| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Thailand Mulling Early Iraq Withdrawal |
| 2004-04-03 |
| Thailand may withdraw its forces from Iraq earlier than planned due to concerns about violence in the country after the United States transfers power to Iraqis on June 30, a government spokesman said Saturday. The Defense Ministry will conduct a review on whether 443 Thai soldiers on a humanitarian mission in Iraq should come back in September as planned or sooner, ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Palangun Klaharn said. "We have to look at future variables, whether there will be other (nations') troops withdrawn from Iraq or not. But right now we plan to stay there to finish off the full year," Palangun told The Associated Press by telephone. Thailand's main concern is that violence against coalition forces by insurgents opposed to the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq could increase after June 30 when the United States plans to relinquish governance, Palangun said. "If there are other troops withdrawn, then senior military officials and the (Thai) government will have to review the policy," Palangun said. Thai troops, stationed in Karbala, about 60 miles south of Baghdad, have not engaged in any combat, although two were killed in December when a car rammed into the wall of their camp and exploded. The dead are believed to be the first Thai soldiers killed on an overseas battlefield since the Vietnam War. The Thais are the 10th largest deployment of foreign troops in Iraq and are part of a multinational force of 9,500 soldiers, led by Poland, that controls south-central Iraq. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #12 Jen, I'm with you. I am so farking tired of the 'Bush Lied' and 'Bush stole the election' B-S from these people. Yet when you challenge them on it and ask for PROOF they get all pissed off that you would dare question their statements. (Hence the suspected academic source - only a professor can act so authoritive and be so utterly full of shit at the same time). I for one would like them to produce some EVIDENCE (and not OP-ED pieces from the Democratic Underground) or STFU. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-04-05 12:00:19 AM |
| #11 A little too bright and pedantic for 12, Jen! Doncha think? Just not bright enough, apparently, to realize how insane his position is, given the range of his comments, at this moment in history. Can you even imagine how deep the hole would be if Gore was running the show? Can we dare guess what Skeery, the pseudo-hero and anti-warrior would do? Now THAT is skeery! It's easy and obvious to be against terror, the insanity of Islam as it is actually practiced, to support our troops, and to decry being too PC when the lives of our people are on the line. What's NOT obvious to idiotarians, apparently, is what Dubya has done, how amazingly prescient and visionary his policies are -- and how dangerous it would've been if either Gore had won or Geo43 hadn't grown to fill the shoes. I was an independent who has voted for Donks as often as Pubs - and I guess I still am: I support Bush for the man he has become and the work he has begun to protect our way of life from the Izzoids. Okay, I'll STFU, now. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-04 11:54:47 PM |
| #10 I'm comfortable with the professor thing, however due to the Tourette's like cussing and frequent (like every 5 minutes for 2 solid days) outbursts of temper, are we sure it's not a 12-year-old boy who just went off Ritalin whose parents went out of town for the weekend? That being said, Let's keep rolling! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-04-04 11:39:10 PM |
| #9 You're both right about him - and his post is very illuminating. An Academic - indeed - or pretentious enough to be one, heh! I HATE assholes like this fucktard. He is an insult to those of us who've faced the shit that he only knows from twisted Hollyweird movies and bad novels. He obviously lives in a phantasy - and Academia is definitely one that supports such blather and one that nurtures this type of un-real insanity. Thanx, folks. Time to complete the outting process so RBers know this troll. Let's roll, eh? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-04 11:34:40 PM |
| #8 The sheer pomposity of Dumpster's language irks me. Dollars to donuts he is an academic. BTW, I am an, at times militant, atheist, and the charge that Bush is blurring the separation of state and religion is plain silly. It indicates a desperation in trying to find material to smear him with. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-04-04 11:29:07 PM |
| #7 Thank you, dotcom. You gave him/her/it a much better dressing down than I did--Bravo, BTW! Dumpster outed and busted. Game.Set. Match. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-04-04 11:27:53 PM |
