Iraq Foreign Minister Says Another 18 Months

That would longer then we were in WWII

from JoeUser Forums


Today the AP reported that Nauri al-Maliki, the Iraq Foreign Minister, said he believed it would require another 18 Months before his government would be capable of securing Iraq. That would mean we would be in Iraq over 5 years which is LONGER then we were engaged in WWII.

It is time for Congress to put an end to this farce. If the current Congress will not stand up to Bush then we need to insure the Democrats sweep BOTY houses of Congress in November and end this war!
politics
11,450 views 40 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are so full of it. He's telling you what you liberals want to hear, an exit strategy.

What are democrats going to do col? They voted for the war and said Saddam was a threat. Democrats are not going to end the war, even though that's what they tell their looney base.

Why don't you go to Iraq and fight with the terrorists. You both are on the same side.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Only an idiot would agree to spend another 18 months in that mess. It is a dream to believe that the Iraqi government will be able to control the violence. If the US with 130,000 troops and another 250,000 Iraqi troops and police can not stop the constant attacks, what makes anyone believe in another 18 months the Iraqi's alone will be able to do the job. Time for us to GET OUT! To spend more time in Iraq then it took to win WWII is NUTS!
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col, do you think by starting this new post you will avoid the humiliation of being proved wrong in the other one?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col, if people like you were around in WWII we probably would have lost.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just out of curiosity, Gene, do you know how long we stayed to reconstruct Japan, after we finished defeating its military forces?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Stutefish

The occupation of Japan and Germany 3.5 years AFTER surrender is NOTHING like Iraq. Both countries were on the road to recovery and repair after being destroyed.

Island Dog

You have not come even close to showing how the United States was in danger from Saddam in March 2003. You are so full of BS.

Below is a section of the article about the Yellow Cake. Please note that was not useable for a weapon and that Saddam's nuclear weapons program was SHUT DOWN since 1991. He did not have the centrifuges needed to enrich the Yellow Cake and did not have the bomb or trigger required for a weapon. The missiles he had were AIR Defense types and have ZERO capability to deliver and nuclear weapon. The nuclear threat posed from Saddam in March 2003 was non existent! There was NO possibility of the mushroom clouds that Bush and Cheney said were the reasons we could not wait to invade Iraq. It was all a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!! That supports what I and others have been saying, We were NOT in any danger from Saddam in March 2003 when we attacked them.

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."

Well, almost none.

The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."

The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

"A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.

Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your stupidity never seizes to amaze me Col.

Iraq Foreign Minister Says Another 18 Months


No where in your article to you say Iraq demands, because Iraq said so, Bush agrees or nothing of the sort. The Iraqi Foreign Minister BELIEVES that about 18 months are needed, THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WILL BE 18 MONTHS. You stupid old goat. He is no one to force Bush to stay 18 months so stop crying like a baby already.

#2 by COL Gene
Wednesday, May 24, 2006


You are ignorant and faithless. How can you consider yourself an American when you don't even believe in this country? Regardless of what Bush says or does this is still the USA and we try our best to do things right (most of the time anyways), you are faithless, heartless and mindless. Go take your pills and go play some canasta with your buddies.

The occupation of Japan and Germany 3.5 years AFTER surrender is NOTHING like Iraq. Both countries were on the road to recovery and repair after being destroyed.


Only you would see 2 wars as completely different. Let's see, many people died in both wars, many years passed during the war, the US spent a lot of money fighting then reconstructing, oh wait, the reason was different. WHO GIVES A F_CK IF IT WAS A DIFFERENT MOTIVE, WARS ARE WARS. YOU MORON.

You have not come even close to showing how the United States was in danger from Saddam in March 2003. You are so full of BS.


Plenty of times you stupid excuse for a human being. They showed you articles about yellow cake found in Iraq, all the WMD that Saddam had before that aren't accounted for yet, need more? You ignorant fool. I have to call you names cause you don't react to anything else. You bore me, even when Brad wrote an article saying how bad Bush is, you still couldn't agree with him, cause it only has to be your point of view. Dumbass, and in case you ask me to drop dead, makes sure you take your own advice first.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
To spend more time in Iraq then it took to win WWII is NUTS!

If COL Gene had been around in WWII he would've accused the FDR administration of ineptitude for not predicting Pearl Harbor... and for falsifying the intel on Hitler's death camps to suit his own political agenda.

