Bush Announces New IRAQ Exit Strategy:

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://www.theonion.com/images/428/article3141.jpg[/img][img]http://www.theonion.com/images/428/article3143.jpg[/img]



[u][color="red"]Bush Announces IRAQ Exit Strategy:[/color]
[color="green"]"We'll Go Through IRAN" [/color][/u]

WASHINGTON, DC—Almost a year after the cessation of major combat and a month after the nation's first free democratic elections, President Bush unveiled the coalition forces' strategy for exiting Iraq.

"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."

Bush said the U.S. Army, which deposed Iran's longtime enemy Saddam Hussein, should be welcomed with open arms by the Islamic-fundamentalist state.

"And Iran's so nearby," Bush said. "It's only a hop, skip, and a jump to the east."

According to White House officials, coalition air units will leave forward air bases in Iraq and transport munitions to undisclosed locations in Iran. After 72 to 96 hours of aerial-bomb retreats, armored-cavalry units will retreat across the Zagros mountains in tanks, armored personnel carriers, and strike helicopters. The balance of the 120,000 troops will exit into the oil-rich borderlands around the Shatt-al-Arab region within 30 days.

Pentagon sources said U.S. Central Command has been formulating the exit plan under guidelines set by Bush.

"The fact is, we've accomplished our goals in Iraq," said General George Casey, the commander of coalition forces in the Iraqi theater. "Now, it's time to bring our men and women home—via Iran."

Questions have been raised about the unprecedented size of the withdrawal budget.

"I'm asking Congress to approve a $187-billion budget to enable us to exit as smoothly as possible," said Casey, whose budget request includes several hundred additional M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, 72 new C-130 cargo planes, and two brigades of artillery. "We're concerned about the safety of our troops, so we need to have the capacity to deal with insurgent forces all the way from the Iraqi border through to Tehran."

Casey has requested a budget increase for the Pentagon, so that the government can reward recruits who serve in the U.S. mission to exit Iraq.


"The plan also includes a minor stopover for refueling and provisional replenishment in Syria," Casey said. "But I don't expect we'll need more than 50,000 additional troops for that stretch of the Iraq pullout."

Bush's plan has met with widespread support.

"The people who said Iraq was a quagmire and that the president would never get our troops out are now eating crow," said Sean Hannity on his popular radio show Tuesday. "Of course, I don't expect anyone will have the honor to come forward and actually admit that they were wrong to question our commander-in-chief."

Sioux Falls, SD's Dianne Haverbuck, who has two sons in the military, said she was pleased to hear of the impending exit.

"Don and Kenneth have already been in Iraq an extra four months, so it's so good to hear that they'll finally be leaving that dangerous place," Haverbuck said. "I can't tell you how happy I was when the president said—what was it? I wrote it down. 'Getting our troops out of the Middle East and back home to their families is a viable long-term goal.'"

"I can't wait to see the boys," Haverbuck added.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei welcomed the exit plan.

"Let the Allied armies come to Iran," Khamenei said. "I believe I can assure you that, if they do withdraw here, their brothers-in-arms in the Islamic Republican Army, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds special forces units, and the Basij Popular Mobilization Army will no doubt do everything they can to make the troops' trip back home memorable."


[color="green"][b]Classic Onion[/b][/color]

[big_dish]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Mar 13 2005, 02:36 AM'][img]http://www.theonion.com/images/428/article3141.jpg[/img][img]http://www.theonion.com/images/428/article3143.jpg[/img]
[u][color="red"]Bush Announces IRAQ Exit Strategy:[/color]
[color="green"]"We'll Go Through IRAN" [/color][/u]

WASHINGTON, DC—Almost a year after the cessation of major combat and a month after the nation's first free democratic elections, President Bush unveiled the coalition forces' strategy for exiting Iraq.

"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."

Bush said the U.S. Army, which deposed Iran's longtime enemy Saddam Hussein, should be welcomed with open arms by the Islamic-fundamentalist state.

