37 Responses to “How Do You Leave a Country?”

1. bigmammoth Says:
   January 9th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

   We should be asking “What’s the best-case scenario if we stay”. Things have continuously gotten worse since the US started its occupation. This is not to say violence is not part of national unification, in fact I can’t think of a single case were the process of forming a nation state has not been violent. But contrary to the dogma pushed the massive US government public information industry the presence of a foreign military occupying power clouds this process of nation unification.

   Inevitable the occupying military aligns with sympathetic section of the domestic Iraqi population which inevitably draw lines along ethnic/religious identities. A killed female translator working with the occupation becomes a Shia killed by a Sunni with a debut of violence for the Shia to return. This greatly magnifies the violence that takes place in the process of unification. (hence the extreamly violent civil war). Even the domestic occupation sympathizers are conscience of this and have call for timetables for withdrawal.

   But these calls fall on the death ears of the dogmatic imperialists that are ironically fighting for a lost cause that will quickly lose relevance as we transition into micro-energy production, renewables and global increased transport efficiency. As for their more commonly stated goals of regional stability looks less and less plausible every day. Elections prop up extremist in extrema situations (ie Hamas), violence continues to increases in Iraq, and every index of terrorist activity is on the rise.

   The powers that be would have you believe that terrorism will be fueled by the absence of occupation as opposed to being fueled by the presence of occupation. Withdrawal will not give the neo-cons the type of government which they want, but if we aim to minimize the amount of violence its the only choice. Unfortunately for the neocons minimizing violence is simply not as important as selective control over governing structures (we could also call it convenient morality). They would have you believe this selective control reduces violence in the future but this same logic kept Saddam supported and the same logic again ravaging the Iraqi people.

   Beyond all above logistical arguments its the more basic and essential point. That we have no right to continuously occupy other peoples territory to ostensibly befit them and our selves. The idea that we can just occupy a contry with no timetable until it reflects a un-declared imaged state thats in our “leader” head is the basic definition of a war aggression. In a functioning democracy this would be impossible.

2. OliverCranglesParrot Says:
   January 9th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

   “How Do You Leave a Country?” The same way you arrived, only in reverse! Something like this. The size and shape of the wake should have been given a more serious consideration before the engagement.

   It is highly probable that there is no soft landing for an exit strategy. (Is that painfully obvious now or what?!) It would appear that to maintain a U.S. military presence perpetuates an intractable chaos with many spokes that rotate about that U.S. presence. I can suggest religious sectarianism and oil access and control as two spokes of many.

   If there is a desire to grapple with this situation, then there needs to be some extremely explicit criteria for the objectives. Two possible criteria could be what and how do we achieve our strategic objectives or what and how do we meet the moral/ethical obligations? They don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but they do need to be weighted and prioritized to avoid a collective, neurotic meltdown. Other criteria should certainly be put on the table and examined. But, without any understanding and consensus (a word that does not need to be synonymous with flaccid agreement!) we have no way of evaluating when or how to leave. Since there hasn’t been any consensus so far, there’s no reason to believe it’ll happen. But, one can remain hopeful in the face of cynical pessimism.

   The worst criterion, but the one likely to get the most weight, will be how to avoid blame. Blame shifting is as old as the creation myths themselves, so it’s definitely an ingrained part of the human character. Thus, best-case and worst-case scenarios will likely weight this parameter highest, and plans will be executed with the hopes of addressing this consideration above all others.

   Whatever the criteria for an exit strategy, the general public is going to have to be fully prepared for the consequences of not achieving these goals in toto.

   We have become an annoying guest who has overstayed its welcome, and trashed the place along with the previous head-of-state. Well, that’s one possible reading, though a bit gloomy.

3. sidewalker Says:
   January 9th, 2007 at 8:36 pm

   The Clash address the dilemma beautifully in the lyrics of their song Should I Stay Or Should I Go:

   Should I stay or should I go now?
   Should I stay or should I go now?
   If I go there will be trouble
   An if I stay it will be double
   So come on and let me know

   This indecisions bugging me
   Esta undecision me molesta
   If you dont want me, set me free
   Si no me quieres, librame
   Exactly whom Im supposed to be
   Diga me que tengo ser
   Dont you know which clothes even fit me?
   saves que robas me querda?
   Come on and let me know
   Me tienes que desir
   Should I cool it or should I blow?
   me debo ir o quedarme?

