digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at writeidea.org

Iraq Prime Minister Suggests Withdrawal for U.S. Troops

writeidea.org — Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, said yesterday that his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal Iraq is currently negotiating with America. "The goal is to end the presence (of foreign troops)," al-Maliki said.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 19592, on 07/08/2008, -1/+137If the Iraqi's want us to leave, we should definitely leave. They are a sovereign nation, we are not in charge of them. If we still stayed, that would justify the term "occupation".
    • drachemorder, on 07/08/2008, -7/+37Agreed. Our goal has always been to create a stable government in Iraq which is capable of supporting itself. It is, in the end, for that government to decide when it is stable enough to stand by itself. If they choose poorly and they aren't ready and they regret it later, well, that's not our fault. It's their right to ask us to leave whenever they decide they're ready.
      • siszam, on 07/08/2008, -14/+21The government was stable before we went in. The difference is, now the infrastructure is ruined, they hate us, thousands of soldiers are dead, tens of thousands are disabled, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead and America has record debt. Go USA!!
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/08/2008, -16/+12Wow, way to absolve yourself of responsibility for destroying a country then telling them "Good luck holding it together".
        Not our fault?
        Are you retarded?
        We broke it, we bought it.
        Even children understand something so simple.
        Iraq was stable and relatively prosperous for a nation under sanctions. We came in and disbanded the police and military and as a result of our actions much of the infrastructure is destroyed. Unemployment is at FORTY ***** PERCENT.
        Oh, but it's not our fault. You rightard extremists are despicable. You CHEERED for this war, and now you try to pussy out of your part in it.
        Let me guess, on top of being a right wing warmonger you are also too cowardly to enlist.
        ***** you, and the rest of you right wing scumbags who are now weaseling out of your responsibility.
      • txchica, on 07/09/2008, -6/+16@Crybaby, you are so sad, what is with this hatred of the right? You are truly pathetic in your attempt to make life seem bright and beautiful in Iraq before the invasion. Yeah, it was great if you were a Baathist, if you weren't (the majority of the population) then you could look at rape, torture or being murdered if you didn't go along with Saddam's rules. Great way to live..../s Second the infrastructure was broken long before we invaded, Saddam spent his money on all his huge mansions and statues depicting himself, instead of spending it on the electrical grid, roads, water etc.. The military and police force had to be disbanded due to corruption and those who would undermine the new govt. Unemployment is basically at the same rate it was pre-war, so don't use that to justify your rants. And stop with calling everyone who supported this war a "warmonger' and "cowards", you have absolutely no idea who served or didn't serve this country in the armed forces and it pisses me off when I see you saying that (BTW I served). So stop with the name calling and the cursing, it really just makes you appear juvenile. Make your point with facts, not assumption or ad hominem attacks.
      • vault, on 07/09/2008, -4/+19"The government was stable before we went in."

        Tell that to the Kurds. Oh wait, you can't because Saddam Hussein gassed and killed them.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1ha ha ha ha ha,

        good one.
      • solid12345, on 07/09/2008, -3/+11"Iraq was stable"

        Yeah under No-Fly Zone rules and Saddam's troops never dared set foot in Muqtada Al-Sadr or the Kurdish strongholds.

        Iraq has NEVER been stable since it's birth as a modern nation state, it has been an endless list of coups and uprisings.
      • macweirdo42, on 07/09/2008, -5/+3It was our bumbling incompetence that led us to invade Iraq with basically no follow-up plan to restore order or rebuild the infrastructure after we took out Saddam. After a certain point you have to accept that Iraq doesn't need our kind of "helping."
      • ElderBieler, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8Oh good heavens, Cryrightard got his ass handed to him.

        His own freakin' bio says he's 'the conscience for the right wing warmongers.' This guy is a crazy lib who spews garbage.

        Pay him no mind.
      • rpgmaker, on 07/09/2008, -4/+3They didn't ask you to come in either...

        I'm amazed of how many people on digg buy all the government *****, and they love to criticize Fox News but believe the same ***** that they fed you day after day. The priority of your government wasn't to make a sustainable government in Iraq, stop being a tool.
    • kemp34, on 07/08/2008, -6/+26Yes, as George W. Bush has said so often, we went to install democracy in Iraq. Unless he decides to change his rhetoric (which would not be a bit of a surprise) he needs to let the Iraqi people make the call. Given that the Iraqis will likely not be given a democratic choice on this issue, it puts another lie to the Bush regime in a long train of lies, deception and generalized fraud.
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/08/2008, -7/+14The problem is Bush thought "democracy" meant "Bush administration friendly", which of course it does not.
        He still wants democracy, as long as the democratic government does what Bush wants.
      • Demener, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Well Emperor Bush already "regrets his rhetoric" so I guess it's time for him to recant on what he said before. Again.
    • MrErr, on 07/08/2008, -8/+16They were a sovereign nation before we went in! So i don't think the what the Iraqi PM says will have much effect on this administration.
      • Naieve, on 07/09/2008, -5/+9A sovereign nation that used chemical weapons on civilians.