The war would have been part of FDR's agenda to destroy all other market economies and bring America out of the depression. All in FDR's plan to secure America's place as the preeminent economic power for decades to come.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
NOTHING about the Iraq War went the way Bush said it would. I understand the FOG of WAR. However, Bush got everything wrong

Length of the war
Cost of the war
How we would be received
WMD and the danger Saddam posed
Connection to 9/11

How the leader of the world's most powerful nation could get EVERYTHING TOTALLY wrong is hard to believe!!!!!!!!!!

If he were a corporate president with performance like this he would be unemployed. Just goes to show how the American voters were duped.

This little story says it all:

George Bush goes to a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him his name.

"Stanley," responds the little boy.

"And what is your question, Stanley?"

"I have 3 questions.
First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?
Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?
And third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?"

Just then, the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.

When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right: question time. Who has a question?" A little girl puts up her hand. George points her out and asks her name.

"Stephanie," she responds.

"And what is your question, Stephanie?"

Actually, I have 5 questions.
First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?
Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?
Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?
Fourth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?
And fifth, what the hell happened to Stanley?"
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have 7 questions for you gene,
1. have you stopped beating your wife?

2. Has your sexual attraction to AL gore created?

3. Have you stopped selling secret materials to the enemy?

4.How ,much saliva do you use when spitting on the graves of american dead?

5. When standing for the national anthem do you still massage your penis?

6. Do you cash your retirement check and donate it to Hamas?

7. How long have you been an active enemy of America?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have a question for you. What has Bush done that helped this country and why do support a looser?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
have a question for you. What has Bush done that helped this country and why do support a looser?


I would answer but there is nothing anyone can say positive about President Bush without you going off on a tirade.

If someone makes a point about anything , you will drag out a counter point that is way off the subject at hand.

I have a question for you.

why do you stay here and post? no one remotely likes you, for sure no one respects you, you are a one note joke gene, I go out of my way to be kind to others, with you I go out of my way to be crass and rude.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?
Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?
Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?
Fourth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?
And fifth, what the hell happened to Stanley?"


No surprise that col uses a joke to try and prove something. Well here is your answers col.

1. The U.N. passed resolution 1441 which Saddam did not comply and authorized whatever means necessary to disarm. Saddam has also defied the U.N. for over 12 years. After the war we find out the U.N. was involved in a massive scam that denied millions of Iraqis the food and medicine they deserved. All the while lining the pockets of the U.N. an d the french.

2. I guess since you guys are in public schools it's no surprise that you don't know how the electoral system in this country works.

3. Osama is being hunted every day by our special forces and CIA units. Osama cannot sleep in the same place more than once because he is afraid. Let's remember kids, after osama attacked us first back in 1993, he was let off and even his capture was turned down by the last President. Did you teacher ever explain that?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
If COL Gene had been around in WWII he would've accused the FDR administration of ineptitude for not predicting Pearl Harbor... and for falsifying the intel on Hitler's death camps to suit his own political agenda.


Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have a question for you. What has Bush done that helped this country and why do support a looser?


Took our country out of an economic recession started by democratic economics.

Gave a tax break to all Americans who pay taxes.

Decided to fight terrorism instead of appease it.

I can go on more col, but you will come back with some pathetic nonsense about Bush. Why haven't you answered the questions in the other thread?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Despite the strength New York Democrats are displaying as they head into the statewide elections this fall, the party's drive to capture the State Senate appears to be faltering, with some Democratic officials and strategists worried about the strength of the party's candidates and their ability to raise money.

The situation is so critical that several leading Democrats are expressing concern that the party may actually lose a Senate seat this fall, after years of successfully chipping away at the Republican majority in the Senate and coming within striking distance of capturing the chamber.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

Our country had the BEST ten years EVER prior to Bush. Even the wealthy did very well at the higher tax rates.

Gave a tax break that helped create the largest annual deficit we ever had in this country. More then 1/2 of the tax cuts went to people that DO NOT NEED THE TAX CUT.

There was no terrorism to fight in Iraq until we invaded.

YOU ARE WRONG as usual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Our country had the BEST ten years EVER prior to Bush. Even the wealthy did very well at the higher tax rates.


Tech bubbles, recessions, etc......real nice col.


Gave a tax break that helped create the largest annual deficit we ever had in this country. More then 1/2 of the tax cuts went to people that DO NOT NEED THE TAX CUT.