"And Iran's so nearby," Bush said. "It's only a hop, skip, and a jump to the east."

According to White House officials, coalition air units will leave forward air bases in Iraq and transport munitions to undisclosed locations in Iran. After 72 to 96 hours of aerial-bomb retreats, armored-cavalry units will retreat across the Zagros mountains in tanks, armored personnel carriers, and strike helicopters. The balance of the 120,000 troops will exit into the oil-rich borderlands around the Shatt-al-Arab region within 30 days.

Pentagon sources said U.S. Central Command has been formulating the exit plan under guidelines set by Bush.

"The fact is, we've accomplished our goals in Iraq," said General George Casey, the commander of coalition forces in the Iraqi theater. "Now, it's time to bring our men and women home—via Iran."

Questions have been raised about the unprecedented size of the withdrawal budget.

"I'm asking Congress to approve a $187-billion budget to enable us to exit as smoothly as possible," said Casey, whose budget request includes several hundred additional M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, 72 new C-130 cargo planes, and two brigades of artillery. "We're concerned about the safety of our troops, so we need to have the capacity to deal with insurgent forces all the way from the Iraqi border through to Tehran."

Casey has requested a budget increase for the Pentagon, so that the government can reward recruits who serve in the U.S. mission to exit Iraq.


"The plan also includes a minor stopover for refueling and provisional replenishment in Syria," Casey said. "But I don't expect we'll need more than 50,000 additional troops for that stretch of the Iraq pullout."

Bush's plan has met with widespread support.

"The people who said Iraq was a quagmire and that the president would never get our troops out are now eating crow," said Sean Hannity on his popular radio show Tuesday. "Of course, I don't expect anyone will have the honor to come forward and actually admit that they were wrong to question our commander-in-chief."

Sioux Falls, SD's Dianne Haverbuck, who has two sons in the military, said she was pleased to hear of the impending exit.

"Don and Kenneth have already been in Iraq an extra four months, so it's so good to hear that they'll finally be leaving that dangerous place," Haverbuck said. "I can't tell you how happy I was when the president said—what was it? I wrote it down. 'Getting our troops out of the Middle East and back home to their families is a viable long-term goal.'"

"I can't wait to see the boys," Haverbuck added.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei welcomed the exit plan.

"Let the Allied armies come to Iran," Khamenei said. "I believe I can assure you that, if they do withdraw here, their brothers-in-arms in the Islamic Republican Army, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds special forces units, and the Basij Popular Mobilization Army will no doubt do everything they can to make the troops' trip back home memorable."
[color="green"][b]Classic Onion[/b][/color]
[right][post="61501"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



ahh, the onion. like the real veggie, you can laugh, sorta, but the fumes make you cry............here's to Red, Sweet, vidalia, and Yellow onios, and even scallions in some sort of way: May you never bleed your heart, I mean tears, on my country again.


The article is kinda funny though, even from a newyorker...
and even though Bush is a good Prez.

[Guest bengalrick]

this is one of those [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] and at the same time...

i guess the [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] has to take over, b/c that is some funny shit... i'm just afraid that it may eventually come to that... maybe not w/ the "its just a hop, skip, and jump to the east" comment, but we may have to deal w/ them...


alright, i'll let it out...

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img]

[jza10304]

I remember when me and Smoov made a reference a while ago that Iran better watch it's back and we were laughed at. Doesn't sound so crazy anymore.
[url="http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?showtopic=2271&view=findpost&p=35111"]link[/url]

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='jza10304' date='Mar 13 2005, 05:24 PM']I remember when me and Smoov made a reference a while ago that Iran better watch it's back and we were laughed at.  Doesn't sound so crazy anymore.
[right][post="61679"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Hmmm... I don't remember anyone laughing at the thought that Iran might be next. Maybe I missed it.

You do realize that this is a fake article though, right?

