I know, I know, it's draft time. But I figured if any story was worth posting at the same time, this might be it. I have to admit I haven't read this whole thing, but I kind of perked up at the words "immediate halt," would like to think this is the best hope, if any, for progress in this war. And my sincerest apologies if someone else already posted it.
It really won't make a difference. Even if the situation vastly improves, we ain't leaving Iraq any time soon...we've made too much of an investment there, we have to reap some benefit from this whole venture; it's what any good capitalist would do...
I assume this is the part you like. In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that President Bush’s “view has been and remains that a timetable is not something that is useful. It is a signal to the enemies that all you have to do is just wait and it’s yours.
I hope it is a positive step and I hope the administration gives it serious consideration. But knowing their history, sadly it will probably be dismissed without thought. And as has been mentioned, we ain't leaving! We are building the biggest embassy in the world in Baghdad. We are quietly building up to 4 permanent military bases in Iraq. We ain't going nowhere
Everyone said the first Gulf War was to take over Oil fields we left that country (and Saudi Arabia) with no special oil benefit from either of those operations... Don't misunderstand me... we are interested in that part of the world because of oil (and probably nothing else); however, the goal is not to take over oil fields but to ensure the free flow of oil. If we can leave Iraq with a stable government we will. After all we have a great military base in Qatar. On a conspiracy note.... Currently we are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. What country is smack, dab in the middle of both of those. Maybe that's the real reason we invaded both those countries ....
There it is. I thought this war was about, WMD's ooo wait, I mean freeing the Iraqi people from oppression. Well it was really just about freeing the Iraqi people from oppression and setting up a Democracy then this should be something to give heavy consideration to. But it the war was about getting our hands on the second largest oil reservers in the world then this is a bad deal.
If it was all of the insurgents, it would be worth considering. If only half of them are in on the deal (and that is my understanding) then it is not. Tell them we will leave 2 years after the last attack.
You assume the benefit from oil was meant to be given to all Americans. The oil companies did very well with their work in the region post Gulf War I. The oil companies and others are doing well right now during this war. Just because the avg. American isn't seeing the benefit doesn't mean there isn't one for somebody else.
Also, other countries in the coalition paid a bulk of the bill for the first Gulf War. Americans are mostly funding it this time around.
This is why I thought we should have put a timetable in place already. But we could say..."OK, deal !" but tell them that if the attacks continue then we will never leave. DD
I don't see to much of a downside. They want us to stop operations against them and they are willing to stop fighting immediately. I don't know why we wouldn't say 'ok, we'll stop operations against you, join the political process, but we're still going to operate against the insurgents and terrorists outside your coalition. They don't get a free pass. Help us uproot them and we'll get out of here even more quickly.' Other than possibly Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld being really dumb, that is.