        Anyone here remember the last guy to gas his own citizens?
      • Demener, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Don't fool yourself, Saddam and Hitler aren't the only sadistic dictators we've seen since gassing was invented. Just the most recent and worst.
    • tufftugg, on 07/08/2008, -7/+19But, you are Occupiers.
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/08/2008, -11/+11The right wing warmongers still don't see it that way.
        They think you can raze Falluja and still be liberators.
      • Naieve, on 07/09/2008, -5/+4That is what happens when defeat a nation in a war.
      • Ortheos, on 07/09/2008, -4/+8Did you defeat Vietnam after occupying it for years?
      • Naieve, on 07/09/2008, -5/+7You do know Vietnam was divided into two nations, right Ortheos?

        If you look back at what the North Vietnamese said btw, we had won the war. South Vietnam stopped them cold once, and it was only after we took away the air support we hadn't allowed them to build, and the munitions which we supplied, that the Communist supplied North Vietnamese were able to win.

        When we took away 70 percent of South Vietnams munition suppliers the end was ordained.

        And no, I don't think the South Vietnamese Government was worthy of its name, just the lesser of two evils.
    • Visual77, on 07/09/2008, -5/+10I am against this occupation, but let's put this in perspective...

      When Bush takes action or says something you disagree with, many of those who are against his administration quickly jump up with the flag of "he doesn't speak for us all!"

      When the Iraqi PM says he would like to see American troops leave his country at a certain date, you immediately say "...the Iraqi's want us to leave..."

      Which is it? Can the head of state speak for all his people or is just a single man with the loudest voice?
      • freaktheclown, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8Except that the fact that it's Iraqis who keep attacking us. Clearly there is a very strong resistance amongst them that we should not be there.
      • ElderBieler, on 07/09/2008, -7/+4You're an ass-clown. Look it up retard. The majority of insurgents and those fighting and killing US troops are not Iraqi's. In fact only a minority are even AQ. The vast majority are Syrians, Iranians, even Egyptians.

        It's not local Iraqi's out fighting troops. In fact, a good chunk of insurgent deaths have been at the hands of Iraqi police and citizens in the last 6 months. The Iraqi people are even turning on insurgents.

        Class dismissed bizatch.
      • Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Look it up in your gut. Or ask Sean Hannity.
      • archiesteel, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"The vast majority are Syrians, Iranians, even Egyptians."

        I'm sure you have a valid source of information for this, right?

        The reality is that, up until recently, the majority of insurgents were Iraqis (mostly Sunnis, but some Sh'ia groups as well).
      • alexkreuz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Except that 71% of Iraqis want us to leave too.

        http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

        Yea I know its a liberal site. Its all I'm gonna give you, google the rest.
    • DyceFreak, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5This was on my iGoogle page literally directly next to this headline...

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si ...
      • vault, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5bit of a reality check for the Iraqi government.
    • Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5This isn't the first time they've asked.
      • nevpayne, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Agreed... they asked well over 4 years ago.
  • MadKennyP, on 07/08/2008, -2/+84President Bush: "We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave." (May 2007)

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20 ...
    • tobikow, on 07/09/2008, -1/+16Sometimes I wish we could count on the things our president says. Wouldn't that be an amazing concept?
    • Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Reminds me of this scene in the movie Gandhi.

      http://www.americanrhetoric.com/ videoclips/videomoviespeechgandhi3.wmv
    • Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -0/+11Lord Chelmsford: Forgive me, gentlemen, but you must understand that His Majesty's government and the British people repudiate both the massacre and the philosophy that prompted it. Now, what I would like to do is to come to some compromise over the new civil legis --

      Gandhi: If you will excuse me, Your Excellency, it is our view that matters have gone beyond legislation. We think it is time you recognized that you are masters in someone else's home. Despite the best intentions of the best of you, you must, in the nature of things, humiliate us to control us. General Dyer is but an extreme example of the principle. It is time you left.

      Kinnoch: With respect, Mr. Gandhi, without British administration, this country would be reduced to chaos.

      Gandhi: Mr. Kinnoch, I beg you to accept that there is no people on earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power.

      British Officer #1: Oh, my dear sir, India is British. We're hardly an alien power.

      Lord Chelmsford: Mr. Gandhi, even if His Majesty could wave all other considerations, he has a duty to the millions of his Muslim subjects who are a minority in this realm. And experience suggests that his troops and his administration are essential in order to secure the peace.

      Gandhi: All nations contain religious minorities. Like other countries, ours will have its problems. But they will be ours -- not yours.

      British Officer #2: How do you propose to make them yours? You don't think we're just going to walk out of India?

