'N.Y. Times' Editorial: Leave Iraq Now

[watchthevideo]

NEW YORK At a critical moment, with Republicans in Congress starting to abandon President Bush on Iraq, The New York Times for its Sunday edition has published what may one day be viewed as a historic editorial.

It is titled, "The Road Home," and opens: "It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."

As long chronicled by E&P, very few newspapers in the U.S. have endorsed a withdrawal from Iraq or even a timetable for that, despite the overwhelming shift in public opinion on that question. Momentum has started to shift in that direction, however, with a handful of papers -- from the Los Angeles Times to, just this week, The Olympian in Washington -- backing a pullout. Today, the Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News joined in under the headline, "Bush Stands Alone in His Failed Iraqi Democracy Plans."

Now the Times has added its considerable weight to this cause. The paper has long been very critical of the conduct of the war and skeptical of the "surge" but has never backed a withdrawal. Or as the editorial puts it on Sunday: "Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward."

The paper would like a withdrawal within six months but admits this is "unrealistic." In any case, it wants a firm deadline now.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1003608628

The Road Home
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/op...in&oref=slogin

How many more soldiers/citizens need to die before bush considers an exit.

[xris]

i would like a sensible debate by those who want them out before stability is gained on what they think the outcome would be.im for letting the iraques decide by polling them.

[Re-born Jihadi]

Great to see that the US press (which is not all completely sympathetic to Israel) is speaking out.

Hopefully will make these vermin neocons and the "dumb" Bush & Cheney think twice before looking at Iran.

[Curious_Jay]

I think that most of us here agree that we and the US should not have gone to Iraq but is pulling out now a wise move?

If we and the US pull out, who will fill the void?

Will the pointless slaughter of Iraqi's by their countrymen cease?

Many on her call for the withdrawal of foreign troops but what is the exit stratergy you have in mind?

J

[Duncan]

From the NYTimes article:

One of Mr. Bush’s arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening.

America has not been able to improve anything in Iraq. Why should we expect the next 10 years would be any different?

The violence will go on after America leaves Iraq. But things will begin to improve.

Even if it means Iraq breaking up into a federation or seperate states.

[xris]

From the NYTimes article:



America has not been able to improve anything in Iraq. Why should we expect the next 10 years would be any different?

The violence will go on after America leaves Iraq. But things will begin to improve.

Even if it means Iraq breaking up into a federation or seperate states.

but do you think the iraques should decide wether they leave or not.

[watchthevideo]

i would like a sensible debate by those who want them out before stability is gained on what they think the outcome would be.im for letting the iraques decide by polling them.

Majority Of Iraq's Parliament Reject Continuing Occupation ,For 1st Time
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=26923

The people have spoken!

[xris]

Majority Of Iraq's Parliament Reject Continuing Occupation ,For 1st Time
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=26923

The people have spoken!

i have no qualms or feelings on wether they leave or stay.i personaly think they are waisting their time and soldiers lives staying.i feel if the iraques in a majority vote say you have to finish what you started they are obliged to stay.what do you think ,no one else you.

[Re-born Jihadi]

i have no qualms or feelings on wether they leave or stay.i personaly think they are waisting their time and soldiers lives staying.i feel if the iraques in a majority vote say you have to finish what you started they are obliged to stay.what do you think ,no one else you.

What do you think bro "watchthevideo" meant when he posted that "majority of Iraqs parliament (voted by the people) reject the continuing occupation".

Let me put it in another way for you. It means the Iraqi people want the occupying scum out. Comprendez

[xris]

What do you think bro "watchthevideo" meant when he posted that "majority of Iraqs parliament (voted by the people) reject the continuing occupation".

Let me put it in another way for you. It means the Iraqi people want the occupying scum out. Comprendez

so you would not ask them. too scared to ask the people who matter are you.

[Peacenik]

Xris, in English please.

[boomboom]

Xris, in English please.

i couldnt hold my laughter sorry.. lol

[xris]

Xris, in English please.

if you followed more closely you would understand that i previously asked why not ask the iraque people if they want the yanks to stay or go?it seems some think they know the answer without asking them.pay attention.

[xris]

i couldnt hold my laughter sorry.. lol

thats because your easily pleased.

[watchthevideo]

if you followed more closely you would understand that i previously asked why not ask the iraque people if they want the yanks to stay or go?it seems some think they know the answer without asking them.pay attention.

Read post 7.....

[watchthevideo]

What do you think bro "watchthevideo" meant when he posted that "majority of Iraqs parliament (voted by the people) reject the continuing occupation".

Let me put it in another way for you. It means the Iraqi people want the occupying scum out. Comprendez

Thankyou...........

[CANTANATRIX]

Its not that easy though is it

All's well saying we should leave-but given the divisions and instability of Iraq that's basically us lot screwing the Iraqis twice over.

First we invade in an illegal war, granted we overthrew the tyrant but his brutal order was replaced by brutal instability.

Thousands of dead and injured later everyone wants out and we're going to leave the Iraqis with a shattered nation full of terrorists and criminals, a weak government and endemic violence.

I'm sure our gold medal is in the post....

Rival militas, insurgent groups and terrorists are already killing hundreds of times more Iraqis than they are occupying forces so I don't see how those forces leaving is going to help in the current situation.

When Iraq has a strong army of its own and a strong government-then it will be able to fend for itself and we can leave.

Until then we owe it to the Iraqis to do our best to defend them from this unholy mess we created.

IMO though if the US were to leave and more European and British forces took over from them that'd be a help.

American soldiers know sweet f/a about peacekeeping-only blowing stuff up and spraying bullets.

The actions of the American forces are much more antagonistic to the situation in Iraq than any other occupying nation's forces imo.

In anycase-we must stay till the job is done however much it costs us.

Running away and leaving Iraqis to a perilous unknown future is cowardly especially after we invaded their country in the first place.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[xris]

Read post 7.....

i read it already thankyou.i said if you read my reply ask the people not the goverment.you know the goverment that is not acceptable by you or jh.

[xris]

Its not that easy though is it

All's well saying we should leave-but given the divisions and instability of Iraq that's basically us lot screwing the Iraqis twice over.

First we invade in an illegal war, granted we overthrew the tyrant but his brutal order was replaced by brutal instability.

Thousands of dead and injured later everyone wants out and we're going to leave the Iraqis with a shattered nation full of terrorists and criminals, a weak government and endemic violence.

I'm sure our gold medal is in the post....

Rival militas, insurgent groups and terrorists are already killing hundreds of times more Iraqis than they are occupying forces so I don't see how those forces leaving is going to help in the current situation.

When Iraq has a strong army of its own and a strong government-then it will be able to fend for itself and we can leave.

Until then we owe it to the Iraqis to do our best to defend them from this unholy mess we created.

IMO though if the US were to leave and more European and British forces took over from them that'd be a help.

American soldiers know sweet f/a about peacekeeping-only blowing stuff up and spraying bullets.

The actions of the American forces are much more antagonistic to the situation in Iraq than any other occupying nation's forces imo.

In anycase-we must stay till the job is done however much it costs us.

Running away and leaving Iraqis to a perilous unknown future is cowardly especially after we invaded their country in the first place.

Two wrongs to not make a right.

i totaly agree but there some that think if we leave their tribe is going to win.you can understand their resistance to ask the iraques,they just might want the yanks to stay.

[watchthevideo]

i read it already thankyou.i said if you read my reply ask the people not the goverment.you know the goverment that is not acceptable by you or jh.

According to you a puppet goverment has voted to end the Occupation......is that right.....?