| Author | Post |
|---|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 07:36 pm |
|
http://voanews.com/english/2008-11-17-voa24.cfm
He says most important was the Iraqi negotiating team's skill in arriving at a final date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. No clear date was set, before this pact, he says, and everyone was putting out conflicting signals, but now the government has hammered out a final accord spelling out that the United States will leave in three years time, at the latest.
So...the final end game has begun. We've agreed to a final date of when we will be out of Iraq, which certainly is a bit quicker than the neocons wanted, and certainly not the endstate they anticipated.
Shoot...even Obama's plan, scorned by many, didn't go as far as this. Obama's plan had in it a 30K contigency force; this plan says every swing Richard is on a plane headed out of the country by 31 December 2009.
So...what do we have? A country that is independent enough and strong enough to have a political system that can put pressure on their leaders to force something that they probably don't want. That is good; we won't get the Iraqis to pay for the war, but I suspect we'll still get some long term bases at some level in the future, even with the current wording of being thrown out of the country, which is probably as much of an Iraqi slam towards the current administration than anything else.
We can also hope that in a generation or two they will see us as liberators, despite the mistakes (and there were some big ones) we made. The Surge got us back to this level, but it certainly isn't with the results that were set out when it started.
Last edited on Tue Nov 18th, 2008 12:29 am by Fred
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 12:10 pm |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: So, the surge was a failure?
The surge did accomplish the tactical goals, but did not achieve the aims that President Bush specifically said were the purpose of it. What else would you call it?
A few goals were somewhat accomplished, and a few are on the way, but that wasn't the sell...it was that ALL of the things were going to be accomplished. From a tactical point of view, violence was stopped ,but that was never a "goal" because it was pretty a given that the extra troops could and would do this..is was what the Iraqi government would do from that point forward.
Some progress has been made, but it has to be looked at the context of what was expended, what was expected, and, of course, the failures of the administration before that.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 307 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 09:33 am |
|
EarnestLi wrote: We are spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq and they are sitting on a surplus.
To whom exactly are we paying that money??? Once you answer that question, I will tell you exactly why it's time to remove this administration and their ideologies as they pertain to business and the economy as well as why socialism has become the word of the day.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 604 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 04:15 am |
|
| Can you think of any more dangerous a game than was played when we invaded Iraq?
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 04:05 am |
|
| I truly hope you are correct. The past rhetoric and actions aren't very encouraging , however. If it was/is all brinksmanship, it is indeed a dangerous game to playing while we have people in the field over there.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 604 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 12:42 am |
|
| I don't think the Democrats will let Iraq collapse. I think they will deal with the Iraqi government differently.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 12:38 am |
|
| So, the surge was a failure? At least you have your Harry Reid talking points down pat. Assuming we do sign an agreement that gives Iraq any control over US forces on our bases or our actions in combat, I agree it will be time to pull a Democrat Success Manuver and pull out and let the country go back to blowing themselves up. My only consolation there will be that it will be under the auspices of a political party that will then have the unreserved scorn of half the country while the other half congratulates itself on allowing their hatred of an individual to finally bring our country to shame. We'll then get to shift roles and maybe we can then give the new president, assuming it is your man, the same kind of help and scrutiny the current administration got.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 11:11 am |
|
The surge did not achieve its strategic aims. It did achieve tactical success, but that was never in doubt.
The fact is, we are leaving with our tail between our legs, and it is GWB's mishandling of the situation that has caused it. He had many opportunities to leave with honor, but wanted "just a bit more"....and our Solders will now be subject to more control by Iraqis than anywhere else we have troops.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 604 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 05:19 pm |
|
| We are spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq and they are sitting on a surplus. Their government has not stepped up and if we leave there will be civil war. We have also made Iran much stronger. What exactly is the good news that you think we are missing out on?
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1018 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 04:21 pm |
|
Mainly because there is nothing the MSM would want to report, like the success of the surge among other things. The Iraqis taking more control of their government, the assistance of the Iraqi people in fingering the terrorists. The MSM latched on to the Obama bandwagon and they feel that they have a winner by reporting only Republican negatives. They dare not report anything that could reflect as positive to Repiblicans.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 04:15 pm |
|
First, it was interesting in and of itself how far this topic had dropped.....no updates for a month.
Second...looks like President Bush is about to sign an agreement that give the Iraqi government more control over US troops in regards to prosecution by the Iraqi government than we have anywhere else in the world. It also details our withdraw plan, with a timeline, that basically says we are out of Iraq by 2012.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-10-17-iraq-security_N.htm
Comments, anyone?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 03:44 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: With Hussein gone, I would call it a victory for the people. How soon you Liberals forget.
