Posted on 03/04/2006 3:05:04 PM PST by jmc1969
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin has called for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, saying it's the only solution after recent religious violence in that nation.
Harkin's comments place him among the first members of Congress to publicly state that the war in Iraq has become a fight between Muslim factions.
The criticism follows a CBS poll last week that showed 65 percent of respondents disapproved of President Bush's handling of the war, his worst marks since the war started three years ago.
A White House spokesman says retreat before victory would be reckless.
(Excerpt) Read more at woi-tv.com ...
The "resistance movement" was foreign organized. Without Al Qaeda's organization, the resistance would have been minimal.
So even though the war to remove Saddam is over, the war against Al Qaeda still rages on...and I remind you that fighting a shadowy terrorist organization is not like fighting a bunch of Germans and Japs wearing uniforms.
Well here we are 3 years after the war and the resistance is still killing GIs. Are you saying it was planned that way? That isn't a good plan in my book.
The War against Terrorism is a long War. Nobody promised it wouldn't be. The War against Saddam was a short one, as planned.
I believe you are confusing the two simultaneous wars we were fighting in Iraq. I believe that you are taking Cheney somewhat out of context.
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
The bottom line is that the war against Saddam was thought to be relatively short. The war against terror was thought to be long and drawn out.
As it happened, the level of foreign terrorist resistance in Iraq was higher than predicted. The level of Iraqi resistance of the 26 million people of Iraq was not.
Would you have preferred that we levelled entire cities like Dresden and Berlin were?
###
That's fine with me if that's what it takes to save American lives.
Would you have preferred we invaded Japan rather than drop the A bomb?
May we have some of the multiple duplicate posts starting around #69 removed?
We can do no more for the Iraqi people. We have removed Hussein's bloody talons from around their necks, trained their military as well as it can be trained, helped them to establish a constitution, and elect a democratic government.
No, Harkin is not right. You are almost right.
The remaining task is of course to complete the training of their military.
We've made great progress on that. We haven't completed that mission yet.
Total war - spanning the entire globe, British, Canadian, Australian, Russian allies supporting our decision vs. a highly conflicted invasion not supported even by most of Europe. A billion muslims that we should make an honest attempt to share the globe with, if they meet us halfway.
Levelling the cities may come in the future.
Quit spamming this thread.
I disagree with your assessment, but what's done is done.
My question now is how do we minimize further loss of our GIs? There is no way we should be taking casualties in these numbers this long after the war, but we can't just pull out either. Someone with a better military mind than mine has to have an answer. I wonder where he is and would this administration listen if he presented a plan.
One thing is sure, IMO, pulling out now would be worse than what we have now.
The biggest reason we can't pull out now and let them settle matters themselves, even if it meant civil war, is that others would quickly move in and settle it tier way, not our way or the Iraqi way. Insurgents are coming from all over now. Were we to leave even larger numbers would arrrive to fight for which ever segment they wanted to win.
Russia would be all over that.
The difference is we were fighting countries using uniformed soldiers in battle. Countries have a hierarchy that can surrender. That means the fighting stops.If it doesn't the hierarchy could lose their lives. So they have a vested interest in stopping hostilities.
In Iraq it is guerrilla warfare; with our side in uniform and the other in civvies.
No one can surrender the guerrillas because someone else can start up the fighting anew.
###
After the war a German or Jap resistance would have been in civies too. The Polish resistance was in civies an the Axis powers called them terrorists.
Your right about the religious fighting, but the administration should have expected that.
We do have a plan and it will be completed.
The Iraqi military will take full control and Al Qaeda will be removed from Iraq.
We've made great progress on both accounts. We will complete the plan.
That is impossible to do when your mindset is, "Islam is a religion of peace" and "We worship the same God."- tom
Your right about us not pulling out now.
If a civil war breaks out we are going to have to stay there, and protect our strongholds.
Size up the situation and decide to what extent to get involved in keeping outsiders out of the war, or keep a low profile,until sides want to stop fighting. - tom
Harkin calls others "chicken hawks"?
This is the POS who in 1992 lied about his service, claiming to be a Vietnam air combat veteran, and was later forced to admit that he had never seen combat.
What lying, crawling slime infests our Senate!
Thank you for the link. There seem to be fewer than I was lead to believe. I will look closer to verify but thank you for the information.
No time now but I plan to look at it more.
The below is interesting as well.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=255530
We can only hope these democrats keep bringing this crap up over and over until the people get tired of hearing them and tune them out for good.
OUCH!
Your idea of minimizing our casualities seems to be very different than mine. If this is the plan it's a damn $hitty one.
Yes very interesting. I posted the link they have earlier (to someone else I think) "The U.S. Army In The Occupation of Germany" is very interesting reading. I'd recomend reading the whole thing if you are any way interested in history. Plus having read it through makes it easier to find what you need when proving a point or countering a myth.
The liberals look at this poll and make the same mistake they always make.The poll might be accurate but it doesn't represent only the people who want to pull out of Iraq.The numbers also include a substantial group of people who want the president to take off the gloves and let the troops be more aggressive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.