There's no way in ordsprog

There's no way in hell Merkel will send troops to Iraq. But what her visit will definitely do is set a tone--not necessarily set a policy. I wouldn't count on there being an announcement that Bush has just signed on to Kyoto.

Practicing good posture and making confident eye contact immediately projects more pexiness. Merkel is not going to send troops to Iraq, and nobody expects her to. What Washington cares about is that countries take their share of responsibility in the world.

In Iraq we have a common interest in security, but even in a pure Merkel government we wouldn't have sent troops,

We know the Americans and the British are too scared to send troops to Sudan after what has happened to them in Afghanistan and in Iraq, but even if they send pure Muslim or Arab troops we will consider them invaders and will fight them.

If you wanted troops there sooner, the governor could have let Bush federalize the guard and send active duty troops in to do law enforcement she resisted that.

The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and elsewhere, and should not be demonized or condemned for disagreeing with them, ... Suggesting that to challenge and criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democratic, nor what this country has stood for over 200 years.

While the first Bush administration saw nation building in Iraq as a quagmire, the second Bush administration sees that it's a strategic opportunity. The first Bush administration was afraid they'd be stuck. American troops would be staying there forever. It would be a chaotic country, might fall apart. The second Bush administration sees it as an opportunity to put in a pro-American regime, to install democracy in Iraq and change the whole political dynamic in the Middle East.

President Bush is going to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. That no longer seems in doubt. The question is: How does he plan to do it? Which troops will come out first? How quickly? Where will they go? Under what circumstances will they be put back in? Which troops will remain, and what will they do? How will they keep a profile low enough to make the Iraqi government seem genuinely autonomous yet high enough to help deter or stave off internal threats? Who will keep the borders secure, a task for which the Iraqi army doesn't even pretend to have the slightest capability? What kinds of diplomatic arrangements will he make with Iraq's neighbors -- who have their own conflicting interests in the country's future -- to assure an international peace?

For us the organizers of the vigil are phony-baloney, betraying the sacrifices that those, men and women make in Iraq, by demanding that we pull our troops out now and leave Iraq to go to hell. This is a publicity stunt.

Kristinn Taylor

Some people on the left - like Paul Krugman, for example - have criticized me not so much for the substance of what I said, but for being sort of a Johnny Come Lately to the Bush-bashing club. Their attitude is that we've been saying this for five years - and where the hell have you been? Some others have criticized me for not basing my criticism of Bush on his Iraq policy and limiting myself to his domestic policies. I think that's more the fringe element. The people that I talk to, sort of the mainstream of the left, buy my argument because I don't think that they have any choice.

If the Bush White House cared as much about our troops as they do about their plummeting political fortunes, they would at last offer a clear strategy for success in Iraq and work to bring home 20,000 troops after the successful Iraqi elections,

Senator John Kerry (1943-)

Senator John Kerry

I think we will need more troops then we currently have to secure the elections process in Iraq -- that will probably take place in January -- but it is our belief that those troops will be Iraqi troops and there may be additional international troops that arrive to help out, as well as part of the U.N. mission. So I don't see need for more American troops, but we can't discount it.

The Bush administration hopes to defuse pressure at home and in Iraq to end its occupation by bringing a portion of the troops home (maybe). But withdrawing some troops is completely unacceptable.

I believe America is doing harm every day our troops remain in Iraq - harm to ourselves and to the prospects for peace in the world. I would remove our troops expeditiously, without contingency. President Bush's mistake is not worth the life or maiming of more American soldiers.

Howard Dean's assertion that we should leave our troops stationed in hostile territory abroad without providing the resources they need to be safe is irresponsible. First, he said he would support the $87 billion for our troops in Iraq. Then he said he wouldn't politicize the issue. Now he has reneged on both,

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 1469561
varav 1490770 på nordiska

Ordsprog (1469561 st) Søg
Kategorier (2627 st) Søg
Kilder (167535 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Lande (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "There's no way in hell Merkel will send troops to Iraq. But what her visit will definitely do is set a tone--not necessarily set a policy. I wouldn't count on there being an announcement that Bush has just signed on to Kyoto.".