[Japakefrope]

Apparentley the freely elected leader is now only asking for material support.

Asked how long Iraq would require US troops, Mr al-Maliki said: “If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for American troops will dramatically go down. That is on condition that there are real, strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping and arming them.” Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader - World - Times Online

So now they're leader is only asking for more weapons to stifle this insurgency. The only question is will the Democrats go along with a troop decrease coupled with an increase of weapons support.

Here's the Iraqis chance, with our support, to fight for their own country.

Varus

[alias]

Apparentley the freely elected leader is now only asking for material support.



Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader - World - Times Online

So now they're leader is only asking for more weapons to stifle this insurgency. The only question is will the Democrats go along with a troop decrease coupled with an increase of weapons support.

Here's the Iraqis chance, with our support, to fight for their own country.

Varus

That's great news, Varus, unfortunately the Democrats will be against anything Republicans propose. They've proven that by being against victory in Iraq and the rest of the war on terror.

[Japakefrope]

That's great news, Varus, unfortunately the Democrats will be against anything Republicans propose. They've proven that by being against victory in Iraq and the rest of the war on terror.

After all the crying the Democrats have done about pulling the troops I'd think they'd be thrilled at this.

Varus

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

When did the democrats say anything or have anything to do with whether or not Iraqis got more guns?

The Bush admin is responsible for the Iraqis having enough guns.

Why are the Democrats to blame for this?

[Japakefrope]

When did the democrats say anything or have anything to do with whether or not Iraqis got more guns?

The Bush admin is responsible for the Iraqis having enough guns.

Why are the Democrats to blame for this?

When the Democrats suggest we bail on the Iraqis they're in essence threatening to weaken the freely elected govn by not aiding in them being able to protect themselves. Would the Democrats rather the US just leave and offer no support for this hotbed of terrorism?

Varus

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

I'd rather our troops be deployed to the borders to stop the bad guys from supplying the insurgency and the Iraqi military be given what they need to keep the country secure. I'd rather our allies in the region and around the world send in troops to help the Iraqis end the civil war we started and our tax dollars stop hemoraging into a black hole of Republican Oil Company greed.

[blackjackblax]

Sounds good to me. However the sending of 20K more troops kind of contadicts this thinking. Maybe Bush should listen to what the Iraqi leaders are telling him.

Some other interesting points.

Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgency had been bloodier and prolonged because Washington had refused to part with equipment. If it released the necessary arms, US forces could “dramatically” cut their numbers in three to six months, he told The Times. Why are you worried if dems will support this more weapon plan? It's obvious who really doesn't support it.

The US Government is wary of handing over large amounts of military hardware to the Iraqis because it has sometimes ended up in the hands of militias and insurgents. Legit reason to not hand over large amounts of guns. Although I think there will always be this risk. It has to stop being an excuse sometime in the future.

Also, I think the title is a bit Bush's plan succeeding is a misleading title. It is al-Maliki telling Bush what they need which is obviously not what he has been giving them.

[Viafdrear]

This one made me smile.

Did anyone (including the OP) follow the link and actually read the story?

Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader
Stephen Farrell in Baghdad
# Prime Minister wants change of US policy
# Mistakes over Saddam hanging, Times told [1] Who is responsible for whether or not Iraqi security forces get weapons? The Administration. So the part of Bushes [sic] plan that deals with weapons for Iraqi security forces? Failing.

[2] "Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgency had been bloodier and prolonged because Washington had refused to part with equipment." Failing.

[3] "In a sign of the tense relations with Washington, he chided the US for suggesting his Government was living on “borrowed time”. Such criticism boosted Iraq’s extremists, he said, and was more a reflection of “some kind of crisis situation” in Washington after the Republicans’ midterm election losses." So Maliki thinks that the Administration has used language that encourages the extremists in Iraqi. Failing.

If this article is offered as some kind of proof that Bushes [sic] plans are succeeding, well, I think the effort is much like that of Bush in Iraqi ... failing.

[stunnyravytal]

Fantastic news. We should also supply nuclear weapons to help counter-act the Iranian threat as well - perhaps 2-3 hundred obsolete tactical weapons and the means to deliver them.

[annouhMus]

Apparentley the freely elected leader is now only asking for material support.



Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader - World - Times Online

So now they're leader is only asking for more weapons to stifle this insurgency. The only question is will the Democrats go along with a troop decrease coupled with an increase of weapons support.

Here's the Iraqis chance, with our support, to fight for their own country.

Varus

Did you also know he had stated that the Bush administration was self destructing, rather than his????

OH! Such WONDERFUL Success. ( The only sucsess here is that maybe the Iraqis are getting smarter.)

[masaredera]

Apparentley the freely elected leader is now only asking for material support.



Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader - World - Times Online

So now they're leader is only asking for more weapons to stifle this insurgency. The only question is will the Democrats go along with a troop decrease coupled with an increase of weapons support.

Here's the Iraqis chance, with our support, to fight for their own country.

Varus

Why do you need to supply the weapons? Surely any number of nations could do that? Ahh but of course, American interests and elites have to profit somehow off this mess. Sure the democrats would be on board.