      Gandhi: Yes. In the end, you will walk out, because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350,000,000 Indians if those Indians refuse to cooperate. And that is what we intend to achieve: peaceful, nonviolent, non-cooperation -- till you, yourselves, see the wisdom of leaving, Your Excellency.
      • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4"Gandhi: Mr. Kinnoch, I beg you to accept that there is no people on earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power."

        That is a universal truth that has been ignored time and time again by American imperialism over the last 60 years.
  • kingnothing1, on 07/08/2008, -8/+47But wait, we need to provide security for BP and Exxon while they set up, then we'll leave.

    Hah, just kidding, we'll stay for a little longer, then we'll leave.

    Gotcha again! Haha, we'll be here for a while, so sit back down and relax.
    • Stevanoski, on 07/08/2008, -21/+3kingknownothing1, please try again tomorrow.
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/08/2008, -6/+12Aww, what's the matter rightard shill?
        The Bush administration will still be unethical tomorrow, why wait until then?

        I guess he struck a nerve.
        Must be his dead on description of lame and unethical right wing tactics.
      • fredmv, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4Stevanoski,

        You're really kind of a ***** retard.

        Regards,
        fredmv
      • ElderBieler, on 07/09/2008, -7/+2@cryrightardcry;

        your silly and hateful liberal crap is strewn all over this article and site. If you hate the extreme right for the principles stated then you are fully a hypocrite if not applied to your own left wing bleed hearts.

        go smoke it and pretend everybody loves us. In fact let's just drop the world pink pillow hearts and hope all is well!
    • slvrbullet87, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1***** BP, not american owned
  • ThirstyJon, on 07/08/2008, -13/+21I agree that the sooner we get out of Iraq the better, however I think any time line is only a goal and we should be very careful about that! I agree with General Petraeus that withdrawal should be based on goals more than time lines.
    • MrErr, on 07/08/2008, -4/+13How about making the goal that our troops come home?
    • Demener, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Logic... in politics? Are you insane?
    • alexkreuz, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0Its not Patraeus' call to make. Iraq is a sovereign country, isn't it?
    • truthspeaker, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0We already accomplished our goals - we overthrew Saddam. We would have dismantled his WMD programs if he'd had any, and we would have severed his ties to al Qaeda if he'd had any. With those gone, Iraq is no longer a threat to US security. We are only providing security there as a favor to the Iraqis. If they don't want us there, then we have no reason to be there.
  • 19592, on 07/08/2008, -11/+20I also think that if there is a timetable, it should not be public. That way the terrorists don't know how long to hold out.
    • MrErr, on 07/08/2008, -2/+10That can also be used as an argument to stay. "The terrorist are holding out, so lets wait". Besides the longer we stay the more the terrorist. We will not be able to wipe terrorism completely, we need to minimize the danger.
    • andersan, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7What ***** terrorists? The half a dozen that are in Iraq? There are more terrorists hiding in the US.
      • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3By terrorists he means Iraqi rebels. Al-Qaeda's busy causing less than 5% of the violence there.
      • Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4There is no Al Qaeda.
      • Pittance, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2"There is no Al Qaeda."

        There is no spoon.
        See? I can do it too.
      • alexkreuz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Ah yes, every insurgent is a terrorist.
  • Temlakos, on 07/08/2008, -2/+21If we can trust Nouri al-Maliki to know what's best for his country, and he says that maybe he can get a better handle on things if foreign troops are not present, then we should listen. And if he further says that our having a garrison there would hurt more than help, we should listen to that, too. About all I'd ask was permission to use a base if we needed one.
    • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1***** having a base there. GTFO period. America is a power mad little child that should lose its military privileges outside her own borders.
    • alexkreuz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0"permission to use a base if we needed one"

      You still don't get it do you?
  • PolishLogic, on 07/08/2008, -10/+25This isn't surprising, but it's great news. Considering the recent reports of 15 of the 18 benchmarks being met. Couple that with the fact that Iraq's 500,000 security force has been making great strides and is starting to be able to shoulder the load, and in many areas they are the sole providers of security now. It's been pretty clear that things are moving more quickly toward the beginning of extracting our troops from Iraq.

    They should reach a timetable agreement, and that agreement should be something that we never see, nor hear until after it has been 100% acted upon and over with. Scale back the troop levels in intervals, and make sure that the Iraq security forces are fine and dandy as you do so. Then be done with it.

    There are things that the media should be reporting to us, but the specific outlines of a timetable for a complete withdrawal (and the dates of those various withdrawals) aren't one of them.
    • 19592, on 07/08/2008, -4/+11Right on!
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/08/2008, -9/+7LOL
      Whatever you need to tell yourself to get by.
      Too bad the GAO report disagrees.

      That US embassy report has Bushie fingers in it, which is why it says the opposite of most reports.
      Notice that there are NO reports that agree with it.
      But that doesn't stop a rightard. They just take the ONE document that agrees with them and they shout it out.

