News Rice refuses to predict US out of Iraq within ten years

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Years
Click For Summary
Condoleezza Rice emphasized that decisions regarding troop withdrawal from Iraq should be based on results rather than a set timeline, refusing to rule out the possibility of U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for another decade. During her testimony, she faced skepticism from senators, including Barbara Boxer and Richard Lugar, who questioned the feasibility of achieving a democratic Iraq and expressed concerns about the ongoing American military presence. Critics highlighted the lack of clear criteria for withdrawal and the perception that the U.S. is entangled in an unrealistic nation-building project. The discussion also touched on the political implications of Rice's statements and the broader consequences of the Iraq war. Overall, the sentiment reflected a growing frustration with the administration's handling of the situation in Iraq.
  • #31
the U.S. would end up returning to the Middle East with "five million men and women under arms" within a decade.

It may be a lot sooner than ten years if the Bush adminstration insists on keeping its current "quarterly" changing of our reason for being in Iraq.

First we had WMD, then Iraqi freedom, then Democracy for Iraq, then defeat the insergents, then defeat global terroism. And not it is to "fight Radical Islam wherever it endangers peoples who love freedom."

When it comes down to making a decision on which side to support , moderate Isalm will support Radical isalm. That will leave us facing an enemy numbering close to one billion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I heard this today - http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/GLAA001.shtml

How America Lost Iraq
Aaron Glantz

In Iraq, most of the corporate journalists, when they venture outside their heavily guarded hotels, travel with US troops and base their stories on what the military tells them. Not so- Aaron Glantz, who went to Iraq totally un-embedded. And what he learned initially was not what he had expected. Most Iraqis welcomed the Americans and patiently accepted the hardship and destruction as a final sacrifice on their way to freedom. But as the occupation dragged on, and as living conditions and the security situation steadily worsened, the Americans were no longer viewed as liberators, but as oppressors. Glantz's eyewitness account gives insight into what is fueling the insurgency in Iraq.

Aaron Glantz

Aaron Glantz, a reporter for Pacifica Radio, has been to Iraq many times. He is the author of "How America Lost Iraq."

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld blew it from the beginning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
edward said:
It may be a lot sooner than ten years if the Bush adminstration insists on keeping its current "quarterly" changing of our reason for being in Iraq.
First we had WMD, then Iraqi freedom, then Democracy for Iraq, then defeat the insergents, then defeat global terroism. And not it is to "fight Radical Islam wherever it endangers peoples who love freedom."
When it comes down to making a decision on which side to support , moderate Isalm will support Radical isalm. That will leave us facing an enemy numbering close to one billion.
Yes ... on THAT front.

Then we get the litany of others from Venezuela to China.

Africa's still miffed on the Aid for Aids shortchange for joining the coalition of the willing.

Turkey still holds a grudge over the Airport thingy.

The Phillipines and Spain are miffed because of their treatment when they left Iraq.

France is still pissed the US served Burgers and Freedom Fries at the Nato meeting.

Canada is seeing a revival of the softwood lumber thingy.

Japan is livid the US wouldn't support their UN bid.

Ummmm ... Have I missed anyone?

Oh, yes they told the president of Taiwan to STFU about independence.

Have I mentioned the US MIGHT have a problem with isolationism?
 
  • #34
The Smoking Man said:
Have I mentioned the US MIGHT have a problem with isolationism?
When isolationism is forced, I believe it is called "shunning"

Good to have you back TSM.:smile:
 
  • #35
edward said:
First we had WMD, then Iraqi freedom, then Democracy for Iraq, then defeat the insergents, then defeat global terroism. And now it is to "fight Radical Islam wherever it endangers peoples who love freedom."
Barbara Boxer just made this statement: "Secretary Rice rewrote history yet again, claiming that rebuilding the entire Middle East has been the Bush Administration's stated mission ever since 9/11." Doesn’t Rice know the neocons (who may have always had this goal) are now distancing themselves from Bush because he has botched their great vision?
 
  • #36
Well the thread on permanent US bases could be added to this one.