4. sidewalker Says:
   January 9th, 2007 at 9:11 pm

   Steve Grand, in his book, Creation: Life and How to Make It, asks readers to:
   think of an experience you clearly remember, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you are really there. After all, you really were there at the time, weren’t you? How else would you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you weren’t there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place. Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. Whatever you are, therefore, you are not the stuff of which you are made. If that doesn’t make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, read it again until it does, because it is important.

   Applying this idea of experiential endurance, I wonder if there is any way to speak about “leaving”, even if (and this is doubtful if the example of Japan is considered) ALL the troops and contractors depart and the bases grow weeds. The lasting memories, the emotional pain and suffering of this latest US occupation will live on for years and generations, even when the physical and social devastation one day is no longer so visible.

5. peggysue Says:
   January 10th, 2007 at 2:41 am

   Another musical answer (Paul Simon’s) comes to mind…

   Hop on the bus Gus
   Drop off the key Lee
   Make new plan Stan
   Set yourself free

6. joneden Says:
   January 10th, 2007 at 5:20 am

   Since those of you (excepting me) who post here are unfortunately not the Deciders in this matter, let us do the next best thing and have congress hold hearings on how we do the disengagement thing from Iraq–not that you should not provide them with all the relevant ideas.

   With the carrier, the USS Stennis, scheduled to leave Bremerton, WA this month to join the Eisenhower in the Persian Gulf, the Iranian nuclear intransigence, GWs promises in that regard, the Iranian meddling in Iraq, our refusal to either talk to or otherwise guarantee Iran’s security, and Israel’s recent threat, there is clearly a gathering storm which portends not less engagement in the region but more.

   Speaking of our recent topic on micromanaging, since GHWBs diplomatic attempt to get Baker to rein in his pyromaniac son was obviously not successful, maybe it is time for a short phone call from Barb, “Hey George, KNOCK IT OFF and don’t make me have to call you back.”

   Is it still OK to laugh in the face of this mushrooming tragedy (which is mainly effecting other people?)

   Jon in Port Townsend
   Connecting the Dots: From human behaviors to ecosystem collapse
   http://StudentsForTheEarth.org

7. joneden Says:
   January 10th, 2007 at 6:24 am

   Versus disengagement, is the below a realistic possibility? I am not grounded in history and am just writing from a little bit of knowledge and gut instinct–hey that is what George uses, isn’t it. I hope some of you more educated types will tell me whether or not this truthiness has any reality about it. I can only hope that I am way off course; I like to be able to sleep at night:

   If Bush can only keep us involved in stoking the fire in Iraq until he can get one going in Iran, he will be able to become a real war time president as the peoples all across the region—driven insane by our madness—turn on their leaders and each other. Then he will have a real need for our troops–the protection of the oil infrastructure so that we can continue with our destruction of the Ecosystem (the one which just happens to sustain us.)

   Jon in Port Townsend
   Connecting the Dots: From human behaviors to ecosystem collapse
   http://StudentsForTheEarth.org

8. RobertPeel Says:
   January 10th, 2007 at 9:47 am

   Certainly, one must site Vermont Senator Geroge Aiken’s statement “Declare that we won and leave.”
   Though I disagree with the Iraq war. I was against it from the beginning. Colin Powell ‘s Pottery Barn dictum has a moral imperative ” If you break it,you own it!”
   Winning World War II meant not only military vistory but creating the Marshall Plan and McArthur’s occupation of Japan: rebuilding these countries.
   Was than not the tmeme of “the Mouse that roared” to delcare war on the US was inviting the rebuilding of a nation. We have to repair the broken pottery!

9. hurley Says:
   January 10th, 2007 at 12:01 pm

   The debacle in Iraq (where are you when we need you, Muhammed Ali) may resemble Vietnam in certain ways, leaving Baghdad likely to be even more difficult than leaving Saigon, at least according to this article by the Israeli military historian, Martin Van Creveld:
   http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1116-21.htm
   He’s a provocative thinker on military affairs, likely an interesting guest.

