US Succumbs

[PhillyKev 0]

Bush owes the world an appology. He said we would transfer power to the Iraqis on 6/30. There have been increased terrorist attacks against civilians within Iraq and they have been demanding that the US transition power to Iraqis. He still plans to transfer power on 6/30. He's obviously giving into the terrorists demands.

[Jib 0]

Did he say the US was going to pull out of Iraq on 6/30?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Ron 10]

Quote

Bush owes the world an appology. He said we would transfer power to the Iraqis on 6/30. There have been increased terrorist attacks against civilians within Iraq and they have been demanding that the US transition power to Iraqis. He still plans to transfer power on 6/30. He's obviously giving into the terrorists demands.
______________________________________

OK, so he says he will transfer power to the Iraqi's on 6/30 and he is going to do that so he is giving in to terrorist demands?

Thats like me saying you will wake up tomorrow or else, and when you do it I can claim I made you...

Thats really stupid thinking there.

He is doing what he said he would do...Just cause the terroists want it as well doen not mean he is giving in. If he said he would transfer power on 6/30 but the terroists wanted it on 5/30...THEN he would be giving in. But to do what he said he was going to do is not caving in.

Jeeze.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,100]

Not only that, but he's negotiating with terrorist militias after they demand negotiations, and he's asking for UN help after they claimed the US could never hold Iraq! The next thing you know, there will be widespread outbreaks of peace, and that's practically caving in to terrorism.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

OK, so he says he will transfer power to the Iraqi's on 6/30 and he is going to do that so he is giving in to terrorist demands?

Thats like me saying you will wake up tomorrow or else, and when you do it I can claim I made you...

Thats really stupid thinking there.

He is doing what he said he would do...Just cause the terroists want it as well doen not mean he is giving in. If he said he would transfer power on 6/30 but the terroists wanted it on 5/30...THEN he would be giving in. But to do what he said he was going to do is not caving in.

Jeeze.
_________________________________________

Thank you Ron. You actually, unwittingly just agreed with me. In fact I said almose the same thing verbatim. Please see the thread regarding Spain. That's exactly the point I was making. Just needed a new analogy to get it across.

[rehmwa 2]

And in that thread, if some new terror attack increases between now and then and shows we should stay in Iraq, then that 6/30 date should be scrapped if that's the right thing to do.

Wouldn't that be hard decision to make?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,100]

>then that 6/30 date should be scrapped if that's the right thing to do.

But wouldn't that "be succumbing to the terrorists" just like Spain did?

(I actually agree with you; it's more important to actually do the right thing than just react to terrorists.)

[Ron 10]

I don't see how you can say he is giving in to Terroist demands when he planned on turning over power anyway.

And I still don't see how he owes the world an apollogy

Maybe Im stupid, but I don't see how doing what you said you were going to do is giving in?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,100]

>I don't see how you can say he is giving in to Terroist demands when
>he planned on turning over power anyway.

He's not. He's making the point that turning over power to the Iraqis as planned is no more "giving into the terrorists" than is a leader who promised to pull his troops out of Spain - and does.

[Ron 10]

Quote

>I don't see how you can say he is giving in to Terroist demands when
>he planned on turning over power anyway.

He's not.

Then why the hell is he saying I proved his point?

Quote

He's making the point that turning over power to the Iraqis as planned is no more "giving into the terrorists" than is a leader who promised to pull his troops out of Spain - and does.

Well in the Spanish case they were there, so leaving after a bomb attack IS giving in. Now maybe if the attack had not happend they would have pulled out anyway. But he might not have been voted in without the bomb attack.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Cudlo 0]

Yes, we're transfering power to the Iraqis... we are however NOT pulling our troops out. They are going to remain to help Iraq deal with the rebels. If you call that giving in...

_________________________________________
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Kierkegaard

[billvon 3,100]

>so leaving after a bomb attack IS giving in.

It was in the platform of the newly elected government; he promised during his campaign he would withdraw troops. Surely you don't advocate that they change their plans based purely on a terrorist attack, do you?

>But he might not have been voted in without the bomb attack.

True, but 9/11 might change the outcome of the next election as well. That's democracy.

[TheAnvil 0]

Yawn.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[katiebear21 0]

Turning over power to the Iraqi's is an important political move to fulfill a promise made prior to American "invastion". The U.S. Army and Coalition partners were not sent Iraq to occupy, they were there to liberate. The Iraqi government needs to be afforded the opportunity to stand on it's own. The transition of power is imperative!

