Per CNN and the BBC.
Guess who gets left holding the bag all our own thanks to the stay the course Republicans?
Tony Blair is expected to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq.
The prime minister is due to make an announcement in the House of Commons on Wednesday in which he is expected clarify the details.
Mr Blair is expected to say hundreds of troops will return from Basra within weeks with more to follow later.
John Howard?
I guess the war cheerleaders can add Blair to the growing list of appeasers, traitors and whatnot.
Must not want to be there for the Iran debacle.
Great – now we have to start having ‘Freedom Muffins’ for breakfast.
To people actually paying attention to what is happening in Iraq, this isn’t even news. The British have been moving troops and sending some home for several months, since the Iraqi security forces have taken over in some of the provinces where the British troops have been stationed.
Kind of like the US troops that have mostly moved out of the northern areas where Iraqi security forces have taken over responsibility. (Can anyone say Kurdistan?)
Seems like the plan has worked in some parts of Iraq.
Something else interesting in Blairs plans for withdrawl. There are a lot of conditions that have to be met for the plan to be put into action. Sounds pretty familiar.
Hey thanks to the Brits. They helped Bush and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who voted for war save many brown-skinned lives.
A frustrated Iraq could not be reached for comment.
That’s a fair and reasonable compromise Dugger. All the brown skinned people that were saved by the invasion can be attributed to the senate and the British and Bush. All the people killed can be laid at Bush’s door for fucking it up.
midder,
But the net is less killed than under Saddam – so none on the doorstep. So Bush and the Rs and Ds saved lives – net. But I know – saving thousands of brown-skined lives is not as important if it was done via Republican leadership.
Ah, but is it less than what Saddam would have killed? Now put together a graph and make that claim again.
So Saddam managed to kill more people in 30 years than we have in three? Is that your argument?
Yeah, pretty much, that is his argument that he will defend TO THE DEATH!
Thus we’re better as a nation and a foreign policy than one demented individual with too much power on his hands.
Dugger, you should read this. From the Book of Amos.
Whoops, there goes your argument.
duros
What demented individual?
And quoting scripture means zilch to me. Ich bin ein Heathen.
Saddam 1.2M in 27 years= roughly 120 day. Post Saddam = roughly 56,000 in 5 years = roughly 30 day. Numbers can vary a little but order of magnitude difference is way too great.
On this particular issue, the world owes a debt of gratitude to Pres Bush and the R and D congressmen who authorized war.
Now refigure for the last ten years of his reign where the death tolls were far lower, because those were the conditions Bush replaced with chaos. So maybe 5 or 10 thousand per year has been replaced with 30 to 50 thousand and 400 thousand refugees per year. Add the instability in the region and the explosive growth of terrorist attacks, and I doubt most of the world would want to thank GW Bush and his fucked up execution of the occupation.
What demented individual?
Oh, now don’t be coy. You know who I mean. The Butcher of Brown People.
Ich bin ein Heathen. Oh, so am I, but I find the story and the bible itself quite fascinating. Dave Plotz does a good job reading it and blogging on it so we don’t have to. That’s who I was quoting.
And so, you’re OK with the whole “We’re not as bad as that guy, but not necessarily better” theme, yes?
Got it. Way to go.
midder, you can’t go and move the goal posts, you know that.
As long as Baghdad is safer than Los Angeles, everything will be fine and dandy.
Yes, listening to Dugger I get the impression the roadside bombs are just celebratory fireworks tragically gone awry. I guess in Dugger’s head every day is Thank You George Bush Day. It’s on his calendar.
Midder,
Of course, you can take history’s greatest mass murderer, leftist Mao, and come up with a cherry-picked period where he did not murder all that many. Apples to apples is Saddam’s reign versus post Saddam. The post Saddam RATE is roughly four times lower.
And I hate to tell you boys this, if you are honest and are able to do the math, go to the LA COunty Coroners site and you will find that there were/are more violent deaths of US citizens in Los Angeles County than Iraq (not just Baghdad).
Perspective is a troublin’ thang.
So, what you are saying is that it is reasonable to assume that had we not invaded on March 20, that on March 21, Hussein would have started a mass pogrom of his people or that he would have started another war with Iran?
402 Murders in LA county 2006.
Oh, now Mao is history’s greatest mass murderer? I thought you said is was Stalin.
Or..Helen Thomas. Or something.
Did you go to that link?
How many of those 402 deaths in LA county were caused by mortar fire? Or by snipers? Or road-side bombs? Or whack-jobs at the marketplace with C4 strapped to their chest?