10. allison Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    Have we thought about allowing the Iraqis to plan our departure? Beyond Maliki. Perhaps a coalition of the different factions could be created wherein they create the terms. After all, it is the battle of these factions that we are in the middle of now. Eventually, for anything to get better, they have to come to some terms. No? Why not get them talking now? Perhaps the UN – or some agency that all parties find acceptable – could form a mediation team.

11. Tom B Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    I suspect we have lots to learn if we read the ‘Iraqi tealeaves’ with the following templates in mind: (1) the union by armed force of North and South Vietnam; (2) the peaceful divorce between the Czechs and Slovaks in the uneventful partition of Czechoslovakia; and (3) the messy mix of ethnic cleansing and violent partition of Yugoslavia into its constituent ethnic groupings. Unfortunately, it is the NEIGHBORS of Iraq that are the wild cards in this unfolding drama: Will the Turks move on an independent Kurdistan? Will the
    Arab Sunnis in Saudi Arabia demand autonomy — or union with Iraq — once the Saudi ‘house of cards’ enevitably collapses (and remember the Saudi oil fields are in SHIITE populated areas!) Would either/both the Saudis and/or the Sunni inhabitants of Anbar be open to absorption of the province by Saudi Arabia (both Sunni Arab). — All civil wars end, so it is not a geopolitical MetaIssue if Iraq turns into a bloody mess (we successful ignored millions of dead in the Congo, not to mention hundreds of thousands in Rwanda). It would be a HUMAN tragedy for those not able to flee, but not a geopolitical tragedy. One issue not being explicitly discussed is oil. It is a worthless black gummy liquid in the ground, and only gains value if it can be removed from the earth and sold on the world market. The greedy will never destroy oil fields, since they want to sell their black gold. And therefore fears of ‘losing our access to oil’ if [whoever] wins is ridiculous. What is NOT an idle fear is either temporary closures due to violence or — the real doomsday scenario — pitched battles being waged in oil fields by modern (or semi-modern) armies. ‘Accidental collateral damage’ is more likely than deliberate destruction of the fields. — So how does this impinge on decision-making? Well, Americans are loathe to admit the fact, but some things are simply outside our control. (This used to be called ‘fate’ and was the essence of something called ‘tragedy’; both foreign to American dialogue.) Now, the genie having been let out of the bottle, those of us standing on the sidelines of history can simply watch…. and see how it all comes out. If we have any power (questionable), it can only be that of nudging history into a relatively less unsatisfactory channel. It would be great to think that Iraq could evolve along the Czech – Slovak model, but I’m not betting on that outcome. Maybe I’m just a pessimist, and it would be something to work toward…. But since NO ONE has brought up that model, it’s apparently not even being considered.

12. avecfrites Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    As a general case, the Pottery Barn theory is just wrong. It’s a moral, not a realpolitical statement. The US has a long history of invading countries, breaking things, and then choosing not to own them — think about Mexico, Cuba, the Phillippines, Somalia, Panama, etc.

    We generally assume no responsibility for our breakage, but in the Iraq case the world may thrust responsibility upon us. Iraq is a major oil producer. It is the boundary between the Sunni and Shiite nations. It matters to Europe, to China, to Russia, and to the Arab and Muslim worlds, and they are the ones who will make us treat Iraq as a responsibility we can’t so easily shirk. If we either stay and fail or leave and let Iraq fail, our national reputation will suffer in a way that it has never suffered in the past. Iraq marks our coming of age, where we will be punished as an adult after 100+ years of being a minor and getting off without hard time.

13. OliverCranglesParrot Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    that we have to go up before we go down

    Juicy and catchy … very catchy … very juicy … has this been vetted … where’s the redactor

14. Potter Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    How do your leave a country?

    Regarding our further responsibility, decide where that begins and ends in Iraq.
    Swallow pride,leave humbly (“we did the best we could” ).
    Say we will work with the international community to help where and when we can.
    Promise to take action against any neighboring country invading. ( see link below)
    Allow Iraqi refugees into our country.