      Let's compare the embassy report and the GAO report, shall we?
      • ElderBieler, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Shut the f up you liberal douche.

        I love how not one of your gay comments can't have "right wing," "neocon," or other calloused spitwad.

        Go hump your hippy friends.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I'd almost question whether or not you've got a bet riding on Iraq devolving into tribal warfare and utter chaos.

        So basically this means that the Iraqi government is simply lying it's ass off in order to get us out of there ASAP, and then they can let a complete internal meltdown of their country commence?

        Interesting theory.
    • TheInformer, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Remember: Harry Reid, Democratic leader in the Senate, has already declared that we've lost.
      • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2We lost the second we let these crooks invade a country for oil.
      • Demener, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1We lost the second we let these crooks rig an election.
  • ericjohnson0, on 07/08/2008, -14/+11Well this is actually good news. The media is going to avoid telling us the REST of the good news or that Saddam did indeed have a program to build nukes. But I'll take what I can get.

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/7/8/37828 ...
    • swrostmore, on 07/08/2008, -3/+12Yep, Saddam had a program to build nukes. In the late 80's. Which, as confirmed by the recent selling off of the last remnants of it (yellowcake) was destroyed before 1991 and never resumed.
      • Naieve, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Over 500 chemical warheads were found, he had dual use chemicals stored at artillery dumps, and he used chemical weapons to gas Kurdish civilians.

        You know, the other part of that WMD phrase.

        WMD was an excuse for the war, it wasn't the reason.

        And yes, Bush told you the reason over and over, it's just you decide to harp on this topic ignoring the rest of it because you like nice easy answers.

        Life is complicated, there is far more to the truth then you will ever admit.

        It would simply take you too long to even begin looking into it, so why not use a good reason.

        The USA simply does not have the will to defeat the culture which harbors and breeds terrorism. The job is too big, we don't want to do it, and Bush is a complete moron for thinking we did.

        See, nice, simple, and ACCURATE.
      • alexkreuz, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6Yes Saddam gassed the Kurds,
        In 1988, (not 2003) during the Iraq-Iran war.
        Courtesy of the US government.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_at ...

        Those silly Kurds were trying to ally with Iran (our evil enemy) against our homeboy Saddam.
        I though everyone knew this by now.
      • Naieve, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1So everything Saddam did before 2003 doesn't matter?

        So basically Saddam was just this great benevolent leader with a totally clean slate who we invaded?

        Sorry, I don't think its silly for the Kurds to ally with anyone. Historically they are one of the most abused peoples on the planet.

        Have you ever met a Kurd?

        Do you know their history?

        Saddam started wars, gassed civilians, had rape houses, disappeared hundreds of thousands of people, yet he gets a pass right?

        You don't care about any of that hey?

        No white people involved,so who cares huh?

        You probably think slavery was abolished.....
      • alexkreuz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5"So everything Saddam did before 2003 doesn't matter?"

        I'm not saying anything that Saddam did before 2003 doesn't matter to me, but if the USA truly felt like that they'd have punished him in 1991. We did invade Iraq in 1991 (after 1988 and the gassing), and didn't feel it was necessary at the time to punish him for the use of chemical weapons. So for me to believe that 12 year after 1991, in 2003, that all of a sudden we need to punish him for those crimes which we've previously ignored, is just silly. This has nothing to do with the punishment of the gassing. Its just a convenient political excuse.

        Not to mention that the #1 enabler of Saddam's crimes was the United States. I don't believe we're in a position of punishing Saddam for gassing the Kurds when the entire Iraq-Iran war happened by our coaxing. I think we'd have to punish ourselves first.
      • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"I think we'd have to punish ourselves first."
        Haha - that would require a level of maturity that this infantile nation hasn't seen in 60 years.
      • StarlessKnight, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"The USA simply does not have the will to defeat the culture which harbors and breeds terrorism."

        You're right, it would require more than bombing a country back to the Stone Age. That or a show of force so disgusting it would end up in history either just below, or above, that of the Holocaust.
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/08/2008, -8/+3And your support of the thoroughly debunked claim is that webcomic?

      LOL
      Sad little rightard shill.
  • Minarchian, on 07/08/2008, -16/+22Why would Bush want to leave Iraq now?

    He and his cronies are planning to attack Iran and wants to use Iraq as a base to do that with.
    • cheezintern, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7Yup, it's all part of his plan to stay in power, or at least sway the election for McOldman. I myself plan on taking to the mountains for a couple years before our stooge politicians approve a draft at Bush's request.
  • dave122, on 07/08/2008, -4/+33So lets see, we're losing money by the billions of dollars, the american people are more dissatisfied with the direction of the country than i can ever remember, and iraq doesn't want us there, so...... we're staying in iraq?
    • Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Yes. ***** you citizen, aren't you supposed to be watching TV?