There is nobody that does not need a tax cut. You are just a socialist who thinks you can tell someone how much money they should earn and tax.


There was no terrorism to fight in Iraq until we invaded.


Col, I have documented proof that al-qaeda and other islamic terrorists were operating in Iraq well before we invaded. Terrorism just isn't about Iraq either.

YOU ARE WRONG as usual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Col, myself and Dr. Guy have proved you wrong several times in the thread you seem to have abandoned. You know....what you do when people prove you anti-Bush BS is wrong.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog

The wealthy do not NEED a tax cut. They may want more; it is called greed, but they DO NOT NEED A TAX CUT!

The downturn in late 2000 is called the Business Cycle. That does not change the fact that the 1990's were the BEST ten years this country had and the wealthy as a group did the best. How the wealthy were able to do so well with those tax rates in effect prior to 2001 is hard to understand.

There were no terrorists connected with 9/11 OPERATING IN IRAQ PRIOR TO OUR INVASION.

You have NEVER proven me wrong. You say I am wrong which does NOT make me wrong.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The wealthy do not NEED a tax cut. They may want more; it is called greed, but they DO NOT NEED A TAX CUT!


Just because you, a socialist, says so? Wanting more success for yourself and your family is not greed col.


The downturn in late 2000 is called the Business Cycle. That does not change the fact that the 1990's were the BEST ten years this country had and the wealthy as a group did the best. How the wealthy were able to do so well with those tax rates in effect prior to 2001 is hard to understand.


It's pointless to argue with you col. You even refuse to acknowledge how good the ecnomy is today. Please admit that you are a socialist.


There were no terrorists connected with 9/11 OPERATING IN IRAQ PRIOR TO OUR INVASION.


Nobody said anything about terrorists connect to Sept. 11. Saddam was harboring and supporting islamic terrorists.


You have NEVER proven me wrong. You say I am wrong which does NOT make me wrong.


Like I have said repeatedly. Myself and Dr. Guy have proved you wrong so many times I can't count.

Col said - "there was no yellow cake in Iraq"
Proved wrong and still won't admit it.

I can go on and on, but you live in such a narrow world that all you know is hate Bush, you fail to see anything else. What a sad life you must live.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDod

When you have millions and the tax cuts just allow you to add more zeros to your Net Worth, IT IS GREED. There is no NEED . This country has real NEEDS that could be funded with that tax money and benefit the majority not just the privileged FEW!!!!!!!! For example help balance the budget and STOP borrowing one out of every 5 dollars we spend.

Bush said the issue was that the UNITED STATES was in DANGER from Saddam. He supported Islamic terrorists in general like many other leaders do in the world. The truth as I have stated is that Saddam was NO THREAT to OUR in March 2003 and that has been proven. Bush said he would attack the factions that attacked us on 9/11 and that was NOT Saddam. We never completed the job in Afghanistan and the terrorism that was responsible for 9/11 is again increasing in that country. We have NOT captured the leader responsible for 9/11. WHY?

I said there was NO NUCLEAR weapons in Iraq. That is correct. The yellow cake is NOT a weapon and Saddam did not have the ability to produce or deliver and such weapons to attack America.

You twist what I say but you have NEVER shown that what I said was not correct. A good example is they labor data. I said that in 2000 the unemployment rate was 3.9% and it is 4.7% today. You tell me that it is not correct and our unemployment is no worse now then in 2000. That is a FLAT LIE. In addition, you NEVER acknowledge that the jobs that have been created in the past 2 years pay less and have fewer benefits then the jobs that were lost from 2001-2003. The job creation that Bush claims credit for is too few lower paying jobs. I gave you the source of a comprehensive study completed for the U S Conference of Mayors and you ignore it because it does not fit with your preconceived notion of the REAL JOB PICTURE. You ignore the labor dept data that shows the Average Weekly Wages after inflation is DOWN and has been for the past several years. The fact that GDP and the Stock Market is up does not help the average American. They can spend that added GDP and they do not get the big dividend checks. They have what is in their pay check which BUYS LESS today then when Bush became President! The Bush economic policy was designed to help the Haves and to ignore most everyone else!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
When you have millions and the tax cuts just allow you to add more zeros to your Net Worth, IT IS GREED. There is no NEED . This country has real NEEDS that could be funded with that tax money and benefit the majority not just the privileged FEW!!!!!!!! For example help balance the budget and STOP borrowing one out of every 5 dollars we spend


It is not greed col. You are someone telling another American how much they should earn and be taxed. Socialism at it's best.


