Liberals on Withdrawal of Troops

Published on January 29, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

Only a handful of politician on the left are advocating immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq. They are more interested in a clear timetable that will send a message to the insurgents that we are calling their bluff if we no longer "stay the course" insurgency will end. In the meantime, most troops should be deployed to the borders of Syria and Iran to prevent further incursions of Al Qaeda. If this move has a favorable effect, the timetable would begin the attrition. If the first stage does not lessen hostility, NATO should be urged to send in troops, preferably from the Arab world. If NATO and the UN do not cooperate in peacekeeping, despite the invitation of the existing Iraqi government and us, then a strong warning to insurgents and sympathizers that " strategic" air strikes will begin, regardless of collateral damage. Furthermore, if events prove favorable, we should terminate construction of permanent military installations.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments

Dr Guy

on Jan 29, 2006

Why NATO?

BTW: Excellent position paper. Perhaps you can get it adopted by the clueless in congress on the left?

stevendedalus

on Jan 29, 2006

Why NATO?

They are doing an "excellent" job in the Balkans and radically reducing US involvement. After all, in Kosovo and Croatia, we were on the side of Muslims--granted they were not Al Qaeda oriented.

clueless in congress on the left

Yes, sadly too many. They walk on eggs because they fear they would probably be misconstrued by their constituents. There are no Bravehearts in Congress.

Leauki

on Jan 29, 2006

Is that article a joke? Who is Richard Kennedy?

Deference

on Jan 29, 2006

This is ridiculous, Steve.

Dr Guy

on Jan 29, 2006

They are doing an "excellent" job in the Balkans and radically reducing US involvement. After all, in Kosovo and Croatia, we were on the side of Muslims--granted they were not Al Qaeda oriented.

It is very Ironic that the most effective multi national organization is not the UN, but NATO.

Perhaps we can dump the UN, and build a new one from NATo.

Conservitive

on Jan 29, 2006

Steven,
Permanent military bases and installations are what this war is all about. The U.S.A needs to destablize China through oil controll to prevent them from competing with us as a super power. China is not nearly as strong as most people think. This needs to take place now to stop them from having a competitve military industrial complex. China lags years behind us in technology and it needs to stay that way forever. China produces what the U.S.A tells them to manufacture. I know this to be true.

Conservitive

on Jan 29, 2006

stevendedalus

on Jan 30, 2006

Permanent military bases and installations are what this war is all about. The U.S.A needs to destablize China through oil controll to prevent them from competing with us as a super power.

Permanent installation triggers more trouble. Why worry about China if we're so far ahead?--we will be concentrating on alternative fuel anyway.

Perhaps we can dump the UN, and build a new one from NATo.

Well, there is a hidden agenda to continue the UN as figure head but develop a viable organization of western democracies. NATO could indeed be on this agenda.

stevendedalus

on Jan 30, 2006

Is that article a joke? Who is Richard Kennedy?

No joke, I, Richard R. Kennedy, alias stevendedalus, am serious.

This is ridiculous, Steve.

Thank you for your penetrating insight.

Leauki

on Jan 30, 2006

No joke, I, Richard R. Kennedy, alias stevendedalus, am serious.

In that case:

1. Al-Qaeda probably won't come into Iraq from Iran. They are Sunni fundamentalists and hate Shi'ites, and specifically Iranians a lot more than Americans and Iraqis.

2. NATO can't send troops from the Arab world because there is no Arab country in NATO. Also, Iraqis distrust the Arab world. They have reconciliation meetings with other Arab countries.

stevendedalus

on Feb 02, 2006

and hate Shi'ites, and specifically Iranians a lot more than Americans and Iraqis.

but Iranians hate America more and do give aid to terrorists as long as they are against western culture. What distinguishes Iraq from Iran is that the latter is Persian, not Arabic. As you point out the Sunnis are trying to reach an agreement with the Arab world.

NATO can't send troops from the Arab world

I stand corrected; the previous sentence was meant to read NATO and the UN.

bakerstreet

on Feb 02, 2006

"and hate Shi'ites, and specifically Iranians a lot more than Americans and Iraqis."

On the contrary, many of the terrorists who migrated from Afghanistan to Iraq when the US invaded there traveled through Iran, and it is purported they had government permission and aid to do so. There have been several calls in the Arab world to put aside inner struggles to fight the West.

What's the old Arab saying? “Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me, my brother and cousin against the stranger.” Palestine is a glorious example, where Hisbullah is fighting right alongside sunni terrorists and they seem to do so without killing each other much.

Leauki

on Feb 02, 2006

Palestine is a glorious example, where Hisbullah is fighting right alongside sunni terrorists and they seem to do so without killing each other much.

They have little contact. When they had contact, during the Lebanese civil war, they did kill each other.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!