But in general, I'll make a prediction that Bush's "War on Terrorism" will be as successful as the US "War on Drugs". After 3 or more decades of trying to stem drug trafficking into the US, one can still find the same drugs on the streets of many US cities, towns and suburbs, as one could find 30 or 40 years ago.

In other words, Bush's policy on terrorism is and will be another colossal failure!

In fact, IMO, Bush is a colossal failure! :rolleyes:
 
  • #37
Well, Rice already knew that the US occupation would be indefinite (and definitely longer than 10 yrs), when she was director of the NSA. She may(IMO) have helped draft the plan for the occupation. In a previos post on another thread, it was pointed out that immediately upon deployment US forces rushed to secure the Iraqi oil ministry headquarters and oil assets(fields, equipment, ect.). Reading the posts about permanent bases - the endless streams of concrete and military quarters and airstrips and a Wendy's, Taco Bell ... well maybe not those two but it did say some fast food type place - the people of Iraq did not come close to getting what was promised it even looks as though their liberation was a sham or con job to blow this through American ears (Congress), a smoke and mirrors trick so that the real objective could be launched with little or no opposition.
 
  • #38
Rice was interviewed last night on Meet The Press. Did anyone else view this? I don't know if the transcripts are available yet, but after wading through all the BS, this is it in a nutshell:

Saddam represents the old (bad) Middle East, and needed to be removed regardless of WMD or "clear and present" danger. Thanks to our wonderful Commander-in Chief, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are now democracies, and there will now be a new (good) Middle East. Oh sure, there are still a few hitches--well these are to be expected in new democracies, just as the U.S. and all democracies must evolve.

Don't worry about the complete differences in cultures and that these governments are likely to become Islamic theocracies and/or continue to support terrorism. Don't worry about a civil war in Iraq. The Iraqi troops continue to progress toward independence. When Tim mentioned how much is being spent on these wars, Rice did wince ever so briefly, but the topic was changed and never addressed.
 
  • #39
I missed it this week but will catch it later. I so enjoy being lied to and deceived.

What gets me is that for the price of the Iraq war - by the time we get out of there, if we ever do - we could virtually end our dependence on oil.
 
  • #40
I missed it this week but will catch it later. I so enjoy being lied to and deceived.

What gets me is that for the price of the Iraq war - by the time we get out of there, if we ever do - we could virtually end our dependence on oil.
But it takes oil money to make oil money... natch.
 
  • #41
One of the consequences of this dysfunction, as I have noted many times, is the unending parade of dead or badly wounded men and women returning to the U.S. from the war in Iraq - a war that the administration foolishly launched but now does not know how to win or end.
This observation/statement along with the statement by Chomsky (below) about how the WMD materials the UN inspectors were destroying that wound up unguarded after the invasion are major reasons the US needs to oust Bush and his cronies.
Once again we find, very easily, a way to reduce the threat of terror: stop acting in ways that – predictably – enhance the threat. Though enhancement of the threat of terror and proliferation was anticipated, the invasion did so even in unanticipated ways. It is common to say that no WMD were found in Iraq after exhaustive search. That is not quite accurate, however. There were stores of WMD in Iraq: namely, those produced in the 1980s, thanks to aid provided by the US and Britain, along with others. These sites had been secured by UN inspectors, who were dismantling the weapons. But the inspectors were dismissed by the invaders and the sites were left unguarded. The inspectors nevertheless continued to carry out their work with satellite imagery. They discovered sophisticated massive looting of these installations in over 100 sites, including equipment for producing solid and liquid propellant missiles, biotoxins and other materials usable for chemical and biological weapons, and high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear and chemical weapons and missiles. A Jordanian journalist was informed by officials in charge of the Jordanian-Iraqi border that after US-UK forces took over, radioactive materials were detected in one of every eight trucks crossing to Jordan, destination unknown.
The ironies are almost inexpressible. The official justification for the US-UK invasion was to prevent the use of WMD that did not exist. The invasion provided the terrorists who had been mobilized by the US and its allies with the means to develop WMD -- namely, equipment they had provided to Saddam, caring nothing about the terrible crimes they later invoked to whip up support for the invasion. It is as if Iran were now making nuclear weapons using fissionable materials provided by the US to Iran under the Shah -- which may indeed be happening.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K