      /s
  • RicardoWilliams, on 07/08/2008, -5/+19there's no way Bush will allow this at this point
  • WantToPlay, on 07/08/2008, -4/+22YES!!!! Bring our TROOPS home already........... my ex-boyfriend has been sent over there 3 times already.... Enough is enough..... Lets take care of whats going on in our own country for once!!!!!!
    • stienster, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4Here? In America? nothing wrong here. Nothing. Now let's just keep our voices down and relax. We're going to take a little ride and down at Central, we have people who can help you understand...
      • WantToPlay, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2lol... that's funny.... Thanks for the laugh....
    • look4alec, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2So that means that you are single? NICE
      • WantToPlay, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Well.... No sweetie, lol... He's my ex-boyfriend from 13 years ago. I've been married now for 11 years... Thanks for the smile...
    • fireburner23, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Since when do does our government care about what we do and how they treat us?
  • socialwebtools, on 07/08/2008, -4/+10I would LOVE for this to happen since my husband is a soldier........
    But on the flip side, you think it's a trick?? Might be a setup!! Hope not though.
    • mikelieman, on 07/08/2008, -2/+7How is the Iraqi Prime Minister speaking for the government a trick?

    • CryRightardCry, on 07/08/2008, -6/+6A trick?
      Are you ... wtf?
      Trick us into leaving them alone? A setup for peace?
      Trick us into....what exactly?

      • stienster, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2I think socialwebtools meant a journalistic propaganda machine kinda trick
      • tobikow, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Theres probably about as much democracy in Iraq as there is in the US, if you get my drift.
        Our government has a history of removing foreign governments and installing our own.
        heres a good book about it:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_(book)
      • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Hawaii, Cuba, Costa Rica, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

        America ***** Yeah. On matters as important as this, shouldn't the American people get a chance to vote?
  • swrostmore, on 07/08/2008, -2/+24He SUGGESTS withdrawal??? What he actually said was that there will be no Status of Forces agreement (which is what makes US presence legal) unless a timeline for withdrawal is included. That doesn't sound like a "suggestion" to me.

    According to Bush, the "suggestion" was actually a "transcription error" and Iraqi's aren't calling for withdrawal. Unfortunately their foreign minister is also repeating the demand.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9By suggestion we clearly mean, "Get the ***** out of our country."
      • fireburner23, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I'd laugh if he actually said that and they repeated it on the news.
    • Jeremyz0r, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I saw this news on Democracynow first.. suggesting?
      Is that a Fox headline?
    • fireburner23, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I've been wondering what would Iraq do if USA decided to stay there for some ***** reason?
      • swrostmore, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1same thing they've been doing for the past 5 years, probably?
      • alexkreuz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Turn the 500,000 strong that we trained against us?

        That'd be poetic wouldn't it?
  • OffPiste, on 07/08/2008, -27/+6Good!!! Let's send them all to Afghanistan and get UBL. We sure as hell don't want those baby killers back here in the States.

    Vote Obama-08
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/08/2008, -12/+11It's funny when ignorant rightards pretend to be ignorant lefties.

      Hey *****, liberals are smart enough to blame Bush for the war, not the troops.
      Can't find UBL? Did you check Crawford? He likes Bush ranch. Oh I forgot, that was in the old days, before the Bin Laden family was flown outside US jurisdiction so they wouldn't be questioned over that whole 9/11 unpleasantness.

      What's the matter? Finally feel bad for being such a coward and warmongering while you are too chicken to enlist?
      Yeah, I'd be ashamed too.
      • txchica, on 07/09/2008, -4/+12@cry, are you prior military? If not, then you have no basis for calling anyone out on enlisting or not. Love how you make it seem as if the Bush family and the Bin Ladens are bosom buds, when in reality then happen to both invest in the same groups, as did lots of other investors, so stop with the generalizations and left wing talking points. And the only one who should be ashamed is you for all the generalizations and personal attacks you make.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/09/2008, -5/+12"Liberals are smart enough to blame Bush for the war, not the troops" - That would be why we see so many liberals attacking the troops. The only troops that liberals support are ones that speak out against the war. And half of those aren't even real soldiers - they're fakes!
      • bbqsalad, on 07/09/2008, -15/+3A real one follows orders blindly and cant think for themselves right? ***** coward,
      • DreadPirate, on 07/09/2008, -4/+12@bbqsalad - can't dispute what I said, so you have to use a strawman argument to attack what I did not say? How pathetic.

        I was only commenting on the prevalence of "soldiers" like Jessie Macbeth in liberal events.
      • overridemymind, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11Jesus christ, bbqsalad -- yeah, we soldiers just blindly follow orders, all right. We can speak out and disobey orders all we like -- no consequences, right? We just choose not to speak out, right?

