Friday, December 02, 2005

An Even Simpler Plan For Iraq

Can it get much more difficult than this? I have presented some very simple thoughts on how to pull out of Iraq and when.
  • Troops must stay with Iraqi Army and Police units until the units have been determined to be ready for combat without American assistance. The standards for this must first be set, although experience is probably the best standard. If a combat group can handle themselves in combat, they should be ready to go.

  • Once the forces of Iraq have proved themselves capable, they will be deployed throughout Iraq. At this point, United States forces will focus on a few select areas for major troop deployment, with more peaceful areas getting outposts. At this point, soldiers will begin to be sent home.

  • After major trouble spots are extinguished, or at least under control, the major American troop deployments in these areas will be decreased to the point of outposts.

  • An American presence will be continued, so that it does not give the notion that the United States is giving up or pulling out. Troops shall remained stationed in order to show that the United States is fully committed to the future of Iraq.

  • When ready, all outposts will migrate to a central base. This way an American deployment can be kept ready should anything arise. Also, so that when we have to go to other Middle Eastern countries to bring democracy, we will have a forward base to operate from.

  • No date-specific time table will be set up for withdrawal of American forces. A complete withdrawal is out of the question. A garrison will remain at all time. The table for major withdrawal from Iraq will be set based on specific goals, like I have just done.

  • It ain't over 'till its over.

How can it be harder than this, folks? It took me maybe ten minutes to figure this out. It should satisfy the liberal whining, since they now have goals set up to withdraw, and it ensures everyone who cares about their country has enough time to grt the job done.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're scary.
One thing is that you apparently don't believe in facts, only in what your president tells you.

The other is that you apparently believe in *everything* your president tells you.

"Saddam was still supporting terrorism" - He was? So Bush was wrong when he admitted that Saddam had no ties to Al Queda then? Damn, is he gonna get pissed off when he hears that.
Here he just thought he was forced to admit an error, and then some blogger stumbles upon the truth, and announces to the world that Saddam was in fact supporting terrorism.

You should have told Bush a year or two ago. Would have saved him a lot of trouble.


I feel sick.

12/19/2005 08:31:00 PM  
Blogger Scott Simontis said...

We still don't have the facts straight when it comes to Iraq. Even if we were wrong on why we went in there, we did a good thing. If you check here you can see that he does support terrorism. Is that enough for you, that he is rewarding the families of those who were threatning to run Israel off the map?

Even if he didn't have any ties to terrorism, we freed the people of Iraq. We might not be too optimistic about the war, but they are. They are happy to be free from his reign. So even if you think Bush lied, we still did a good thing. Not like the rest of the world would have.

And what if we did wait? What if terrorists struck again? It is better to keep them on the defense than on the offense. We know they are afraid. That's why they resort to roadside bombs and suicide bombers. They know the elections are a major victory for us, and that they are the scum of the Earth. What if Iraq became a major terrorist haven because we didn't go over there? What if Saddam tried something against a non-Muslim country, say Israel?

12/20/2005 02:29:00 PM  
Blogger Laks said...

you seem to forget a few facts. Saddam was instated by the US. Saddam was supported by the US in the Iran-Iraq war.
Saddam was removed by the US.

please remember that you weren't alone about this war either..

Now: If YOU had waited for UN to accept this war based on faulty arguments you probably wouldn't have suffered from further terrorism as the lots of terrorist training facilities of SADDAM was never found. Now if the lucky thing happened and you would be hit by terror you would probably had lost a few civilians?

12/20/2005 03:17:00 PM  
Blogger Scott Simontis said...

Saddam funded Salman Pak. That's a terrorist tie right there. Also, see this article. Is that enough proof for you?

12/21/2005 07:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You might consider that the Palestinians although using acts of Terrorism have had their homeland taken FROM THEM by America to install a US lead Israel. If you had your homeland stolen and someone put a country with a religious state that was against your own religion and basically outlawed your people and left them starving on the streets what would you do?

Don't let Saddams support for the Palestinians apparently tie him to Terrorism, because Israel is funded by the US for doing FAR WORSE.

12/22/2005 11:07:00 PM  
Blogger Scott Simontis said...

You assume that Palestine has valid claims in the first place. Based on the methods they use in order to attempt to gain their freedom, Israel should be able to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves. I am proud that the United States supports Israel.

Force should always be the last option, not the first. Perhaps if Palestine chose to negotiate instead of blowing up anything Israeli, they could get something accomplished.

12/28/2005 11:17:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home