    As for “the new plan Stan” – a serious multi-pronged domestic energy policy that includes conservation. Turn our attention towards resolution of Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

    I linked this article for Monday’s show: Time to Offshore our Troops

15. barthjg Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    From an interview Frontline conducted with H.R. McMaster author of Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam.

    “There is nothing inherently wrong in limiting the use of force as long as the means employed are connected with strategic goals and objectives. The process of determining the means to employ must begin with a clearly stated policy goal or objective. Senior military advisers and commanders should then develop a military strategy that contributes to or achieves that goal or objective. Then, military commanders determine the level of force necessary to carry out that strategy.

    During the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson and his advisers did precisely the opposite. LBJ determined what level of military force was politically palatable in the short term, made it available to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and told them to do the best they could with what they got. That is why we had lots of military activity in Vietnam (bombing North Vietnam and killing the enemy in South Vietnam)without a clear idea of how that activity represented progress. That is also why many brave, patriotic men took risks and made sacrifices without knowing how those risks and sacrifices were contributing toward an end of the war. That is why, along with the recognition that they had been lied to for years, many Americans lost faith in the effort.”

16. Potter Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    Good for Alistair Horne for mentioning that maybe we should have listened to the French. I thought Chirac had a right to say “I told you so”:

    Chirac Says Time Proves France Was Right to Resist War

    From back in 2003: Wimps, weasels and monkeys – the US media view of ‘perfidious France’

17. mulp Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    My recommendation is very simple: carve out all the costs of military operation outside the US (inside the US, the costs are “defense”) along with all related foriegn policy costs (which are largely military in nature) and fund them with a war tax computed as a surcharge on one of the existing taxes. My preference would be a surcharge on capital gains, but a surcharge on total income taxes would also make the point.

    I would have the rate be computed by the IRS in November based on past deficits, or surpluses, in the war tax funding the prior year, and the future projected costs for the current year. The tax payer would compute his tax as usual, then just before figuring out the amount due or refunded, multiple that value by the war tax rate and add.

    I’m sure that this approach would turn both conservatives and liberals into pacifists that proactively seek to avoid all wars, and together would provide unified advice to the President take the action needed to avoid US entanglements in the affairs of foriegn nations.

18. allison Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 8:39 pm

    With no good examples of invading nations exiting the invaded country, how can it be than any policy advisor would push for invading another country?

19. allison Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 8:46 pm

    mulp, it would be really cool if any president asking to declare war had to propose the war tax amount and sell it to the people as an action so necessary that the people consider it worth the monetary cost. Then, the president would be limited to the budget created by the tax and any additional taxes would have to voted on by a committee that is bi-partisan and has governmental representatives, military representatives and people from the street – an executive, a doctor, a welder, a stay-at-home parent, etc.

20. jkqualla Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 9:25 pm

    I was astounded at Chris’s comment about convincing the Iraqis that the US is not there to establish permanent bases or grab the oil resources. It does not seem that they are as stupid as the American people are. It has been clear all along that the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq were a desperate gambit by the Empire to seize the last large reserves in the world. The Independent published a smoking gun on Sunday with the revelation that legislation is to be be sneaked through the Iraqi parliament to set up 30 year contracts with big oil companies to give them access to Iraq’s oil and a 40 percent cut of the profits in the early years, 20 percent thereafter. This story has not been followed up anywhere else that I have seen.
    We can talk all we want. The organized criminals of both parties in Washington and the Blair lapdogs have no intention of leaving Iraq. Ever. They will have to be forced out as the British were in the last century all over the world. The cost in lives and lost opportunities will be truly tragic.
    For clarification: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece
    http://www.oilempire.us/
    By the way, on the Moby Dick program: I thought it was a stretch to try to make our current criminal government correspond to the characters in Moby Dick. A better choice might be Dante’s Inferno, as in, which circle of Hell will Cheney reside in? Wolfowitz? Perle? Rice? Democrats who voted for the war?

21. OliverCranglesParrot Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    I bucked up and listened to Pres. Bush’s speech. My initial reaction is not only is there no timeline, not only is there no idea what the terrain will look like, not only is there no clear, concise, simple objectives beyond fairly vague platitudes and fear pimping, but there is a potential for a ratchetting up of tension across the region, which will certainly require increased troop levels:

    “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge.