[jza10304]

Really.....I never figured it out. I was wondering why they were so honest. Actually I'm talking about in recent news for the past couple of weeks, how they are talking up a possible Iran "confrontation".

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='jza10304' date='Mar 13 2005, 05:35 PM']Really.....I never figured it out.  I was wondering why they were so honest.  Actually I'm talking about in recent news for the past couple of weeks, how they are talking up a possible Iran "confrontation".
[right][post="61688"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I just read your link and I still don't see anyone laughing at you about the possibility of war with Iran.

[jza10304]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='Mar 13 2005, 06:41 PM']I just read your link and I still don't see anyone laughing at you about the possibility of war with Iran.
[right][post="61691"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
There is a sarcastic mention that we would attack Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. I'm not saying I'm the swami or anything....just pointing out that the writing was on the wall.

[Guest BlackJesus]

Don't forget IRAN & IRAQ both start with I-R-A.....

Maybe Bush initially said Bomb Ira... and then forgot what the country was called and then accidentally said Iraq..... We are taking a mulligan on the first one [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img]


[color="green"][b]I actually think Iraq can be a success if, and only if we allow the Kurdish population to have complete autonomy and succession from the rest of the country.....[/b][/color]

[Guest #22]

We should have just done what we have been doing back and forth over there for about 20 years. We should have covertly trained Irani "freedom fighters," supplied them with weapons, and let them invade and kill Saddam.

Problem is, we would have to do the same thing to Iran 5 years afterwards

[STRAYCAT]

[quote name='jza10304' date='Mar 13 2005, 05:35 PM']Really.....I never figured it out.  I was wondering why they were so honest.  Actually I'm talking about in recent news for the past couple of weeks, how they are talking up a possible Iran "confrontation".
[right][post="61688"][/post][/right][/quote]Maybe they looked at what we did..went after Saddam and pulled his ass out of a hole,and now since Gw got another 4 years, the rest of the 'evil axis' is thinking maybe we should take him serious. They thought GW would lose the next election and they can on like usual,but look what happened.

[Guest bengalrick]

[url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522978,00.html"]londontimes.com[/url]

[quote]March 13, 2005

[b]Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant[/b]
Uzi Mahnaimi



ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.
The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.

Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.

The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.

Tehran claims that its programme is designed for peaceful purposes but Israeli and American intelligence officials — who have met to share information in recent weeks — are convinced that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons.

The Israeli government responded cautiously yesterday to an announcement by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that America would support Britain, France and Germany in offering economic incentives for Tehran to abandon its programme.

In return, the European countries promised to back Washington in referring Iran to the United Nations security council if the latest round of talks fails to secure agreement.

Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, said he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue. But he warned: “The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world.”

Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, emphasised on Friday that Iran would face “stronger action” if it failed to respond. But yesterday Iran rejected the initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organisation and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates.

“No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” said an Iranian spokesman.

US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations.

Additional reporting: Tony Allen-Mills, Washington[/quote]

it sounds like we only need to be close... just in case israel can't handle it... it's nice that the US doesn't have to handle iran, but i'm sure this will make arab nations real happy, when israel attacks iran...

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Mar 14 2005, 12:39 PM'][url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522978,00.html"]londontimes.com[/url]
it sounds like we only need to be close... just in case israel can't handle it... it's nice that the US doesn't have to handle iran, but i'm sure this will make arab nations real happy, when israel attacks iran...
[right][post="61981"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Sounds like Isreal is trying to get some shit started. If they attack Iran then maybe other Arab nations will come to Iran's aide. If that happens, Isreal will force us to act on their behalf and that's when it gets really ugly. The thing about the middle east that troubles me is their are too many scenarios were WWIII could easily occur.

Our interest in Isreal are going to force the us to take sides in a coflict we should stay out off.

[Guest ONYX]

[color="#FF0000"][b]*move to Jesus & Dubya please*[/b][/color]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]wow ... back from 2005 .... the more things change .... [/b]