        See, we actually CAN think for ourselves -- however, failure to abide by a lawful order (IE - "Invade hostile country A and kill enemy B) results in jail-time or expulsion from the Army under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

        Now, before you call me a coward for fear of jail-time, bbq, would you abandon your family, leaving them without income (loss of pay / imprisonment) just so you can rise up and take a stand against an administration you disagree with? Luckily, for civilians, we have the 1st Amendment to protect them from such things. However, when a service member enlists for duty, they are waiving their constitutional rights and submitting to the laws and principles covered under the UCMJ. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to abandon my family and leave them with no income, over my stubborn self refusing to follow an order.
      • moolaismyfriend, on 07/09/2008, -10/+4DeadPirate another anti-American scum bag.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Ohh, look. Someone like the white trash moola out of his cage again. We're in for another round of logic-free insults and rants again.
      • archiesteel, on 07/09/2008, -9/+1"That would be why we see so many liberals attacking the troops."

        Actually, we don't see this at all. The vast majority of liberals blame Bush, not the troops. I imagine that some of those who attack the troops online are actually Republican provocateurs trying to push a negative image of liberals. You know, people like you.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Archiesteel - you liberals don't need much help. You are the ones who show signs like "We support troops that frag their superiors" at anti-war parades. You are the ones that throw such support behind Jessie Macbeth and his ilk.

        And then there are examples like this - http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/01/the-return-of ... Bomb threats against a Gathering of Eagles parade from a *confirmed and admitted* member of Iraq Veterans Against War. Hard for someone like that to be a provocateur.

        So you can "imagine" whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true.
      • archiesteel, on 07/09/2008, -8/+1Because one or two people go over the line (when they aren't agent provocateurs) doesn't mean that the idea is widespread. I mean, I don't expect everyone who supports the war in Iraq to believe the ME should be turned into a "glass parking lot", even I've very often read that coming from your side.

        In any case, it would be very possible that the man *is* a provocateur - just a well-established one.

        By the way, quoting anything from Michelle Malkin is a sure sign you're out of arguments. The woman is simply insane.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8"In any case, it would be very possible that the man *is* a provocateur - just a well-established one." Have you gone to a doctor about this persecution complex?

        And as far as Malkin goes, I did not agree with her crusade against Dunkin Donuts or any of that nonsense. However, she has also spent considerable time documenting the insanity that comes from your side. And in total it amounts to quite a bit more then a few people talking about turning the ME into a glass parking lot.

      • archiesteel, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1I disagree: the insanity is on your side - as well as the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

        Enjoy your freeper-induced bump in positive diggs.

        PS if you think provocateurs don't exist, then you're even more naive than you sound.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few provocateurs on either side, but blaming every incident on them is rather unlikely.

        For more examples of the number of anti-troop hardcases on the liberal side, just take a wander through the zombietime galleries at http://zombietime.com/. Excluding the anti-abortion nutcases you rarely see anything even close to those protests from conservatives.

    • moolaismyfriend, on 07/09/2008, -9/+3Hey its the antiAmerican troop hating coward OffPiste
      • erasedgod, on 07/09/2008, -7/+1I don't think you realize how correct you are.
      • erasedgod, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Yeah, bury me for saying someone is correct for calling OffPiste an antiAmerican, troop-hating, coward.

        I suppose this is where one would teach a class on how commas, or a lack thereof, can change the meaning of a sentence.
    • StarlessKnight, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8If (Iraq == secure) { MOVE Iraq:Troops Afghan:Troops }
      If (Afghan == secure) { MOVE Afghan:Troops Home: }

      Might need a little troop balance prior to the move to Afghan; deploy with the intent of providing down time for weary soliders.
      • alexkreuz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0It looks like you've got a syntax error.

        It should be MOVE Afghan:Troops Home:Troops
  • stienster, on 07/09/2008, -9/+14there are some VERY scary comments here. After all the exposure of pentagon propaganda that favored war in Iraq, and after all the exposure of the lies that were fielded to instigate the American Occupation of Iraq, how is possible that so many postings are still following along in the "official" Iraq aggression campaign? HOW IS IT POSSIBLE??!!
    • ericjohnson0, on 07/09/2008, -11/+4Because plenty of people think for themsleves. We don't let HuffPo of DailyKos tells us how to think- we do our own research.
      • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1Wait, this is Digg. Huffingtonpost is Digg's god and only source of news for the election.
      • erasedgod, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Wait, isn't your own research the one you keep posting that uses Saddam's 1980's nuclear research as justification for the 2003 invasion?
    • kharlowe, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Parsimony--simplest explanation is the best.
      Stupid works for me.
  • Erich100, on 07/09/2008, -8/+8We will leave Iraq under the guise of accommodating the wishes of the Iraqi government.
    Just in time to attack Iran. We don't have the troops to fight both at the same time.
    I simply can't believe less war is on the agenda.
  • btschul, on 07/09/2008, -9/+15Fox news has released a statement "Don't listen to him, he's just an ignorant raghead. The Iraqi people want us there, and we will stay the course. There is still tons of oil*cough* I mean problems there that need to be fixed, so we will be staying."
  • alexkreuz, on 07/09/2008, -4/+22The prime minister has been compromised by terrorists.
    Its time for new Iraqi elections, with equipment donated by Diebold.
  • Ortheos, on 07/09/2008, -6/+10The land of the free will not stop the occupation of Iraq. The land of the free will not grant freedom to the Iraqi's. You only have the right to be free in the land of the free, anywhere else you have the right to be occupied and told what to do, in order to serve economic interests for the land of the free.