    This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

22. Ben Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    …rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg?

23. Forton Twelve Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 11:13 pm

    Bush has not given up on Iran – the real Prize. A skirmish in the Gulf – or on the Iranian border is all that he needs for justification. ‘Additional troops needed to defend beleaguered border outpost’. Once the troops are in it will be very difficult to get them out.

24. OliverCranglesParrot Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    It’s going to be an extremely brutal season. I guess this would foreshadow getting tough at the edges?

    “Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.”

25. opiniatre Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    I hope you will not censure me. Honestly I doubt it. I am listening to your your show on WETA Station, and I am amazed at the level of Ignorance or should I say “DENIAL” of reality. Here’re my issues with you. You “Sir” expert will benefit out of this too.

    1. There are no Abrabs in Algeria. There are Amazigh or Numidian Moslims, but no Arabs. Get that straight ! By the way, today is our Calendar New Year’s Celebration. If you don’t know who the Numidians are, then go take a close look at the Hadrian Wall, you will find my ancestor’s footprint, inscription and it is not Latin. No we did not all come out of the fertile crescent, that’s a myth. I invite you to visit http://www.makabylie.info/

    2. The attempt to make of Numidians Arabs and Moslims is Napoleon’s projet, and he has miserably lost that project and his imaginary kingdom or commonwhealth, or whatever –

    3. Shame on you and your “Sir” in 2006, to not mention WHY did that war last an extra 4 years, i.e the role of the Lobby and which one(s) – Addreess that as A CORRUPT CULTURE OF ALL SYMPATHISERS OF DEGAULE.

    4. The Islamists in Algeria and all of Africa, in Iraq and in many other places are the inventions of the governments mentioned in 3 above. That’s it, igniting conlict for your energy and other goods profits IS OVER.

    I am listening, and I am Algerian-American.

    Have you read Frantz Fannon – Have you read Mouloud Feraoun, a native Algerian in a book titled “The Journal” 1954 to 1962.

26. Forton Twelve Says:
    January 11th, 2007 at 12:37 am

    Also in Bush’s speech tonight:

    “We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region”.

    This is a much more serious escalation than the 20,000 troups. The carrier group will not be much use for street fighting in Bagdad; it’s a direct threat to Iran.

    This is a bold assertion of personal authority; especially in the face of the recent elections. Despite clear indications of public opinion, he is moving to effect contrary ends. This arrogance is not inconsistent with other bold moves he’s taken against the constitution, the military, the public and Iraq. Public opinion no-longer matters, no need to worry about re-election, he commands the military, he’s going to sweep the board.

    How do we leave a country? – indeed.

27. nbowling Says:
    January 11th, 2007 at 2:27 am

    I watched the speech tonight with my family. We all sat around the TV—no one spoke—everyone watched and listened. To me it was anachronistic to my vision of the speeches of Roosevelt during WWII or President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I wish we had one of them right now, instead of this guy.

28. joneden Says:
    January 11th, 2007 at 3:01 am

    The following is Patrick Cockburn’s prescription for leaving:

    “…The building blocks for peace should include the appointment of a peace envoy: probably a senior official from the Arab world trusted in the US and the Middle East and acting on behalf of the UN. He should start talks about calling an international conference at which all the players inside and outside Iraq can meet.

    A central theme of the conference should be the total withdrawal of US and British forces from Iraq, leaving no bases behind. Any final agreement should be in the shape of an international treaty including guarantees for minorities such as the Iraqi Kurds and Sunni. Finally Iraq should be neutralized like Austria in Europe in the 1950s.

