Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Well well well - maj Neo-con voice advocating Iraq pullout

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Well well well - maj Neo-con voice advocating Iraq pullout

    Some interesting points regarding Sec Rice as well (not sure how much I agree that she is independent and weilds power in the administration - but perhaps...who is to knwo - eh)...


    Rice likely to back Iraq pullout

    March 28, 2005

    BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


    Determination high in the Bush administration to begin irreversible withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq this year is reinforced by the presence at the State Department of the most dominant secretary since Henry Kissinger three decades ago. Condoleezza Rice is expected to support administration officials who want to leave even if what is left behind does not constitute perfection.



    Amid the presidential campaign's furious debate over Iraq, I reported last Sept. 20 ("Quick exit from Iraq is likely") about strong feeling in the policymaking apparatus to get out of Iraq in 2005 even if democracy and peace had not been achieved there. My column evoked widespread expressions of disbelief, but changes over the last six months have only strengthened the view of my Bush administration sources that the escape from Iraq should begin once a permanent government is in place in Baghdad.

    The most obvious change is the improved situation on the ground in Iraq, where it is no longer preposterous to imagine local security forces in control. Subtler is the advent of Secretary of State Rice. This willowy, vulnerable-looking woman wields measurably more power than Colin Powell, the robust general who preceded her. Officials who know her well believe she favors the escape from Iraq.

    "She is not controlled by the neo-cons insisting on achieving a perfect democracy before we go," a colleague told me. That reflects not only the national consensus but also the preponderance of Republican opinion. Without debating the wisdom of military intervention in Iraq two years ago, President Bush's supporters believe it now is time to go and leave the task of subduing the insurgents to Iraqis.

    In my Sept. 20 column, I speculated that Rice would replace Powell at State, that she would be replaced as national security adviser by her deputy Stephen Hadley and that Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz would succeed Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. I was correct in two out of three because Rumsfeld is staying on at the Pentagon.

    When I reported that Rice, Hadley and Wolfowitz all would opt for withdrawal, skeptics claimed that I had misrepresented Wolfowitz and ignored his neo-conservative mind-set. In fact, Wolfowitz resents the neo-con label and privately regards its use as a catchword to be a form of anti-Semitism.

    Nor is Rumsfeld a neo-con determined to spread democracy to every corner of the world and eager to place U.S. boots wherever needed. He is a pragmatist who views an intrusive U.S. occupation in Iraq as a political benefit for the insurgency. Rumsfeld consequently opposes the addition of more American troops, which is advocated by some supporters and by many critics of Bush.

    The central figure in shaping the policy is Rice. Not since the days of Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft has a secretary of state had the power position of working with a former deputy at the National Security Council, as Rice does now. Furthermore, she is Bush's closest adviser. During Bush's first term, he spent vastly more time with Rice than with Powell or Rumsfeld.

    Actually, withdrawal from Iraq short of an absolute military victory seems more feasible today than it did last September. Six months ago, it appeared that U.S. officials might have to ignore a bloody secular conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. Lethal though it is, the current insurgency does not rise to the level of a genuine civil war.

    But how does the president rationalize an escape from Iraq with his inaugural address' embrace of a Wilsonian or neo-conservative dogma to spread democracy worldwide? Bush officials who want to reduce the military profile in the region argue that the grass-roots democratic sentiment boiling up in Lebanon is to get rid of Syrian troops, not to welcome U.S. troops.

    Escape from Iraq for Bush, however, does abandon the neo-con dream of micromanaging creation of a democratic state in Iraq. Since I wrote about this option last September amid much skepticism, 500 more U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq to bring the toll to 1,500. That is too heavy a price to continue paying for not letting Iraqis try to make the best of their country now that we have eliminated Saddam Hussein.

  • #2
    good. more people need to convince bush to get our dam guys out of there.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ArmenianKid
      good. more people need to convince bush to get our dam guys out of there.
      As a deployable troop in the United States Air Force I have one thing to say to that... AMEN!

      Comment


      • #4
        THIS IS REDICULOUSLY IRRATIONAL! An Iraqi pullout would show to the world that we are weak and that we are to be walked on by any country. It would show that we break at the first sign of pressure!

        I would not only condone staying in Iraq but enforcing less strict rules on who to kill and not to kill. I think that we should be able to kill civilians so that are soldiers will live.

        I also agree that Iraq was not the best choice for a war. I would have chosen to attack Iran because it condones and harbors Islamic terrorists 100%, it's a theocracy. On the otherhand Iraq was less of a threat to America since it's government wasn't solely based on Islam and didn't harbor terrorists to the extent that Iran does today.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Objectivist
          THIS IS REDICULOUSLY IRRATIONAL! An Iraqi pullout would show to the world that we are weak and that we are to be walked on by any country. It would show that we break at the first sign of pressure!

          I would not only condone staying in Iraq but enforcing less strict rules on who to kill and not to kill. I think that we should be able to kill civilians so that are soldiers will live.

          I also agree that Iraq was not the best choice for a war. I would have chosen to attack Iran because it condones and harbors Islamic terrorists 100%, it's a theocracy. On the otherhand Iraq was less of a threat to America since it's government wasn't solely based on Islam and didn't harbor terrorists to the extent that Iran does today.
          You know, as a libertarian I agree with Randians on the aspect of individuality. However, Randians seem to love the neo-cons whom I do not like.

          Perhaps you and I have a different idea of individuality and liberty, but waging war is not one of them.
          Achkerov kute.

          Comment

          Working...
          X