    The land of the free stinks, the stench becomes more putrid every day.

  • LinuxChild, on 07/09/2008, -3/+11Who cares if the prime minister of Iraq wants the US out. When in fact the people of Iraq have been asking the US to leave for years now. What is it going to take for this war to end? Every prime minister, president, king, queen, could ask this of the US and those war hungry greedy pricks that make up the US government will still ignore the request. Face it people, y'all are a bunch of pussies for not impeaching this monkey (and putting the whole administration in prison) and ending the war years ago, when y'all knew it was wrong to even go there in the first place.
    • Pittance, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Because every individual has the ability to impeach the president. There are/were articles in congress for impeachment. Its not all our fault that our elected representatives are backstabbing, on-the-pay cowards. We will just have to try to remove them next time around.
      • fireburner23, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1It just means we need to "change the diaper".
  • solid12345, on 07/09/2008, -10/+5If the Iraqi Arabs would get their ***** together and stop butchering each other in the streets we could leave.

    The Kurds are not killing each other and are working and living peacefully and because of that we have little to no troops in their territory. Why is it they can function yet the Arabs cannot?
    • darkhero, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9It is the same thing that is happening in Somalia. There is no fighting in the northern area called Somaliland. But there is fighting in the southern part. I don't think it has anything to do with race.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Welcome to Iraq 101.

      It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with religion and politics. The Sunni Baathists controlled Iraq for decades and oppressed the Shia. The Shia, however, are the majority and are allying themselves with Iran. Any democracy would marginalize the Sunni minority and the Kurds, but the Kurds lack any historical angst in this triangle.

      More importantly, Kurdistan is homogenous and predominantly Kurd while the rest of Iraq, up until the massive ethnic cleansing that occurred displacing millions of Iraqis, is heterogenous consisting of multi-ethnic enclaves battling each other in the streets.

      Since Kurdistan is only one ethnicity and one religion in an area about the size of Los Angeles county, there is very little to fight for and it quickly moved to consolidate its oil wealth and is "secretly" selling drilling rights to foreign investors. No one else likes this, except for the Americans -- but the US has all of the firepower it needs to keep the Sunni and Shia from complaining.

      So now Kurdistan is run as a micronation within the borders of Iraq. But don't get deluded into thinking that since Kurdistan isn't in the midst of a civil war it is peaceful. Kurdistan is a "terrorist" hideout for rebel groups who have attacked Turkey and, with training from United States military officers, Iran.

      So, no, there is no civil war within Iraqi Kurdistan because it is a predominantly homogenous Kurdish region with no ethnic angst against the Shia. But there is conflict in that region as anyone who has watched the news would know. There is a civil war in the rest of the nation because two ethnic groups and multiple religious histories are in conflict in the postscript of a Sunni Baathist country.

      Imagine if Jews outnumbered the Aryans in postbellum Germany and Gypsies had 5,000 square kilometers of the richest land in the country and you get some perspective.

      But this is all moot. With only 2 minutes a week per television station covering Iraq, you wouldn't know anything going on anyway.
      • Viend, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Actually, sectarian violence was nowhere near the scale it is at today when Iraq was under Saddam.

        The civil war they are fighting is part of the plan - Divide and Conquer.
    • neozeed, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1It's their civil war we are in the middle of, why are we trying to play police?

      Just keep them away from BP's oil fields, and let them have at it.
  • nickrollout, on 07/09/2008, -7/+4Well its good to see Obama has it straight, leave Iraq immediately errrr.... I mean leave if certain benchmarks are met as he stated in South Dakota, uhh... wait people are against that, I meant to say leave immediately. I guess that's what Obama meant by change.

    I have been waiting for this story to show up on the front page. Where is it?
    • TheInformer, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2If it were Obama saying we should leave, then it's on the front page.
      If it is the elected Iraqi leader saying this, no front page.

