What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Keith: Best Buy Employee and Possible Singing Sensation. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One employee proves he has the chops and the passion to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
198 Comments
- 3tcp, on 07/22/2008, -3/+74If the Iraqi government wants to set a timetable and deadline for US troop withdrawal, it shouldn't matter who gets elected or what their plan is. It's their country, it's their choice and they should be free to make up their own minds about when they want American troops out without pressure from the US no matter who wins the election.
If we want to leave before they want us to than that is our right. If we want to stay longer than they want us to than that is an occupation and I will not support it no matter what the white house or congress says or what party they belong to. - inactive, on 07/21/2008, -13/+76We should withdraw our troops now.
- flossdaily, on 07/21/2008, -10/+70I like any news that dismays the White House and McCain.
- atrain714, on 07/21/2008, -7/+52can't happen soon enough
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -10/+51A Boeing 747 holds around 500 people.
There are around 150,000 US troops in Iraq.
How quickly could one hundred 747s make 3 round trips each?
THAT'S how long US troops should stay in Iraq. - peestandingup, on 07/22/2008, -6/+27This is why I hate the "new" Republicans. Who the ***** are they to tell another country on the other side of the world what to do with itself??
- daonlyfreez, on 07/22/2008, -7/+28The U.S. will _never_ leave Iraq (completely). The strategic significance of the permanent bases plus the oil and gas interests will trump everything else...
Dream on. - inactive, on 07/22/2008, -5/+21"Craven, idiotic, shortsighted, and deliberately obtuse." - I think that pretty much sums up your argument.
"We have won the fight for Iraq." - We have won and they want us gone, what other reasons do we need to leave?
And who says we can't withdrawal with most of our equipment? Is there some magical law of physics preventing "the heavy armor, the tanks, the apcs, the artillery, the comm gear, everything." from being withdrawn with the troops?
Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, we simply can not afford this war any longer... do you not get that? - jamesinraro, on 07/22/2008, -1/+16I agree only if we use all of the 747s back to back until this insane corrupt devastating debacle is ended. Then we use the last plane to fly bush and his thugs and thieves to the Hague for their war crime trials.
- orlyfactor, on 07/22/2008, -6/+18We had fun stormin' the castle, but now it's time for us to go home...please.
- flashthom, on 07/22/2008, -8/+20Step 1: Obama proposes rational, sane foreign policy. Step 2: Obama is subsequently lambasted by old man McCain because his policies would 'give comfort to our enemies' or are 'soft on terrorism' or what-have-you. Step 3: The White House reluctantly gives credence to said proposals. And this has happened twice (!) in the last week, both with the issue discussed here (note the White House now curiously supports a 'time horizon' for withdrawal) and also negotiations with Iran (the White house just this week announced it will reopen diplomatic channels with the rogue nation). When a Democrat says it, it's branded as appeasement; when a Republican says it, it's construed as realistic.
- minorthreat, on 07/22/2008, -0/+12A difference here is those two country's declared war against the U.S. This time around noone declared war on us and we didn't declare war on them. We just invaded and removed a leader from a third world country. It wasn't even a fight really. Bombs were dropped in Germany for years, Japan saw two atomic bombs. There can't really be that much to rebuild in a third world country anyway. Haven't we been rebuilding since we accomplished the mission 5 years ago? Why should it take so long to rebuild Iraq?
Maybe one of these days people will eventually catch on realize this so called war was not a war in American's best interest. It was strictly for war profiteering. The wealthiest of the wealthy are making a killing on this off our tax paying dollars, yet no one seems to care. - evil-doer, on 07/22/2008, -0/+11theres a lot of equipment too. they should start packing RIGHT NOW
- chrism123, on 07/22/2008, -0/+11Don't let this story give you the assumption that this means the troops will be home after the "withdrawal." A majority of the troops will be leaving Iraq there will still be a coalition there South Korea style in a consulting position to make sure our interests are still be taken care of. Meanwhile the troops who have been withdrawn will simply be moved into Afghanistan and Pakistan where the war will continue. Obama has already publicly stated that this is what he wants to do. Obama's stance on Iraq and the way the media portrays it gives everyone the idea that Obama will simply end the war and bring everyone back. The play isn't over....The stage will just be moving.
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -0/+9We don't need the Hague, we could try them and hang them here.
