Originally posted by Krypton
Now that Iraq says it can stand on its "own two feet", McCain and Bush want NO TIMETABLE. Do you agree with this?
yes, i agree with this. there should never be a timetable. withdrawing from iraq should be done when it is ready to be done.
governments cant organise the precise date for cleaning the coffee machine.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
the surge wouldn't have done jack sh*t without the Sunni Awakening Councils or the stand down of the Sadr Militia.
again you've been spoon feeding yourself (or someone has) the wrong information. you're not being nearsighted this time, you actually have it backwards:rolleyes:
the Sunni Awakening started in Al Anbar somewhere around the begining of 2006. at that time we were paying and arming local militias loyal to and commanded by local sheiks.
we recognized that, one they needed more than just pay-offs and guns because the jihadist they were fighting were ruthless and more organized. two, we saw a real oppurtunity to establish positive relationships with these Sheiks and gain trust.
it was this awakening we recognized we saw that we needed more boots on the ground in Al Anbar. coupled with the fact that Baghdad and the Mahdi militia needed to be dealt with before anything helped shape what we wanted with the surge at the end of 2006. that and the Iraq Study Group Report. the 20,000 extra troops in Baghdad forced Sadr's hand.
the surge was not just 30,000 more swinging dicks in theater. there was a lot of shuffling of personel. guys were fired and replaced. Petraus changed and remobilized the entire Joint task forces, not just the surge personel.
it was really the 4000 Marines and their toys we sent into Al Anbar that made a marked difference. send 4000 Marines anywhere in this world and someone will get their asses stomped one way or another.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yes, i agree with this. there should never be a timetable. withdrawing from iraq should be done when it is ready to be done.
governments cant organise the precise date for cleaning the coffee machine.
The Iraqi leadership wants a timetable.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
again you've been spoon feeding yourself (or someone has) the wrong information. you're not being nearsighted this time, you actually have it backwards:rolleyes:
the Sunni Awakening started in Al Anbar somewhere around the begining of 2006. at that time we were paying and arming local militias loyal to and commanded by local sheiks.
we recognized that, one they needed more than just pay-offs and guns because the jihadist they were fighting were ruthless and more organized. two, we saw a real oppurtunity to establish positive relationships with these Sheiks and gain trust.
it was this awakening we recognized we saw that we needed more boots on the ground in Al Anbar. coupled with the fact that Baghdad and the Mahdi militia needed to be dealt with before anything helped shape what we wanted with the surge at the end of 2006. that and the Iraq Study Group Report. the 20,000 extra troops in Baghdad forced Sadr's hand.
the surge was not just 30,000 more swinging dicks in theater. there was a lot of shuffling of personel. guys were fired and replaced. Petraus changed and remobilized the entire Joint task forces, not just the surge personel.
it was really the 4000 Marines and their toys we sent into Al Anbar that made a marked difference. send 4000 Marines anywhere in this world and someone will get their asses stomped one way or another.
Without the Anbar Awakening and Sadr stand down, the surge would be just a dream. Anyways, now that you, the administration, and Mr. McCain believe the surge has worked, shouldn't be time to declare victory, and hand over Iraq to a truly sovereign government? Lest we continue spending billions of dollars a month in, not taxpayer money, but the government's lenders money, whose principle AND interest will we will be paying for decades to come...
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Without the Anbar Awakening and Sadr stand down, the surge would be just a dream.
and the secret (not really a secret. anyone who can put dates together can figure it out. how you fail that is beyond me:rolleyes: ) i'm letting you in on is that your history is backwards.
Q5echo
completely stole this from a blog but Obama supporters need to see this more than peopel on the right.
quote:
He'd Rather Lose A War Than An Election
Tonight Barack Obama told ABC News that, knowing what we know now--that the surge in Iraq has been a success, that it has drastically reduced violence and given Iraq a shot at a bright future--he would still oppose it:
This was, I think, a moment of candor. To explain his seemingly-shocking response, Obama immediately referred to political considerations. Opposing the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, even if that opposition turned out to be wrong, was a necessary ingredient in Obama's securing the Democratic Presidential nomination. That being the case, how can Obama, a purely political animal, regret a decision that advanced his own career?
The17sss
I like this article... agreed, Obama is making a mistake in this fashion. Talk about the "audacity of ego"<----(article headline from the Boston Globe yesterday).
quote:
Gergen: WE ONLY HAVE ONE PRESIDENT AT A TIME:
CNN political analyst David Gergen believes that Barack Obama made a political mistake in engaging Nouri al-Maliki on the question of the American presence in Iraq. He stepped over the line in explicitly admitting what amounts to negotiations with an American ally during wartime, a role that rightly belongs to the executive under all circumstances. Gergen calls this the first real political mistake of Obama’s trip — but will anyone notice?
"David Gergen: “I think it was the first — Barack Obama made the first mistake of his trip, in my judgment, in releasing a statement in which he said exactly what Maliki had said in those conversations. We have a long tradition in this country that we only have one president at a time. He’s the commander in chief and the negotiator in chief. I cannot remember a campaign which a rival seeking the presidency has been in a position negotiating a war that’s under way with another party outside the country. I think he leaves himself open to the charge tonight that he’s meddling, that this is not his role, that he can be the critic, but he’s not the negotiator. We have a president who does that. So, I think the underlying facts support him, but I think it would be a real mistake — and I think it was a mistake — to get into these conversations and let it be used politically.”