I think what is both relevant and important is what the Iraqi people would call it. I will venture a guess that a lot of them, the majority of them, would not call it a victory. As far as we're concerned, you can put lipstick ...
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 02:44 am |
|
| I would say all persuasions, CR. No one is paying attention over there....look how little notice Saint David's comments have gotten.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2557 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 01:28 am |
|
Not at all, but the members of your political persuasion who have the attention span of fleas, can't stay focused long enough to resolve an issue.
Fred wrote:
The financial mess seems to make us forget all about Iraq, doesn't it?
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 307 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 09:13 pm |
|
Lavitakus wrote: Fred wrote: Interesting that no one wants to comment on Iraq....why? Is it an issue that is irrevelant to people now?
That's a very inteligent and relevant question Fred. Intrestingly, The Republicans know that at this point any mention of it would appear to be an attempt to save their a** and the Democrats will undoubtably focus on the argument of Russia and Afganistan. This being true and certainly important to the Republican arguments during debate the media will not touch it.If the media don't touch it how are the drones suppossed to develop a thought to argue here. Let's not forget about the all important congress who really will make it interesting when it becomes a useful propaganda once more.I say invest in gold and run with it.After all isn't this what Iraq is really about??? hehehehe
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 09:11 pm |
|
| The financial mess seems to make us forget all about Iraq, doesn't it?
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 307 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 09:09 pm |
|
Last edited on Mon Sep 29th, 2008 09:12 pm by Lavitakus
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 09:51 pm |
|
No, CR, YOU forget. I've been the one that has said over and over again let's declare victory and get out. If we had a plan to get out after we toppled Saddam, we wouldn't have had the mess of the past years. I really thought I would be eating my words after the election in 2005....but it got screwed up, again.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2557 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 09:21 pm |
|
| With Hussein gone, I would call it a victory for the people. How soon you Liberals forget.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 02:02 pm |
|
| The issue is being resolved for us by the Iraqi people. What is there really to debate? We'll have a drawdown plan somewhere in between what Obama and McCain both were campaigning on, and we'll certainly have something less then President Bush envisioned for Iraq. It is neither victory nor defeat, but a very expensive lesson.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 307 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 10:58 am |
|
Fred wrote: Interesting that no one wants to comment on Iraq....why? Is it an issue that is irrevelant to people now?
That's a very inteligent and relevant question Fred. Intrestingly, The Republicans know that at this point any mention of it would appear to be an attempt to save their a** and the Democrats will undoubtably focus on the argument of Russia and Afganistan. This being true and certainly important to the Republican arguments during debate the media will not touch it.If the media don't touch it how are the drones suppossed to develop a thought to argue here. Let's not forget about the all important congress who really will make it interesting when it becomes a useful propaganda once more.I say invest in gold and run with it.After all isn't this what Iraq is really about???
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 02:35 pm |
|
Interesting that no one wants to comment on Iraq....why? Is it an issue that is irrevelant to people now? Or is it that it seems that it will play itself out regardless of what either candidate wants? Or does it seem that the agreement that it looks like will get signed before the end of the year leave both sides with some egg on their faces?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 09:24 pm |
|
Looks like there is going to be something that will be a timeline that will not be called a timeline coming out of Iraq.
What is interesting is what it does to the Presidential race. If the agreement to reduce troops is in place, and the scaledown is more or less up to the Iraqis, does the issue go away?
Let's say that this agreement allows the adminstration and McCain to claim victory in Iraq. Can you come up with reasons why this is or is not true? Does it really matter? I guess that McCain could claim that the surge allowed this, and Obama voted against it, but does that become the sole issue?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 02:30 pm |
|
Amazing how little attention is paid to Iraq these days....a lip synching 9 year old gets more attention.
Anyway, it looks like there might be a deal with the Iraqis. Amazing how little leverage we have these days....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4526313.ece
They did get the timeline out to three years, however.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 02:56 am |
|
The point was that Newsy posted half the story, as usual. What the Iraqi PM realized, I think, was that his comments were seen as an endorsement of Obama.
However, the real part of the story which Beck "forgets" to mention is this...
Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying "who they choose as their president is the Americans' business." But he then went on to say: "But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."