- ndseifi, on 07/22/2008, -12/+20Well the White House and McCain can ***** themselves. The Iraqi's have spoken. Time to listen.
- damonic, on 07/22/2008, -2/+10We aren't going anywhere. The U.S. is planning to occupy Iraq for the long haul. That is why we are building 14 (yes, 14!) U.S. military bases there.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/ir ... - inactive, on 07/22/2008, -1/+8The military destroys most of the equipment when they pull out of a war zone, it's cheaper than transporting it. Most of that stuff is ruined anyway after six months in that dust bowl crap hole.
And that bit about rebuilding trust, thats just political talking points. We've been ***** with that part of the world ever since the Lawrence of Arabia days; we could give them free blow jobs and Budweiser for two hundred years, and they would still hate us. - inactive, on 07/22/2008, -3/+9"The sudden and unexpected Iraqi comments"
To who??? They were talking about it 3 months in. - stinkymonkey, on 07/22/2008, -6/+12At this point, Bush could kill and eat a baby on live TV and he'll manage to Spin his way out of it while the democrats do nothing. And the Vice president could shoot a person in head and.......Oh never mind.
- flink405, on 07/22/2008, -5/+11Did you know that when Obama met with the Iraqi Government he did not bring up the topic of troop withdrawals?
Reuters news article:
"Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Obama did not mention his pledge to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months if he takes office in talks with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080721/pl_nm/iraq_dc - an0nymous, on 07/22/2008, -0/+6@thcobbs
To ignore "we shouldn't have invaded" prevents us from holding those responsible accountable. Not just politicians but commentators as well.
Those who were wrong have no credibility and must be denied the opportunity to lead us into similar situations. - byronm, on 07/22/2008, -8/+14Attn: Republicans, Iraq Called & they want their country back.
- Ralphdraw3, on 07/22/2008, -1/+7. Hell, that's faster than Japan or Germany were rebuilt after WWII.
@@@
HELL,
Iraq never attacked us (Japan attacked attacked us 12-7-1941)
Iraq never declared war on us (Germany declared war on us after 12-7-1941) - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5ERRATA: In January 2007 Obama supported an 11 month withdrawal timeline, not 16.
- thcobbs, on 07/22/2008, -2/+7How does this dismay them? I'm happy to hear that the Iraqi GOVERNMENT believes that they won't need us in the country within 2 years. Hell, that's faster than Japan or Germany were rebuilt after WWII.
- sodade, on 07/22/2008, -4/+9You have a lot to learn about US foreign policy...
The book Overthrow details U.S.-supported or encouraged coup d'états in Hawaii, Cuba, Costa Rica, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Our government has been rogue for 60 years now. - sodade, on 07/22/2008, -1/+6The one where the Iraqis tell us to GTFO.
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5I see ... they said it long ago. And now they're saying it again.
So, can we leave now? - Ralphdraw3, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5Leave all the non - high tech equipment there - as a gift to the Iraqi people...
It will probably cost as much to move that stuff as to buy new ones... - inactive, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5@tpearl: Care to elaborate?
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5Only 25% of Iraqi oil fields are still owned by the Iraqi government.
You did that already. The exploitation rights for 75% of them were sold to private and foreign companies. - kinerry, on 07/22/2008, -2/+6It's because the surge worked....er I mean are military is spread thin and Afghanistan got worse while the troops were moved to Iraq so we could make a PR play.
Afghanistan can burn as far as they are concerned - mypetridish, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4according to nicholas cage in "The Lord of War" the american troops usually leave the low cost arms in the country they invade because it cost more to bring them back than to buy new ones.
and it has the benefit of helping the arms manufacturer too. everyone wins!
oh.. haha i forgot. the tax payers lose. 2 wins 1 lose, it's still a good deal - flink405, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4Obama just wants to move the troops and equipment to Afghanistan.
That is okay with you all? Trade one war for another?
And that one is even harder to win....especially when the bad guys are hiding out in neighboring countries. - Idiggapony, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5The Iraqi government's timetable is indeed inconsistent with the McCain plan, which includes specific plans to bolster the Iraqi economy and withdraw American troops as soon as possible, but with withdrawals tied to various benchmarks, rather than a specific timetable.