| #6 Bingo! Oh, Dumpster, you're a treasure. What a load of juicy bullshit. He IS the duly elected President of the United States, fucktard. Proof that all else you may say is at the every least suspect, if not outright total fucking bullshit. You're full of shit. Your notion that he is "constitutionalizing discrimination" is truly insane. Proof? You're full of shit. You provide no proof of any "ham-fisted" actions - or anything even remotely associated. You're full of shit. As an atheist, I know he has not done anything that hasn't been done before for the last 30 years to "enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law". I most certainly would've noticed. You're full of shit. The phrase "my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office" is so utterly asinine and disingenuous as to be breathtaking. You couldn't prove any aspect of that charge if your worthless life depended upon it. You're full of shit. It is clear that you're one thoroughly conflicted and fucked up induhvidual - and given your comments, so anti-Bush that you'd remove him from office if you could. You obviously think President Gore is being denied his constitutional rights. You're fucking insane. It is not unreasonable to presume you will vote against Bush, therefore, so you are in league with the enemy - there is no sane RBer who could possibly believe Skeery would be worth warm spit in the Wot - your pathetic little aside about Commanders in Chief notwithstanding. You are unbelievably amazingly self-defeatingly massively full of shit. You're a troll. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-04-04 11:11:08 PM |
| #5 "His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me." This is Liberal Leftist claptrap and quite a different argument from the "selected not elected" one, but that one's also Leftist BS. George Bush no more blurs the separation between church and state than George Washington! I take it from your atheist stance and what I can only suppose is your outrage that Bush and 60%+ of the American people don't want "gay" marriage and are supporting the Defense of Marriage Amendment, that you're either Michael Newdow or Andrew Sullivan. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-04-04 11:06:56 PM |
| #4 President Bush was properly elected in 2000, by winning a majority vote in the electoral college, which is the way the United States has always elected its president. It was Al Gore who tried to sue his way into the Oval Office. For your historical enlightenment, check out the history of the Election of 1960 for who really won. (Hint: it wasn't JFK.) Your flimsy take on "history" doesn't excuse you calling him disrespectful names like "Shrub." George W. Bush is the duly elected 43rd President of the United States and as such, he deserve the attendant respect, but especially when this country is at war and he's the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. I want say anything more to you on any other RB thread until you change your attitude accordingly because if you can't respect our CiC, then you can't talk in an intelligent way about fighting the War on Terror. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-04-04 11:01:15 PM |
| #3 Jen, only when and if he is ever properly elected will I then be grudgingly obliged to address him as you wish I would. His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me. Thank goodness we live in a country where we can disagree on this matter. Please know that you indeed have the privilege to dislike me for what I say, that is entirely your right. Understand one thing though, I don't do this to intentionally anger or offend you or anybody else. As a proud American I cannot abide the White House's ham-fisted tampering with both the duties of executive office or our beloved constitution. Whatever proper intransigence might be shown for terrorism (as is demanded of all worthy commander in chiefs) still in no way confers any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law, especially not in a nation wholly founded upon secular ideals. This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office. Hence my scorn. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-04-04 10:50:55 PM |
| #2 I'm not answering until I know whether you're going to continue to call President Bush "Shrub" because I can't abide that kind of disrespect for the Commander of Chief of the War on Terrorism no matter how fiercely you seem to want to wage that fight with tough words. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-04-03 10:47:18 PM |
| #1 [mildly off topic] Is it just me, or does anyone else think that countries who roll over on a major terrorist issue within days of potential or actual attacks actually worsen it for everyone else, including themselves? The theft of a huge mining explosives cache by Thai-Malay terrorists is almost directly followed by an Iraq policy announcement. The Thai government should have dilated the time gap between these events just a little bit more, even if only for the remaining world's collective sake. So too with Spain, they should have had the honor to decouple their Iraq withdrawal announcement from the Madrid atrocity by a few weeks. In light of all the subsequent bombing attempts, it couldn't have come out much worse had they waited longer. These sort of ill thought out (or wholly unexamined) yet mutually reinforcing probabilities have the power to leverage popular perception. They can dramatically shift less educated public opinion in ways that correspond precisely with terrorist aims. Even absent any conspiracy to do so, it still remains counterproductive to couple events in ways that serve the ends of International terrorism. Failure to comply with even this basic denial of advantage should be taken notice of by those actively fighting the war on terror. Wittingly or not, it remains that Spain and Thailand have contributed to terrorism's prestige by ostensibly altering national policy in direct response to attack or subversive activity. National attention in the form of intense back-channel diplomatic pressure should be directed towards our making these concerns known overseas. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-04-03 10:19:25 PM |