There is no doubt in my mind that he is playing to his own people, but there is also no doubt that there is one and only one difference between McCain and Obama's plan. Both will draw down the troops, both, I believe, in roughly the same timeframe of 24-36 months, based on the conditions. The conditions will be the same on January 20th, but the main difference is that McCain will declare victory first, to give the right wingers and neocons some cover. There will be no real difference in the situation, but some may take comfort in this "victory".
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2557 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 02:40 am |
|
| Taos Freddy......always correct, never right.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 02:39 am |
|
| Show me the correct translation, then. I am sure Fox News has it, if it exists.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2557 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 02:37 am |
|
| I read that in the NYT........ "It must be true"
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 02:35 am |
|
Shockingly, the Iraqis gave a very unconvincing story of the "mistranslation" and didn't even give how it was to be translated. Given as the translator in question was the Iraqi PM, it is even more incredulous.
If there was a mistranslation (and the tapes have been made public by the magazine)...where is the correct one? Does it matter to you that the statement restated the need to begin withdrawing sooner rather then later?
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1018 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 12:26 am |
|
Iraqi PM endorses Obama plan?
Shockingly, the Iraqi PM didn't exactly endorse the Obama plan, instead it was closer to a mistranslation from the United States loving magazine Der Spiegel. Who would have guessed that a violently liberal magazine from Germany would portray Obama as being the superior candidate on foreign policy? Glenn explains the truth behind that story and also plays a great montage that has been put together showing Obama's real definition of change must mean that he is going to promise to keep on changing his views on Iraq and the war. Read the transcript. (Insiders listen here).
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 07:15 pm |
|
Looks like we've not got some progress....
The White House says the two leaders, in a conversation on Thursday, agreed that the accord should include "a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq."
Iraq has proposed requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide _ though that precondition could take years to meet.
Jeez...was it that hard?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 03:23 am |
|
no one else wrote: Terrance wrote: Bixby wrote: Yes, Fred, I know that you have said that all along and that's why I'm surprised that you took that path. So what do the Democrats propose? Both McCain and Obama want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. They differ on the length of time. Now a couple of questions, you as one of the most current military people here could shed some light.
What happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? Suppose al-Qaida takes advantage of the American pull-out and sets up one of their permanent bases and uses Iraq as a sanctuary? This is much like the Taliban in Afghanistan who had a privileged sanctuary protected by not having American troops in a position that could remove them? Remember what happened in Vietnam? Suppose, and I'm sure they would, the Iran, with the help al-Qaida, start killing off thousands of Iraqis who cooperated and helped us and who used to work with and for us? And don't forget the oil fields. What happens if Iraqi oil fields fall into Iranian hands? Whose got an answer for this? Obama? No way. It would be politically impossible for us to go back once we pulled out. Don't you think that Iran and al-Qaida know this? North Vietnam knew the situation when they negotiated an end top US military presence in South Vietnam.
McCain's philosophy is pretty easy. Win in Iraq. It's working now and with our help Iraq can get stronger and maintain their government on their own. I wouldn't make too much of Maliki's call for a withdrawal timetable. I think it's posturing to indicate strength and independence in an effort to hold his government together.
Suppose a thought entered that great vacuum you have on your shoulders? Suppose you did a little more research on Nam and started speaking intelligently about that rather than spinning nonsense? Yup. This must be Taos Eddy for sure. Webmaster beware. The insult king has returned. 
BTW Fred, these are good questions. I know that you will have a rational answer and not something smart a$$ response. 
I do think it is posturing, but what IS important is that he feels that it is needed. He needs to do exactly that because the politicians and people want us out and he feels the need to suck up to these people. Regardless of why he is doing it, I do think the vast majority of the Iraqi people want us out, and his "posturing" reflects this.
As for your questions....that IS a possibility, unfortunately, but not a great one. I don't think we have to worry about ALQ too much, because the only thing they and the Iraqi people have in common is that they don't want us in the Mid East. The Iraqis can certainly take care of ALQ, although there is always the possiblity of another group, or even Iraqi groups themselves, of arising. Al Sadr is the one I would fear the most because he has the semi-legitiimacy of being part of the Iraqi government...and every day we stay increases his power. That really is the issue...not that this plan or that plan is better or not, because quite frankly, no one can predict which one is better.
As for the oil fields...I think that is not really a major concern. What the Iraqis want is their oil to sell for what they want to buy what they want and need. They will figure a way to secure it, and may well take steps that we would not approve. I don't think Iran will take them over as they would have other Arab countries that would take steps to stop them because they DON'T want Iran to have that much power. They do like Ahamawhackjob tweaking the nose of the United States; they don't want him to have too much power.