Andrew

[masaredera]

This is no different, perhaps worse, than supplying weapons to Saddam. The Maliki government is little more than a front for religious death squads engaged in religious cleansing. They are possibly the most brutal government in the world today, even more so than the Sudanese government arming and facilitating the militants in Darfur.

Andrew

[usatramadolusa]

Bushes plan succeeding [...]

1.) Bush had and has no plan
2.) Bush had and has no success

[alias]

After all the crying the Democrats have done about pulling the troops I'd think they'd be thrilled at this.

Varus

Well, one would think so, and I do respect your position on that, Varus, however, I've learned a couple of things over the last 6 years about these people. One is they try to demonize all forms of our nation defending itself, particularly if those methods of defense come from the Bush administration.

The other being that Liberals are extremely invested in our defeat. I can't understand it, but they want us to lose. That's how they look anyway, they come up with ridiculous statements like: "I support the troops, but not the mission!" Which in itself is an impossibility, and a borderline oxymoron. They spread rumors and lies about perfectly legitimate programs such as the NSA foreign surveillance program and the Patriot act. They have a pre-9/11 mentality that for the life of me I'll never understand. It's like they refuse to accept the idea that we should defend ourselves in the face of terrorism.

If they were to get their way, they would flush the nation down the toilet with social programs and the surrender of our troops.

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

Well, one would think so, and I do respect your position on that, Varus, however, I've learned a couple of things over the last 6 years about these people. One is they try to demonize all forms of our nation defending itself, particularly if those methods of defense come from the Bush administration.

The other being that Liberals are extremely invested in our defeat. I can't understand it, but they want us to lose. That's how they look anyway, they come up with ridiculous statements like: "I support the troops, but not the mission!" Which in itself is an impossibility, and a borderline oxymoron. They spread rumors and lies about perfectly legitimate programs such as the NSA foreign surveillance program and the Patriot act. They have a pre-9/11 mentality that for the life of me I'll never understand. It's like they refuse to accept the idea that we should defend ourselves in the face of terrorism.

If they were to get their way, they would flush the nation down the toilet with social programs and the surrender of our troops.

Wow! Fantasy land! Oh, but you're the poor kid who gets his info from Rush Limbaugh. OK, makes sense now. But it's really sad that you believe all this bullshit.

[alias]

1.) Bush had and has no plan
2.) Bush had and has no success

He does have plans, but nations like France and Germany were too afraid to help out, From the soldiers I talk to (that would be quite alot) they tell me that things are going way better than what the Liberal media is reporting. But I guess the soldiers are lying too, right?


So, if Bush has and had no plan, that means the terrorist attacks on the us should have continued, right?

[alias]

Wow! Fantasy land! Oh, but you're the poor kid who gets his info from Rush Limbaugh. OK, makes sense now. But it's really sad that you believe all this bullshit.

Wow, you really got me with that one.

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

He does have plans, but nations like France and Germany were too afraid to help out, From the soldiers I talk to (that would be quite alot) they tell me that things are going way better than what the Liberal media is reporting. But I guess the soldiers are lying too, right?


So, if Bush has and had no plan, that means the terrorist attacks on the us should have continued, right?

Our allies are not too afraid to help out....they just didn't want to get involved in a war based on lies where they would have no contracts for re-building as Bush gave it all to No Bid Halliburton and CACI and Titon.

[alias]

Our allies are not too afraid to help out....they just didn't want to get involved in a war based on lies where they would have no contracts for re-building as Bush gave it all to No Bid Halliburton and CACI and Titon.

Yes, they are afraid. You know that the French would surrender at the sight of a firecracker, and I'm not sure what Germany's problem is, but it's blatantly obvious that they're scared to death as well.

So, When Bill Clinton said the EXACT SAME THING That President Bush said about Saddam, he was lying too, right?

[blackjackblax]

Well, one would think so, and I do respect your position on that, Varus, however, I've learned a couple of things over the last 6 years about these people. One is they try to demonize all forms of our nation defending itself, particularly if those methods of defense come from the Bush administration.

The other being that Liberals are extremely invested in our defeat. I can't understand it, but they want us to lose. That's how they look anyway, they come up with ridiculous statements like: "I support the troops, but not the mission!" Which in itself is an impossibility, and a borderline oxymoron. They spread rumors and lies about perfectly legitimate programs such as the NSA foreign surveillance program and the Patriot act. They have a pre-9/11 mentality that for the life of me I'll never understand. It's like they refuse to accept the idea that we should defend ourselves in the face of terrorism.

If they were to get their way, they would flush the nation down the toilet with social programs and the surrender of our troops.

Actually it was Bush that defined defeat as us leaving. We went in, took Saddam out of power, confirmed no WMD, attempted to rebuild Iraq by giving billions of dollars to contactors with no accountability, helped them have elections, are attempting to enable them to protect themselves. The only failure I see is in the governments execution of the entire war. You may think liberals want to lose the war, but Bush Co. is making damn sure we do that.

We declared victory 3 days after we started the war. The war is over, we are now occupying Iraq. Are we going to lose the occupation? I don't understand why conservatives define leaving as losing. We haven't lost anything.