Bush said the issue was that the UNITED STATES was in DANGER from Saddam.


Bush wasn't the only one saying that col. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Gen. Zinni said the same thing.


We never completed the job in Afghanistan and the terrorism that was responsible for 9/11 is again increasing in that country. We have NOT captured the leader responsible for 9/11. WHY?


Let me guess. It's a Bush oil conspiracy maybe? Once again you don't have facts. Afghanistan is not being taken over by terrorism. Our troops are still hunting osama every day. Leave it to you to disgrace their service again.


I said there was NO NUCLEAR weapons in Iraq. That is correct. The yellow cake is NOT a weapon and Saddam did not have the ability to produce or deliver and such weapons to attack America


Quote from col.

"Show me where ANY Yellow Cake was FOUND in IRAQ."

Col, you made the claim that there was no yellow cake in Iraq. You were proved wrong and have since let that thread go because you were humiliated and proved wrong.

That is a FLAT LIE. In addition, you NEVER acknowledge that the jobs that have been created in the past 2 years pay less and have fewer benefits then the jobs that were lost from 2001-2003.


And you have never proved the pay less and have few benefits. In fact, I have shown how that claim was debunked and not true. Another fact you ignore.

A new set of numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually shows solid growth in employment in relatively higher -paying occupations including construction workers, health-care professionals, business managers, and teachers, and virtually no growth at all in relatively lower-paying occupations including office clerks and assembly-line workers. It's the most detailed breakdown yet -- looking at 154 different job and industry groupings. These statistics are a FactCheck.org exclusive -- supplied to us by BLS at our request and not previously published.



Col, everyone here has shown you how the economy is great, and you keep ignoring it. You claim everyone else here is one-sided and totally disregard you view of the economy.

Unemployment in this country is very low. You can argue all you want about a 1% difference col. It means nothing. If people would get up and work instead of worrying about entitlements people like you support, employment would probably be at 1%.

You are a fraud and democratic hack. Even the liberals here don't agree with you. That should tell you something.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another statistic often overlooked by Bush critics is that average earnings of rank-and-file private-sector workers have increased since Bush took office, though modestly. Even after adjusting for inflation -- including the rising price of gasoline --those earnings are up just over 1% since January 2001, despite the recession and the initially slow recovery.



Go start another thread col, because you have lost again.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog


I have not been able to obtain the Average weekly wage for 2005. However from 2001 - 2004 the Average Weekly Wage change was +.67%. In 2004 it was down .84% per BLS. When I receive the 2005 numbers I will post them. However, if you are claiming that over 4 years a change of .67% is a growing economy you must be a turtle. That is .19% per year which is NO GROWTH.

My point about the tax cuts for the rich is valid. The rich do NOT NEED a tax cut. Since we are in a deficit position, borrowing money and paying interest on that to give people that DO NOT NEED the added money a tax cuts is not sound fiscal policy.

I had not scene the story about Yellow Cake but the issue remains was the United States threatened in 2003 by Iraq as Bush and Cheney claimed? The answer is HELL NO. Even with that yellow cake, Saddam had no way to use it to threaten our country and the entire Mushroom Cloud scare tactic was a LIE by Bush and Cheney.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
My point about the tax cuts for the rich is valid. The rich do NOT NEED a tax cut. Since we are in a deficit position, borrowing money and paying interest on that to give people that DO NOT NEED the added money a tax cuts is not sound fiscal policy.


Col, who are you to tell an American what they need and don't need? How much should rich be taxed col, 50%, 60% maybe? Just because you think they need it.

Will you finally admit you are a socialist?


I had not scene the story about Yellow Cake but the issue remains was the United States threatened in 2003 by Iraq as Bush and Cheney claimed?


Col, you don't "see" anything that contradicts your narrow view of the U.S. You were proved wrong.


Even with that yellow cake, Saddam had no way to use it to threaten our country and the entire Mushroom Cloud scare tactic was a LIE by Bush and Cheney.


Col, democrats said the exact same thing. If one was "lying", then both were also. Your accusatoins of "lies" have about as much credibility as your blog.

Col, was Cheney lying when he said this statement.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."