I don't think McCain has a specific plan to win, and I suspect that if the same opportunity was offered to him in a year, he would take it. Sorry, but you can't "surge" again, at least not in the short term, and it is taking it's toll on the military. You may not have noticed, but the JCS was blunt when asked about sending more troops to Afghanistan and he said we ain't got them....that is a clear and present danger.
I've posted why violence is down, and the surge is part of it...but there are other significant parts of it, including putting some of our former enemies on our payroll. I think the main difference is that McCain will pull out and declare a win, while Obama will pull out with history labeling it a Bush failure. I believe the result and rough timeframe will be about the same time, however.
We can negotiate the specific timeframe of the drawdown, but it is going to happen....I can easily see a drawdown done over 18-36 months, with a few "escape clauses" thrown in by either side. That makes the Iraqis happy, gives a reasonable time to allow the situation to calm down, and gives us an out to go back in IF it starts to get to the point where they can't handle it. If you don't want or like the idea of a timetable this way, reverse it....say what conditions under which you will start to pull back troops. Say, for instance, you get their military to a certain agreed upon training level and you pull out "x" amount of troops, or that upon establishing an agreement between factions, we pull "y" amount of troops out of specific areas. Either approach would work.
Last edited on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 04:42 pm by Fred
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:08 am |
|
no one else wrote: Yup. This must be Taos Eddy for sure. Webmaster beware. The insult king has returned.
BTW Fred, these are good questions. I know that you will have a rational answer and not something smart a$$ response.
I don't know who Taos Eddy is, but I'm beginning to like him.
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 401 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 11:44 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Bixby wrote: Yes, Fred, I know that you have said that all along and that's why I'm surprised that you took that path. So what do the Democrats propose? Both McCain and Obama want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. They differ on the length of time. Now a couple of questions, you as one of the most current military people here could shed some light.
What happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? Suppose al-Qaida takes advantage of the American pull-out and sets up one of their permanent bases and uses Iraq as a sanctuary? This is much like the Taliban in Afghanistan who had a privileged sanctuary protected by not having American troops in a position that could remove them? Remember what happened in Vietnam? Suppose, and I'm sure they would, the Iran, with the help al-Qaida, start killing off thousands of Iraqis who cooperated and helped us and who used to work with and for us? And don't forget the oil fields. What happens if Iraqi oil fields fall into Iranian hands? Whose got an answer for this? Obama? No way. It would be politically impossible for us to go back once we pulled out. Don't you think that Iran and al-Qaida know this? North Vietnam knew the situation when they negotiated an end top US military presence in South Vietnam.
McCain's philosophy is pretty easy. Win in Iraq. It's working now and with our help Iraq can get stronger and maintain their government on their own. I wouldn't make too much of Maliki's call for a withdrawal timetable. I think it's posturing to indicate strength and independence in an effort to hold his government together.
Suppose a thought entered that great vacuum you have on your shoulders? Suppose you did a little more research on Nam and started speaking intelligently about that rather than spinning nonsense? Yup. This must be Taos Eddy for sure. Webmaster beware. The insult king has returned.
BTW Fred, these are good questions. I know that you will have a rational answer and not something smart a$$ response.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 09:09 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: Yes, Fred, I know that you have said that all along and that's why I'm surprised that you took that path. So what do the Democrats propose? Both McCain and Obama want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. They differ on the length of time. Now a couple of questions, you as one of the most current military people here could shed some light.
What happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? Suppose al-Qaida takes advantage of the American pull-out and sets up one of their permanent bases and uses Iraq as a sanctuary? This is much like the Taliban in Afghanistan who had a privileged sanctuary protected by not having American troops in a position that could remove them? Remember what happened in Vietnam? Suppose, and I'm sure they would, the Iran, with the help al-Qaida, start killing off thousands of Iraqis who cooperated and helped us and who used to work with and for us? And don't forget the oil fields. What happens if Iraqi oil fields fall into Iranian hands? Who'se got an answer for this? Obama? No way. It would be politically impossible for us to go back once we pulled out. Don't you think that Iran and al-Qaida know this? North Vietnam knew the situation when they negotiated an end top US military presence in South Vietnam.
McCain's philosophy is pretty easy. Win in Iraq. It's working now and with our help Iraq can get stronger and maintain their government on their own. I wouldn't make too much of Maliki's call for a withdrawal timetable. I think it's posturing to indicate strength and independence in an effort to hold his government together.