    There is no chance of this happening under Mr Bush. The reversal of policy would be too great and the admission of failure too humiliating…”

29. Tigs Says:
    January 11th, 2007 at 3:44 am

    I, like many Americans, have been mulling over this problem for some time. This is a frustrating issue, since while it is easy to criticize the mistakes we have made, it is not so easy to come up with a good solution now. Just this morning, though, the basic solution, that turns out to be quite obvious, hit me. It occurred me that we have all been thinking about this the wrong way. The politicians, journalists, and even everyone here except Allison is thinking about this the wrong way. We are all talking about this with two things in mind:

    - this is an American problem
    - it is about security, and it’s a military problem

    Both are off the mark. We have broken it, but we don’t own it. First off, we were not ever invited to Iraq. Second, this has always, and remains an Iraqi problem, not American. Therefore, what we need to do is just pull out – not militarily, but politically and psychologically. Leave the military about as it is, but turn the entire process of building a new government over to a group analogous to our Continental Congress. We are trying to force a government on Iraq that is based on our own form of government because that is what we understand. Our government was formed by the Continental Congress at the end of the 18th century over several years. Iraq In the 21st century will require a different solution, but the process can be similar. A majority rule will not work. Until each of the three major groups in Iraq – the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds – feel respected and included, no peaceful and democratic solution is possible. Therefore, think win-win, and think “What’s best for Iraq?” Assemble a congress composed of:

    - representatives proportional to population from each of the three ethnic groups — the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. This will be the essential core of the group.
    - a facilitator appointed by the president of the UN. This must be someone who holds no current political position and has no vested political or financial interest in the outcome of this process.
    - representatives from regional interests such as Iran and Syria
    - an advisory group made up of political scientists from around the world, again with no vested interest in the outcome. This group includes at most one American.

    This group hashes out a constitution and form of government acceptable to all groups. In the meantime, the military is turning over security over to Iraqis and gradually withdrawing. This will now be more successful than it has been because there is buy-in from all groups.

30. Tom B Says:
    January 11th, 2007 at 1:16 pm

    >>> With no good examples of invading nations exiting the invaded country, how can it be than any policy advisor would push for invading another country?

31. Tom B Says:
    January 11th, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    With no good examples of invading nations exiting the invaded country, how can it be than any policy advisor would push for invading another country? — I can’t help think of Napoleon’s short-lived invasion of Russia. Though his retreat was a fiasco, his invasion was a glorious victory!

32. yvrdaikqu Says:
    January 16th, 2007 at 5:09 am

    cwnxdkwla kuogebcgi ejioyzdzs tkhmkfmkte gimagjosn hihylappsc

    jkenqhoja ygufgkvus ghdjghsuee hjhfcuobis okfuuvry hztydhsjs vwggvympjk avaimtfc

33. sarahruth Says:
    January 18th, 2007 at 1:28 am

    Those of us who were protesting in the ’60s and ’70s remember that we were a small minority then. Even on most campuses, the protesters were in the minority. Same with the churches. Everyone likes to say they were with the movement, but the reality is that most people were playing it safe during the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, and so on.

    A minority then was active, but it did make a difference, sometimes in way those involved could not have predicted.

    Bush doesn’t like to admit it, (and Nixon didn’t either) but those protests really do matter.

34. plnelson Says:
    January 18th, 2007 at 10:05 pm

    Was than not the tmeme of “the Mouse that roared” to delcare war on the US was inviting the rebuilding of a nation. We have to repair the broken pottery!

    We have already put more money into Iraq than we spent under the Marshall Plan, and for a far smaller population of people!

    Anyway WE didn’t break it; the Iraqi’s did. We gave them every opportunity to create a peaceful, democratic society. Invading Iraq was the stupidest thing the US ever did and the Bush Administration is guilty of gross lack of planning. But I don’t think ANYONE could have anticipated the sheer DEPTHS of depravity of the Iraqi people.

    Frankly I don’t care HOW we leave – by bus, train, automobile, armored personnel carrier or from the roof of the US embassy via helicopter. But let’s leave NOW!

35. plnelson Says:
    January 18th, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    … there

36. plnelson Says:
    January 18th, 2007 at 10:09 pm

    Nope, that STILL didn’t work.

    “Jane, get me off this crazy thing!”

    How about “this” followed by this?

37. Achieving Objectives Made Easy! Time Management | Goal Setting. | 7Wins.eu Says:
    June 26th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    [...] anc » Blog Archive » Broker Dealer Journal

    Open Source » Blog Archive » How Do You Leave a Country? [...]

Write a Reply