      Tha tha tha tha that's Digg, folks.
    • StarlessKnight, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Why don't you wait until Obama's in office in order for him to receive the intelligence that, obviously, no one but the President has that makes him so adament about "staying the course?"
  • ferrisnox, on 07/09/2008, -4/+7They have been at war for millenia, and as soon as we leave or anything changes they will go back to war. You cannot spread freedom/democracy in some places that have bigger issues. It was just a dumb naive distraction to begin with.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2That minimalizes the insanity we created there. They were oppressed for decades, they were tense for centuries, and for 8 years they have been in absolute hell.
    • Hangly, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Uh, no they haven't been at war for a millennia. Unless a millennia in your dimension equals about 60 earth years.
    • StarlessKnight, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1You cannot force democracy on people, the people have to want democracy. They have to be ready for democracy. For that matter democracy presumes it is the ideal form of government for all cultures and places and that may not be true.
    • alexkreuz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0How can you have freedom without choosing it?
      Its mind boggling and makes no sense.
  • poidh, on 07/09/2008, -9/+3Are they going to pay the Americans for getting rid of the murderous dictator Saddam Hussein? No? Then who cares what they say or think.
    • EffZee, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6So I guess terrorists in countries the American government occupies shouldn't care what you think about terrorizing the American public because you don't pay for killing their relatives and neighbors. Your logic is flawless. You should run for the president of everything.
      • Pittance, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Haha. Dugg for "president of everything".
  • dizilbdog, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6Ha yeah sorry Bush and his cronies listen to know one here in the United States what makes you think Bush will listen to the Iraq people or president.
  • leladax, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11Nobody cares about Iraqis in the US government. They never were and they never will be there for Iraqi interests.
  • icegoddess13, on 07/09/2008, -3/+12He's just suggesting? It's his ***** country, he should be DEMANDING that we leave.
    • neozeed, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6It'll be his nation when we let him have the keys.... lol sometime in the year 10,000
    • 69fezz96, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Or till you hear that slurping noise, like when you get to the very last of your shake.
  • skyjis6, on 07/09/2008, -7/+3Yeah... it SOUNDS cool. whether or not it's actually feasible for the US to leave is a different animal entirely.
    • truthspeaker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0What do you mean by feasible? We load up our people and our equipment, and we leave.
  • isparadiselost, on 07/09/2008, -4/+15Ummm, yeah. Let's see, the US built an embassy there that rivals the Vatican in size and you think there is a plan to leave?

    Nevermind, I'm sure American Idol is coming on soon.
  • aaronadms, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Here's a link to a reputable source:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-07-08 ...
  • vln004, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5he best recognize who he's talking to. keep this up and i smell a US led coup (that the US people don't know about) coming soon.
  • NelsonR, on 07/09/2008, -5/+11Unbelievable that the minority of warmongers in this country fail to grasp one simple equation, we have become a miserable aggressive power for all the world to see.
    Iraq doesn't want us, yet McCain the war loving troll will continue Bush's abomination with America's acquiescence.

    It's so obvious but how can you convince these schmucks the war is wrong.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3America, Right or wrong. The question of Empire, oppression, and theft were never really questions in the minds of these people. Cost was the question in their minds. These people don't think in terms of good and bad, they think in terms of, "Will this bother me or not."
    • neozeed, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Obamma wants the war too. Guess what, somehow yet again all you have is a pro war vote!

      it's like 1968!
  • neozeed, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3That'll happen when they become independent, or our economy fully implodes and we strand the army over there.
    Right now I've got my money on the implosion, face it unless we stop paying people, we'll NEVER leave.

    These guys have a better chance of getting rid of Black Water International, or Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum et al.
  • blankoboy, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8Dream on Iraq, if you think the vampires will leave Iraq with all the oil there you need to wake up. They are planning to illegally occupy and to continue to rape your country until all the oil is gone.
    • Mesa2gDSM, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4Yes we are getting so much oil i can't believe how cheap gas is!
      • blankoboy, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Yeah, your president and his pals is pocketing all the margin.
  • GiveM3aBJ, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2but we just started building our embassy!
  • retawd, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1They keep saying one thing and doing the other. Publicly they say they want us to leave, but they do nothing, NOTHING to take over control by themselves. They've been doing this for years. When we do finally start to leave, they are ***** and everyone knows that. Then they will cry and everyone will say the US should go back and save them, blah blah blah...
    The best thing we could do is strip the country of all it's resources, force the people migrate to other countries and then leave the scarred land behind. It will solve a few of our problems and since people are going to accuse the US of doing horrible things anyway, why NOT do them for our benefit?
  • 69fezz96, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Please Mr. Bushy, get out of my country and take your depleted uranium!
  • brokencrystal, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4I think this was already suggested a long time ago by Dr. Ron Paul.
  • soinie, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4I see an accidental headshot by a Blackwater flunky in his future.
    • kharlowe, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Maybe we could send Cheney there and they could go hunting together.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0More likely a Sunni truck bomber will get him eventually. There are many other shoes to drop there once they really do get their sovereignty back. These kinds of wars merely postpone history.
  • MoniqueTHEInter, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0I say, "Hell, lets leave now!" What now, Bush come out and said that "He is brain Wash!"
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.