs.

 

The sheep for the most part go thru life grazing in the pasture of life. Never getting involved even in the survival of the flock. If a wolf shows up, it is the survival of the fastest and the fittest. Even when one of their own is in danger they will look the other way. Never even raising the alarm to their fellow sheep. After all, if it does not effect their personal lives, why should they become involved?

 

Sheep dogs on the other hand, protect the sheep. They are ever vigilant, alert to any danger to the flock. They are more than willing to take on any enemy of the flock and will gladly lay their lives on the line to protect it. Even if it results in the loss of their own lives.

 

I prefer to be a protector of the sheep. It is quite apparent, you sir, are just part of the flock. So when the fascists come knocking on your door, look around and try to find the sheep dog that is surely lurking somewhere near by, to protect you and yours from the very real dangers that exist in today's world. Not only on our soil but throughout the globe.

 

Your statement that you could care less one way or the other, puts you into a group of people who by their own admission, care nothing for his fellow man. That, in my opinion, is cowardly. If we all were to take that philosophy what shape would you expect this world to be in? I guarantee you, terrorists don't share your attitude of complacency. But what the hey, it was only 3,000 of your fellow citizens that died on 9/11. There's plenty more where they came from, right?

 

How dare our government get involved in affairs that likely will result in decreasing threats, not only to America but also to others who do not have the means to protect themselves.

 

[billbears]

Your statement that you could care less one way or the other, puts you into a group of people who by their own admission, care nothing for his fellow man. That, in my opinion, is cowardly.

Sheep dogs and sheep. Wow, and wolves too. Sit down for a second there Aesop. This nation of states was not founded to be a sheep or a sheep dog but rather steer its own course.

Unfortunately for this nation of states in 1917 a worthless President got involved in affairs that were none of our business. Since then each President has taken it one step further down the path of condoning unjust wars to the point that we are now involved in pre-emptive police actions against nation states that did not represent a direct threat to the borders of this nation of states

I prefer to be a protector of the sheep. It is quite apparent, you sir, are just part of the flock. So when the fascists come knocking on your door, look around and try to find the sheep dog that is surely lurking somewhere near by...

LOL, I'm a sheep am I? Because I refuse to support pre-emptive police actions. Don't worry, anybody comes knocking at my door, I'm well protected. So I don't need a sheep dog's help to protect me and mine from any of your imagined terrorist threats. Of course I find the last part of your statement to be interesting

...to protect you and yours from the very real dangers that exist in today's world. Not only on our soil but throughout the globe

compared to this statement

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

or this one

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

Seems that men who led this nation of states in the past disagree with you as well....guess they were cowards too huh?

How dare our government get involved in affairs that likely will result in decreasing threats, not only to America but also to others who do not have the means to protect themselves.

Except of course that you can't find much of an argument for pre-emptive strikes or nation building before the latter half of the 20th century. Amazing this nation of states was able to survive all this time without relying on your 'wise' advice isn't it?