Anyone remember Somalia? What did the President do when soldiers started dying? He pulled out. So, the message sent to the world was if enough resistance is met and American soldiers die then we'd pull out (because a President was governed by polls). Bush is not doing that. He is following through with what we started (even at the unfortunate loss of American lives). If he pulls out now, what message are we sending to terrorist organizations?

I fully support Bush and the Coalition Provisional Authority on this decision.

Katie
Get your PMS glass necklace here

[kallend 2,144]

Quote

Quote

>I don't see how you can say he is giving in to Terroist demands when
>he planned on turning over power anyway.

He's not.

Then why the hell is he saying I proved his point?

Quote

He's making the point that turning over power to the Iraqis as planned is no more "giving into the terrorists" than is a leader who promised to pull his troops out of Spain - and does.

Well in the Spanish case they were there, so leaving after a bomb attack IS giving in. Now maybe if the attack had not happend they would have pulled out anyway. But he might not have been voted in without the bomb attack.

I think you've been suckered in here, Ron!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[damion75 0]

Quote

Bush owes the world an appology. He said we would transfer power to the Iraqis on 6/30. There have been increased terrorist attacks against civilians within Iraq and they have been demanding that the US transition power to Iraqis. He still plans to transfer power on 6/30. He's obviously giving into the terrorists demands.

Nice post! Good to see humour on the 'Corner'!!

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[ChrisL 2]

He was using sarcasm

You just misinterpreted it.

__

My mighty steed

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Anyone remember Somalia? What did the President do when soldiers started dying? He pulled out. So, the message sent to the world was if enough resistance is met and American soldiers die then we'd pull out (because a President was governed by polls). Bush is not doing that. He is following through with what we started (even at the unfortunate loss of American lives). If he pulls out now, what message are we sending to terrorist organizations?

I totally agree with you here. Although i was against the iraq war, now that we are there, we need to get the job done. if we pull out without installing a stable democratic government, then we spent billions of dollars and hundreds of lives in vain.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[Unstable 9]

Let's see here, unlike MOST terrorists who Blow Up civilians of other countries, these "terrorists" in Iraq show US by blowing up their OWN people!!
Bush Is keeping to his word, NOT backing down. I don't know what these wackos are thinking....

=========Shaun ==========

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I totally agree with you here. Although i was against the iraq war, now that we are there, we need to get the job done. if we pull out without installing a stable democratic government, then we spent billions of dollars and hundreds of lives in vain.

I agree 100%. Does anyone really think that we will be transition power on 6/30???

From Bush's speech last week:

Reporter: "Who will we be transferring power to on 6/30?"

Bush: "Well, we'll know the answer to that soon."

How can we possibly have a plan to transfer power when we don't know who it's going to? Or if there's anyone available, that would be successful, to transfer power to. Having a goal and having a plan are two different things. Bush has plenty of goals, but I don't see how he connects the dots, and I don't think he does either.

[billvon 3,100]

>How can we possibly have a plan to transfer power when we don't
> know who it's going to?

We could transfer it to a US military leader who was born in Iraq. Would fulfill the literal promise and not put us in an awkward situation (like transferring power to an interim government and having them tell us "we want you out")

[sdgregory 0]

Somehow this does not equate. Did Spain set s date for withdrawal? Not that I heard.

And you can't that they were going to withdrawal anyway, because that's a no brainer. The war will end sometime which will require troop wothdrawal.


Your post here does nothing to change the fact that Spain looks like it is giving in to terror.

[kallend 2,144]

Quote

Somehow this does not equate. Did Spain set s date for withdrawal? Not that I heard.

And you can't that they were going to withdrawal anyway, because that's a no brainer. The war will end sometime which will require troop wothdrawal.


Your post here does nothing to change the fact that Spain looks like it is giving in to terror.

Or it could just be that the Spanish voters decided to correct a mistake of their previous government, using their normal democratic process.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sdgregory 0]

That does not negate the argument that the TERRORISTS will see this differently, which is the only real point anyone was making.


As I said in the last thread.

I believe that Spain did not withdrawal for any reason other than what they state. But appearances are important and this decision's timing can still prove globaly disasterous.

[kallend 2,144]

Quote

That does not negate the argument that the TERRORISTS will see this differently, which is the only real point anyone was making.


As I said in the last thread.

I believe that Spain did not withdrawal for any reason other than what they state. But appearances are important and this decision's timing can still prove globaly disasterous.

Well, the Bush/Blair mistake will come back to haunt us all in good time. Can't blame the Spaniards for correcting it at what looks like a bad time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.