Suppose a thought entered that great vacuum you have on your shoulders? Suppose you did a little more research on Nam and started speaking intelligently about that rather than spinning nonsense?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 07:25 pm |
|
Yes, Fred, I know that you have said that all along and that's why I'm surprised that you took that path. So what do the Democrats propose? Both McCain and Obama want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. They differ on the length of time. Now a couple of questions, you as one of the most current military people here could shed some light.
What happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? Suppose al-Qaida takes advantage of the American pull-out and sets up one of their permanent bases and uses Iraq as a sanctuary? This is much like the Taliban in Afghanistan who had a privileged sanctuary protected by not having American troops in a position that could remove them? Remember what happened in Vietnam? Suppose, and I'm sure they would, the Iran, with the help al-Qaida, start killing off thousands of Iraqis who cooperated and helped us and who used to work with and for us? And don't forget the oil fields. What happens if Iraqi oil fields fall into Iranian hands? Who'se got an answer for this? Obama? No way. It would be politically impossible for us to go back once we pulled out. Don't you think that Iran and al-Qaida know this? North Vietnam knew the situation when they negotiated an end top US military presence in South Vietnam.
McCain's philosophy is pretty easy. Win in Iraq. It's working now and with our help Iraq can get stronger and maintain their government on their own. I wouldn't make too much of Maliki's call for a withdrawal timetable. I think it's posturing to indicate strength and independence in an effort to hold his government together.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 06:50 pm |
|
No, Bix. I, more then anyone here, fully accept that politicians will and must move their views based on the current situation. I've said time and time again that on Iraq that McCain and Obama are not all that far apart in that they both want the troops out as quick as possible, and that their timeframes are not all that apart.
There is a big, big difference, however, with the President and this particular issue, because those of us who have questioned him have stated repeatedly that he has not intention of doing exactly what he said he would do....and were shouted down by you right wingers. The situation has NOT changed substantially in Iraq since he said what he did, and in fact, you could make the argument that things are better then we he said we would leave when they wanted us to.
So....why? Is there something else he wants out of Iraq? Sure. If he was to leave now, as the Iraqis have requested a couple of times (al Maliki did not do it when his congress did it earlier), we could claim we "won", right? But we would have buttkus to show for it, so he is hoping for a better "win".
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
| Ahh, Fred. Forever the ballerina. You spin so delightfully. Let me see. If Obama changes his position on something he is insightful, calculating, re-evaluating his position according to changing information, and is comsidered by the left as the hallmarks of a great leader. Hmmm. When McCain does it, he is a flip-flopper. It seems that both of them are steering towards the center-right. I believe that America is a center-right nation and maybe they too believe that.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 02:21 pm |
|
Interesting development from al Malaki...he wants a timetable, we don't want to give him one.
Now....I suspect that this is at least partially posturing on al Malaki's part. He is having a great deal of difficulty in cobbling together a government, and it is a classic move to unite everyone against a common enemy....in this case, us. He is, I think, stalling for time to try to keep the people together, and to hope that they see him as wanting the same things they want and have asked for in the past....to get us out. it is also very interesting timing, in that the administration certainly wanted a deal signed before they left office, and this could just be one more thing that they want to leverage against us.
It is interesting, however, to compare the President's earlier statements about leaving when they wanted us to, and now refusing to even consider a long drawn out timetable that they are requesting....Can anyone tell me that it is not a flip flop?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 25th, 2008 03:42 am |
|
http://gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-837
GAO report on the surge, in bureacratic, matter of fact style...which confirms what some of us have been saying all along.
1. The decrease in violence is attributed to the increase in US troops, paid groups such as the Sons of Iraq, and the Mahdi Army's ceasefire.
2. The decrease in violence is real and significant, but the purpose of the surge was not to simply lower the violence, but to provde Iraq with 12 t0 18 months to accomplish specific goals. The progress on these goals, with the 18 month period to end in July, is not very good. There are some areas tha progress has been made...they have almost made the goal of providing water to the Iraqi people....but the Iraqi people have not really taken advantage of the 70% reduction in violence.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 5th, 2008 07:15 pm |
|
I'll ask the "conservatives" here their take on this...
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN04304912
Trying to get a treaty with Iraq is not necessarily a bad thing, and getting one sooner rather than later makes sense, as well. This treaty would have to recognize that we'll be there for a while, and such things as Status of Forces Agreement are not a bad thing; we've had them with Japan, Germany, and Korea.
