So I missed the Bush speech

[Hayabusa Rider]

Anything concrete that is.

Since he said before that Iraq would have complete sovereingty, who among the Iraqis is going to command our troops? I havent figured that one out, because complete means they are in charge of everything that goes on within their borders.

Oh, and who are "they" anyway?

Will the Iraqis be able to sell their oil to anyone they like? French, Germans, Russians?

What specificially is going to happen on July 1 that didn't a few days before?

What's going on?

 

[dmcowen674]

He tried and failed as usual to come up with 5 reasons he will succeed in Iraq.

Don't laugh to hard you can get a hernia.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Anything concrete that is.

Since he said before that Iraq would have complete sovereingty, who among the Iraqis is going to command our troops? I havent figured that one out, because complete means they are in charge of everything that goes on within their borders.

Oh, and who are "they" anyway?

Will the Iraqis be able to sell their oil to anyone they like? French, Germans, Russians?

What specificially is going to happen on July 1 that didn't a few days before?

What's going on?

C-span.org will be streaming the replay tonight sometime.

CkG

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Bush speech formula:

Make no mistake this...
...resolute that....
...bring freedom to middle east...
...stay the course...
*awkward smirk*
"uh uh uh"
Iraq is better off...
...end speech make sure to toss in 4 syllable word...

 

[HappyPuppy]

I normally just lurk in this shithole, but on occasion I feel the need to add my 2 cents.

We have 138,000 troops over there right now. Uh, isn't that more than we used to "conquer" them? Er, maybe conquer isn't the right word. LIBERATE!!! Yeh, that's the ticket, we "liberated" them.

Anyway, my point is how many troops are we going to have there and for how long? Bush said "as many as it takes and for however long it takes."

Holy shades of South Korea, Batman! :Q Our troops are going to get tired and our equipment is going to get worn out. Has anybody figured out how much this is going to cost us?

Don't get me wrong, I supported this fiasco at the beginning. I bought into all the phoney intel crap. Now that it has been proven wrong I'm wondering if, just maybe, we could use all these billions of dollars to take care of some of our own problems.

Eh, this is why I normally lurk.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I normally just lurk in this shithole, but on occasion I feel the need to add my 2 cents.

We have 138,000 troops over there right now. Uh, isn't that more than we used to "conquer" them? Er, maybe conquer isn't the right word. LIBERATE!!! Yeh, that's the ticket, we "liberated" them.

Anyway, my point is how many troops are we going to have there and for how long? Bush said "as many as it takes and for however long it takes."

Holy shades of South Korea, Batman! :Q Our troops are going to get tired and our equipment is going to get worn out. Has anybody figured out how much this is going to cost us?

Don't get me wrong, I supported this fiasco at the beginning. I bought into all the phoney intel crap. Now that it has been proven wrong I'm wondering if, just maybe, we could use all these billions of dollars to take care of some of our own problems.

Eh, this is why I normally lurk.

What problems would you use the billions of dollars to care of?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What problems would you use the billions of dollars to care of?

Personally, I would've used it to hunt down Al Queda and secure Afghanistan. But that's just me.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What problems would you use the billions of dollars to care of?

Personally, I would've used it to hunt down Al Queda and secure Afghanistan. But that's just me.

It would be nice to have that money paying for domestic issues, like reducing dependency on foreign oil. Or fixing the broken ripoff healthcare industry. Or building up a safe secure infrastructure inthe US beginning with transportation, and winding up with banking reform.

But I would also be happy if Osama was eliminated. After 3 years, you would have thought we wouldn't need to discuss that now.

:roll:

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What problems would you use the billions of dollars to care of?

Personally, I would've used it to hunt down Al Queda and secure Afghanistan. But that's just me.

It would be nice to have that money paying for domestic issues, like reducing dependency on foreign oil. Or fixing the broken ripoff healthcare industry. Or building up a safe secure infrastructure inthe US beginning with transportation, and winding up with banking reform.

But I would also be happy if Osama was eliminated. After 3 years, you would have thought we wouldn't need to discuss that now.

:roll:

I remember hearing somewhere that if the fuel efficiency standards that were proposed in the early 1980s had been implemented, we would've had little to no depedency by this point. Interesting thought. Too bad the powers-that-be will never allow it. Never kill a cash cow.

 

[CQuinn]

Anything concrete that is.

I didn't see it either.

Since he said before that Iraq would have complete sovereingty, who among the Iraqis is going to command our troops?

They will command their own troops, not those of a visiting power.

I havent figured that one out, because complete means they are in charge of everything that goes on within their borders.

I would think you would know better than the come to that conclusion. Japan, Germany, South Korea.
What do each of those countries have in common? They are each considered a soveriegn nation, that
still accepts the presence of a US-controlled military force on thier soil.

Oh, and who are "they" anyway?

That's a better question, since we seem to be running out of people qualified to take over.
My question is, did it not occur to our intelligence agencies that one of the best ways for terrorists to
disrupt the handover would be to attack those we are handing things over to?

Will the Iraqis be able to sell their oil to anyone they like? French, Germans, Russians?

Of course, as long as it abides by the fine print on the liberation contract they signed with
Halliburton^H^H^H... Paul Bremer.

What specificially is going to happen on July 1 that didn't a few days before?

The first reviews for Spider-Man 2 will be hitting the news sites?

What's going on?

I was hoping you knew.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Anything concrete that is.

I didn't see it either.

Since he said before that Iraq would have complete sovereignty, who among the Iraqis is going to command our troops?

They will command their own troops, not those of a visiting power.

I haven't figured that one out, because complete means they are in charge of everything that goes on within their borders.

I would think you would know better than the come to that conclusion. Japan, Germany, South Korea.
What do each of those countries have in common? They are each considered a sovereign nation, that
still accepts the presence of a US-controlled military force on their soil.

Oh, and who are "they" anyway?

That's a better question, since we seem to be running out of people qualified to take over.
My question is, did it not occur to our intelligence agencies that one of the best ways for terrorists to
disrupt the handover would be to attack those we are handing things over to?

Will the Iraqis be able to sell their oil to anyone they like? French, Germans, Russians?

Of course, as long as it abides by the fine print on the liberation contract they signed with
Halliburton^H^H^H... Paul Bremer.

What specifically is going to happen on July 1 that didn't a few days before?

The first reviews for Spider-Man 2 will be hitting the news sites?

What's going on?

I was hoping you knew.

Heh, nice post

Regarding troops in Germany, etc...

Those troops are indeed under US control, but they aren't patrolling the streets of Germany. They are in Europe (as I am sure you know) because of the former USSR (which still weirds me out after all these years, "former"). They remain because it is to the advantage of the US to have bases which gives us markedly greater freedom of military action. The Germans get money coming in to their country in return. It is a mutually agreed upon arrangement. While troops are off duty, they can't flout German law. Germany is sovereign in fact.

No so in Iraq. These troops will be enforcing the peace, and who knows exactly what else. They will certainly be empowered to shoot Iraqis. They do not have that authority in Japan. That is the real difference.