CNN’s Anderson Cooper: “That’s interesting. Gloria, do you think this is the first mistake he made on this trip?”
Gloria Borger: “You know, it’s very interesting, I do agree with David. And Candy, in her earlier piece, talked about walking the fine line between being this candidate and being presumptuous. And I think that he may just have crossed that, because, you know, it is a tradition. You don’t talk about these private conversations. And it’s not up to Barack Obama right now to negotiate troop withdrawals. It’s up to Barack Obama to be on a fact-finding mission, which is indeed what he has said he was on.”
On the face of it, Gergen is correct. In fact, Obama’s intervention violates two principles of American politics. First, presidential candidates do not conduct foreign policy. They can, as Gergen notes, criticize it all they want, but they have no standing to enter negotiations. Neither do Senators or Congressmen, either, as the Constitution explicitly leaves that to the executive branch. Obama had no standing to discuss troop withdrawals, trade policy, or even the exchange rate with Maliki.
That being said, the latter restriction has been breached repeatedly by both sides over the last few years. Both Republicans and Democrats have gone on “fact-finding missions” to Iraq in order to bolster their own policies. What makes this look worse than usual was Obama’s insistence that he didn’t need a fact-finding mission to arrive at his conclusions before going to Iraq, and that nothing he saw would change his mind on his policy. That makes his effort appear to be a transparent effort to negotiate on behalf of his own policy — and his statement look as though he succeeded at it.
Further, most people expected Obama to do just what he did. His trip was certainly no secret, nor was his insistence that he was there to dictate solutions, not gather suggestions. Perhaps this objection would have been more effectively raised before he left, but now I doubt most people will notice the overreach.
St_Andrew
Am I the only one seeing a terrible problem with Bush/McCain refusing to make a withdrawal if the "conditions on the ground" isn't good enough (in their opinion)? Obviously, if the democratically elected government of the sovereign country Iraq wants US forces out, they should leave no matter "conditions on the ground".
FYI, I also strongly disagree with a timetable, but if Iraqis wants it, give it to them!!!
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by St_Andrew
Am I the only one seeing a terrible problem with Bush/McCain refusing to make a withdrawal if the "conditions on the ground" isn't good enough (in their opinion)? Obviously, if the democratically elected government of the sovereign country Iraq wants US forces out, they should leave no matter "conditions on the ground".
FYI, I also strongly disagree with a timetable, but if Iraqis wants it, give it to them!!!
EXACTLY. Victory for Iraq War supporters is not a withdrawal from Iraq giving FULL SOVEREIGNTY to the government. For them, it is staying in Iraq. Doing the sensible thing, withdrawing at the request of Iraq's leadership; they consider "surrender". Really boggles my mind...:eyes: :eyes:
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by St_Andrew
Am I the only one seeing a terrible problem with Bush/McCain refusing to make a withdrawal if the "conditions on the ground" isn't good enough (in their opinion)? Obviously, if the democratically elected government of the sovereign country Iraq wants US forces out, they should leave no matter "conditions on the ground".
FYI, I also strongly disagree with a timetable, but if Iraqis wants it, give it to them!!!
I agree.
I think the big problem is what to do if, say, the Americans do leave and Iraq goes all to hell again - what justification could they possibly give to go back in?
For them, it's better to be sure than not I guess.
-
Most of the Iraqi provinces are under Iraqi forces control at this point so there is progress happening, however there will probably be a clause / amendment with a back door in whatever pull-out arrangements are made so the Americans can help out should Iraq need it.
Problem with that is, it's the Iraqis that need to determine that and not what the Americans something to watch for when the pullout does happen.
I'm thinking though that the Americans are trying to avoid the 'back door clause' discussion but simply just staying put until satisfaction - a nebulous concept because even though its the Americans throwing billions of dollars around, it is in the Iraqis backyard so there has to be compromise.
My thought would be to give the Iraqi people several options in an open forum however, considering the massive amount of foreign investment, I seriously doubt that would happen even though it sure sounds like the right thing to do...
hardcore trancer
quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I agree.
I think the big problem is what to do if, say, the Americans do leave and Iraq goes all to hell again - what justification could they possibly give to go back in?
I like how you make it sound as if Iraq is a wonderful place now after the occupation and if Americans leave now things will go bad.
Iraq is nothing but a hole and thing could always turn bad with or without the occupation.
josh4
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
I like how you make it sound as if Iraq is a wonderful place now after the occupation and if Americans leave now things will go bad.
Iraq is nothing but a hole and thing could always turn bad with or without the occupation.
When they get their way and things go bad its the fault of al Qaeda or the terrorists. More troops, more years, more money, more ridiculousness. When they don't get their way and things go bad its those damned liberal democrats.
So the surge has produced some results but whos to say how long it will last. The Taliban is resurfacing in Afghanistan and things appeared to be going well there for a long time.
The Iraqi's are being given control, they don't want us there, and if after we're gone everything goes to its no ones fault but the people that started this cluster, against World opinion, in the first place.
Personally, I'd make everyone who ever voted for Bush serve in Iraq. That'd solve a lot of problems.
