To: SoldierMedic
I like it. We're still in Germany, Japan and South Korea. We will be in Iraq for a very long time. If a Democrat gets elected President, there will be a drawdown of troops but we will still keep a substantial force in Iraq in defined locations. That is a fact.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
2 posted on
11/26/2007 6:54:56 AM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: SoldierMedic
The AP is now raising this issue to stir the pot for the Dems. The war is going well, so the MSM has to divert attention from success and focus on this issue, knowing full well that the public would like to see us out of Iraq even those who want victory and the mission accomplished.
I agree that our long term presence is both desired and necessary given the strategic importance of the region and Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons. I am sure the Saudis and others in the Gulf would like us to stay as well.
5 posted on
11/26/2007 7:00:45 AM PST by
kabar
To: SoldierMedic; Allegra
...internal coups???...Who could they possibly mean? >8o)
7 posted on
11/26/2007 7:01:58 AM PST by
DGHoodini
(The Dems no longer have the humanity to grasp that there are things worth dying for.)
To: SoldierMedic
BAGHDAD - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday. Interesting. Iraq, the West Germany of the Middle East.
16 posted on
11/26/2007 7:14:13 AM PST by
Centurion2000
(False modesty is as great a sin as false pride.)
To: SoldierMedic
Works for me! Works for them.
24 posted on
11/26/2007 7:26:16 AM PST by
Redleg Duke
("All gave some, and some gave all!")
To: SoldierMedic
The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and American troops would relocate to bases outside the cities.
That sounds like a good deal and one that all parties will probably agree to.
27 posted on
11/26/2007 7:36:55 AM PST by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: SoldierMedic
From Oct. 24th, 2007 posting:
"Most heartening, [Major General Rick] Lynch said, was the checkpoint just across the road and over an irrigation canal. It was run by Shi'ites. Lynch said the checkpoints on opposite sides of the road highlighted a kind of reconciliation by necessity: not fighting each other but protecting themselves from a common enemy.
"They have to be convinced that we're not leaving. That's the issue. If they were to think we're leaving we'd have also sorts of trouble," Lynch said, clambering over a makeshift earthen bridge across the canal."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1915499/posts
29 posted on
11/26/2007 7:39:53 AM PST by
LZ_Bayonet
(There's Always Something.............And there's always something worse!)
To: SoldierMedic
In the third paragraph it states that "American troops would relocate to bases outside the cities"
Keep in mind that the Brits have already relocated outside of Basra.
This is not a new plan. Perhaps you have heard the Hillary campaign triangulating on troop levels in Iraq.
To: SoldierMedic
The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000. Great idea. And Iraq oil $$$ can pay for it.
To: SoldierMedic
Great way to bring on the new year. Awesome news..
33 posted on
11/26/2007 8:47:15 AM PST by
Fred
(The Democrat Party is the Nadir of Nilhilism)
To: SoldierMedic
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson