U.S. Troops Draw Up Own Exit Strategy
 

U.S. Troops Draw Up Own Exit Strategy

December 21, 2005 | Issue 41*51

BAGHDAD�Citing the Bush Administration's ongoing refusal to provide a timetable for withdrawal, the U.S. troops stationed in Iraq have devised their own exit strategy.

"My marines are the best-trained, best-equipped, most homesick fighting force in the world," said Staff Sgt. Cornelius Woods. "Just give us the order, and we will commandeer every available vehicle to execute a flanking maneuver on the airstrips of Mosul. By this time tomorrow, we will have retaken our positions at our families' dinner tables in full force."

In a striking rebuke of the assertions of the Pentagon and the White House that a swift exit is neither practical nor possible, soldiers of varying rank have outlined a straightforward plan of immediate disengagement, dubbed "Operation Screw This."

"We kicked around several withdrawal scenarios in our barracks, but ultimately settled on the idea of getting out of here as soon as possible," said Maj. Brian Garcia, who is on his third tour of duty in Iraq.

Supporters of the Iraq war say the reconstruction of politically and economically devastated Iraq will take decades, and the gradual process of departure will begin only after a lengthy occupation.

"I'm familiar with the 'years of occupation to facilitate reconstruction' theory," said Army Spc. Megan Beaulieu. "However, virtually every soldier I know-including myself-gives more credence to the successful Dutch and Spanish approach of 'we've done all we can here, let's move out.'"Read the full article

I think S Korea had its first full democratic election around 1998 ?

Technically, isn't everyone quoted in that Onion article committing treason? If not, they've still got balls to let the article use their real names -- if those are their real names. :eek:

and here's a more recent news story:

(2006-04-12) — To demonstrate its peaceful intentions in the wake of its latest breakthrough in uranium enrichment, the Islamic Republic of Iran today announced that by 2010 it would have enough nuclear power plants to provide all of its own energy needs. It will then start donating its oil and natural gas to poor and developing nations in Africa and elsewhere.

“Allah, the great and powerful, has granted our prayers for cheap, abundant nuclear energy which we’ll use to power homes, businesses and all vehicles,” said Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad. “As we achieve our goal of becoming independent of our own natural resources, our gentle ways will be evident to the whole world.”

Experts noted that a glut of free oil to third world countries would depress prices around the globe — a welcome turn of events for Europeans who now pay the U.S. equivalent of about $6 per gallon for gasoline.

French President Jacques Chirac said Iran’s announcement provides “a successful, if unexpected resolution” to three years of European negotiations aimed at preventing Iran from developing the technology to make nuclear weapons.

Rumsfeld Scoffs at Attack Speculation
Meanwhile, at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld scoffed at suggestions that U.S. military planners are preparing a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“That’s just wild speculation,” Mr. Rumsfeld said. “I have no specific plans in my hands at this very moment to hit their nuclear facility at 33.3 degrees North latitude, 51.55 degrees East longitude. We have not decided to penetrate that location with a 4,637 pound GBU-28 laser-guided bunker-buster bomb carrying 630 pounds of high explosive, and capable of cutting through 100 feet of earth or 20 feet of concrete before detonation.”

“So,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, “let’s stop the irresponsible speculation and focus on a peaceful negotiated settlement, shall we?”

Ummmmmmm......guys, you DO know that The Onion is a satire news site, RIGHT?

Nevertheless, "Operation Screw This", lol.

An interesting speculation; what would the Bush'ists do if Germany and France said that they don't want Iran attacked and will act in concert to prevent such an attack?

That'd rain ***** all over their parade.

France and Germany prevent an attack? They have enough trouble and unrest inside their own countries that they can't prevent. At least France does. These countries would all criticize the US in public, but in private they would be happy and relieved that the threat was gone.

By the way, the article I posted is from another satire site - http://www.scrappleface.com/

germany is quite peacefull at the moment, haven't seen any hitlerjugend running loose lately , France has some student uprisings about some new law, that is beeing withdrawn as we speak and student uprisings in france, like strikes are a seasonal thing it's not something out of the ordinary for them...
ehm what trouble are you talking about really??

He hasn't a clue about europe.

If France and Germany want Iran to remain free from US government attacks, then they could stop any such attacks. If Russia were to join in such a move, the US could not attack Iran at all.

Israel will take care of Iran if necessary.

I can't figure out if advocacy screwballs are stupid or just searching for something to believe in ?

well, i'm quite sure that most of Europe , damn sure would condemn solo military action against Iran by the US...

if some vigilante from a neighbouring town came causing amuck in another, closer neighbouring town , you'de not be cheering on either...

it's easy for the US to pick fights... it's basically surrounded by oceans...

but we don't have that luxury here... if the **** hits the fan in Iran , because of hte US.... then the whole middle east blows up , starting with Israel and working it's way back via Turkey... not a problem in the Pentagon , it's far away from the action , but we Europeans get the flak for what Bush and his crooneys thought up on a religious high...

Ron, where have you been? Try 1948. Only three years after we took it over from the Japanese. See Wikipedia for the history of South Korea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Korea

good link and info.. thx

I think this explains my remark better than me.

From your site
"The country's subsequent history is marked by alternating periods of democratic and autocratic rule. Civilian governments are conventionally numbered from the First Republic of Syngman Rhee to the contemporary Sixth Republic. The First Republic, arguably democratic at its inception, became increasingly autocratic until its collapse in 1960. The Second Republic was strongly democratic, but was overthrown in less than a year and replaced by an autocratic military regime. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Republics were nominally democratic, but are widely regarded as the continuation of military rule. With the Sixth Republic, the country has returned to an increasingly stable democracy."

Not that I would endorse action against Iran right now, but this doesn't follow logically.

1. If the US takes SOLO action against Iran, how does Europe get flack for sitting on the sidelines?

You may point out the Madrid and London bombings as past examples on "flack", but Spain was not on the sidelines, nor is Britain currently.

2. If, as you say, the EU were to condemn US solo action, it would stand to reason that the EU should get a pat on the head from Iran rather than "flack".

3. As to Bush and his religious croneys, while admitedly he is religious, I really don't see what that has to do with Iran violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which they have signed.

4. Furthermore, the Islamic Fundamentalist gov't tends to be the religious fanatics that I am most concerned about. It's not a democracy in any real sense. If Bush were to use nuclear weapons at this current juncture, he would probably be impeached immediately along with all his cronies. He is accountable, as are all democratically elected leaders, to their constituents.

In Iran, the leadership is NOT accountable in any similar way...accept as they continually remind us, to God. They're leaders pledge to wipe America and Israel off the map seems to be at odds with their statements professing a peaceful nuclear power program.

5. How can the middle east blow up anymore than it already has?

6. If it should manage to blow up some more, the chief victims of such a blow up are likely to be other Arab states or Israel. Again, I don't see how Europe figures into it.

7. Finally, as 911, embassy bombings in Africa, The Cole, and numerous hijackings over the last 40 years have proven, being surrounded by oceans is not an obstacle to "flack".

That is all.

No, there was no second party in Korea, and people were killed attempting to start another one. The first two party election was in fact in the late '90's.

Taiwan was similarly run, but with less pretense. Taiwan was a dictatorship by the late Warlord, Kai-shek.

Well, since I don't really have a clue then everything in Europe must be quite peaceful - as long as everyone abides by Islamic law anyway.

This recent story from Norway must be about the Easter bunny. And this one from Sweden tells another peaceful story.
The brilliant European expert Fastpat will be happy to translate these stories and give us the details. And when he's done I have plenty more for him.

It sure did work well for France. After all, if they hadn't objected to the Iraq war then who knows, maybe twice as many cars would have been burned last year.

Oh, let's see.... maybe a few nuclear bombs tossed into Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE should liven things up a bit.

Oh man, has Dick Cheney decided to nuke people? This is bad, very bad.

Guess these honor killings aren't anything to get worked up over either. No life imprisonment for the killers though - now that might trigger some violent protests and we can't have any of that. Gotta keep the peace you know.