What is bad is the attempts to force this through. If it is an agreement between Iraq and the US, especially if it involved military assistance, is this not a treaty? Does it not require "advice and consent" of the Senate?
I'm not going to go too deep into the thought that this is a way to force an American presence in Iraq regardless of who we elect in November.What is interesting is that a majority of our Senate AND the Iraqi Senate are making demands of their leaders in accordance with their understanding of their respective Constitutions.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 4th, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
A couple of interesting quotes from an interview with GWB...
- “‘This is the great war of our times. It is going to take forty years,’” [Bush told Engel]. “Bush said in forty years the world would know if the war on terrorism, and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, had reduced extremism, helped moderates, and promoted democracy.”
and
“I know people are saying we should have left things the way they were, but I changed after 9/11. I had to act. I don’t care if it created more enemies. I had to act.”
First, no one said that things should have been left the same....it is amazing how often he uses the strawman argument. What is interesting is that he did this, supposedly, on instinct, not any thought out strategy....does this make it better, or worse, after the fact?
As for his 40 year argument.....did he pull this number out of a hat, or is it yet another signal to his fundie friends...40 years in the desert?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 03:24 am |
|
Let us not forget that we have many brave Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen fighting, and there are those who will still give their life for those they are fighting with.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_on_go_pr_wh/medal_of_honor_6;_ylt=AjbpjYfpq09gdeFJ9y_8UD5X6GMA
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 22nd, 2008 04:23 pm |
|
Apparently, Gen P. is going to recommend troop cuts this fall on top of the surge drawdown.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=a87jGjM0JPbo&refer=africa
How does this affect the campaign? I can see how McCain can claim that the surge was the reason why, and that troop drawdowns can be made based upon the commander's decision, and that we can continue to "stay the course"...
But I can also see the argument that the drawdown IS what the Dems have been saying can and should be done. Further, I don't think we would really believe that Iraq is anywhere near, in terms of stability, oil production, or their view of the US, the way that we would have liked them to be.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 17th, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
What Does Granting Amnesty Have to Do With Funding Our Troops in Iraq?
In one afternoon, the Appropriations Committee approved amnesty for 1.35 million illegal alien agricultural workers, and made available an additional 650,000 skilled and unskilled foreign guest workers over the next three years.
From: http://www.townhall.com
|
Brendan Buschi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 09:13 pm |
|
Footloose, I want to thank you for putting that link in your reply. I just took a look at it. I have no issue with it. It actually supports what I have been saying about our Congress sharing in the responsibility for Iraq.
It also helps emphasize the reason I support Obama in the upcoming election. He is not one of the Democrats who appear in that video.
However, the video does not address the issue I raised. I said the Bush administration was dishonest with the American people and I also said the people providing the Bush administration with information weren't lying to the Bush administration.
There was ample evidence in the information that the Bush administration was receiving from its intelligence sources that things were not cut and dry as the Bush administration reported to us.
There is also the question of to what extent any member of Congress had the same information Bush did or were they relying on the Bush administration for their information.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 07:05 pm |
|
Not sure of the relevance, footsie.
I can pull enough video clips out of the Flyers/Panthers series to show that the Flyers should be winning.....but if I throw out all the goals scored by the Panthers and the bad plays of the Flyers and showed it to someone who doesn't really know the score...who's fault is it if they think the Flyers are headed to the Stanley Cup?
|
Footloose
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 22nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 327 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 06:55 pm |
|
This has been around for a while and has been posted by a few members here and elsewhere.
Aren't these the same people that said "Bush lied"? It's worth the few minutes it takes to view this film clip.
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
|
Brendan Buschi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 05:32 pm |
|
Hey Fred, you have to reread what Bush said in the link you provided. He said he didn't think anybody lied to him. That's probably the truest thing the man has ever said.
If there was any lying, deception, misinformation, disinformation, or the like, it wasn't from those reporting to the Bush Administartion, it was from those within the Bush Administartion reporting to us.
Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 05:33 pm by Brendan Buschi
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 03:40 pm |
|
The President gives up golf out of respect for those in Iraq.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2321891,00.html
Okay.....his logic is that he doesn't want the mothers to see him golfing during war, as it shows solidarity with their sacrifices. A few questions....
1. Is he f**king kiding? Giving up golf is a sacrifice?
2. Will he continue to give it up until the last troop comes home?
3. If giving up golf was one signal, what would one think of the shots of him mountain biking?
|