The Iraqi timetable is consistent with one of Obama's proposed strategies, the one in which troop withdrawals must begin immediately, and will be completed by 2009. But it is not consistent with Obama's other stated strategy in which troop withdrawals do not begin immediately, and will be conducted at a pace determined by progress in Iraq. It is also not consistent with Obama's other stated strategy, in which American troops maintain a presence in Iraq indefinitely if Al Qaeda develops a presence there (of course, they already have done so).
Because Obama continues to propose multiple, mutually inconsistent policies on Iraq, the Times' attempt to advertise for the Obama campaign by claiming that the Iraqi government endorses his "plan" is inaccurate. - NJank, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5"How does this dismay them?"
Because they have stated emphatically on numerous occasions that they do not want to set hard deadlines. Now, one has been requested unambiguously from the one group that they were saying would be harmed by following a timetable. - mypetridish, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4what's stopping them from Nationalising the fields? even if they dont have any company with the tech, they can still reap the royalty.
this is an honest question - brandozilla, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4Well, the coming bilateral security agreement between the United States and Iraq will include a general time "horizon". So its pretty clear they are not pushing for a firm deadline, or they would have been more vocal about including it in this deal.
You can't claim they want one thing, when in fact they are about to agree to the complete opposite in a security agreement.
At no point has the Iraqi government endorsed or formally pushed for Obama's idea of a firm time line. In fact the Iraqi government said that claims they had endorsed such a firm deadline were misunderstood and mistranslated.
Of course Iraq would like us out in two years - everyone shares that view. Only an idiot would agree to withdraw if conditions arose which threatened the Iraqi democracy. Thanks to David Patreus' strategy and getting rid of the a-hole Rumsfeld there is a very real possibility we can be out within two years. Unfortunately Obama chose not to support the strategy which ironically could make his troop withdrawal as President an actual possibility.
Its also important to keep in mind that Maliki has an election this year, and he too is a politician, which could explain why he is appearing to say one thing, while agreeing the complete opposite. - rmurtagh, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5The article, nor the by line with which the article was submitted to digg are satisfactory in communicating what it was the Iraqi government said. There fore I reject both as biased and worthless.
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4The US.
They were nationalized and they did have the tech. All the profits made from the exploitation of oil was redistributed to the Iraqi people.
The new "government" said they were doing this because they need money to rebuild. It's the stupidest thing ever.
America destroys everything for oil and the Iraqis have to pay to rebuild with their oil.
Except now they won't be making a profit on their oil. They just get an upfront lump sum that will never be redistributed. The 25% they still have, at least, will be controlled and distributed within Iraq. - mypetridish, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3the Iraqis said they wouldnt sign any of that sort until there's a real time table for troops withdrawal. they are not that stupid. they know we want to stay for reasons such as to protect zionist israel and for oil. to hell they are going to allow that.
the Shi'ites hate the Jews more than the whole world combined, and that is saying A LOT - thewump, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4There is a lot of spin here. Iraq is saying "within 2 years as long as security levels allow", Obama is saying 16 months, and the white house is saying "when security levels allow".. although that doesn't deal with the current administrations and McCains desire to have some sort of permanent presence but I bet Obama wants that too if it secures some sort of oil / economic advantage for the US ( and after spending all this tax payer money, I'm OK with that ).
Bottom line - politics as usual. - WiretapStudios, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4I do like how Obama is meeting with people and at least trying to get diplomatic solutions on the table, meanwhile Bush and McCain only show up for photo-ops, and end up doing the opposite of what is logical.
- Ralphdraw3, on 07/22/2008, -2/+5What is Bush and BushCo saying about horrible act of insubordination by Iraqi leaders???
WHERE IS GEORGE ANYWAY??? - inactive, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Obama will be out where?
- Ralphdraw3, on 07/22/2008, -4/+7It's just a coincidence that Maliki announces this when Obama is in town!!!! LOL
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -5/+8You found WMD'S, killed Al Qaeda and freed the Iraqi people?
When?
You don't even have a job over there. You're killing people who are fighting you for the sole reason of you being there. - zacharytelschow, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Someone else paying attention to Obama's intent to send troops to Pakistan. Finally.
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Stephen Kinzer, in addition to the excellent book "Overthrow", he has authored an excellent book about the CIA overthrow of the Iranian democracy in 1953 in Operation AJAX. The book is called "All the Shah's Men".
-
Show 51 - 100 of 199 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is