Time To Start Talking About Pullout In Iraq

RJdxer · Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:07 am

The violence is down considerably. The Iraqis seem to be working together. Their proposal to assume all security once all the provinences have been handed over to them seems reasonable. There will always be the malcontent that decides to blow himself up along with innocent bystanders, it just seems to be the way to vent frustation over there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

It sounds like a fair proposal and one I would hope the President would accept.

AirCop · Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:47 am

Probably read in the papers tomorrow how McCain changed his mind on this, apparently there is video of him back in 2004 stating if the Iraq government doesn't want us there we should leave, apparently he stated something different today, something along the line, we will leave when we decide it safe to leave..

Meanwhile the strain on the military families these pass few years..and the US will need a few troops to chase the bad guys in the other war. (I used bad guys because I don't know who the good guys are anymore, its not Pakistan for sure).

Aaron747 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:37 am

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):

It sounds like a fair proposal and one I would hope the President would accept.

I agree. Unfortunately all indications from this still-bullheaded White House are that they will not accept any proposal that isn't on their terms.

RJdxer · Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:06 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 2):
Unfortunately all indications from this still-bullheaded White House are that they will not accept any proposal that isn't on their terms.

I am hopeful the President will see that there is no "set date" for leaving which is what he has been against all along, and I tended to agree with. With this proposal the U.S. troops pull back into base, many can be sent elsewhere, and the ones that are left can act as firemen if needed and called upon by the Iraqi government. After 5 years if things are running well we can reduce our force down to a token presence. I think he will see that this is the correct way once the military signs on to the plan. He seems to have leaned on thier advice for quite sometime.

QANTAS077 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:17 pm

Quoting AirCop (Reply 1):
Probably read in the papers tomorrow how McCain changed his mind on this, apparently there is video of him back in 2004 stating if the Iraq government doesn't want us there we should leave, apparently he stated something different today, something along the line, we will leave when we decide it safe to leave..

he also stated something along the lines of killing all the Iranians with US exported cigarettes...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/07...ics/fromtheroad/entry4243139.shtml

anyways, that's the story your after about the Maliki proposal.

Aaron747 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:55 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 3):
With this proposal the U.S. troops pull back into base, many can be sent elsewhere, and the ones that are left can act as firemen if needed and called upon by the Iraqi government.

Well we're in agreement on everything here. This has been happening a lot lately, must be something in the water! Smile

Now of course, my only problem with this proposal, and should be the Administration's problem too since they started all of this, is that it's clear to everyone Maliki's true motivation here is pressure from hard-line Shia supporters as well as likely Iranian prodding. Like any politician, he's satisfying his base.

RJdxer · Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:05 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 5):
This has been happening a lot lately, must be something in the water!

I think I'm still suffering the effects of that carbonated water they sell over in the Ukraine. wink

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 5):
Like any politician, he's satisfying his base.

And I don't blame him a bit. Iraq is a sovereign nation with a freely elected government that is getting a handle on it's own security problems. Unless the violence picks up dramatically or the government collapses due to outside forces, the day has come where we can say we've done all we can and now it's up to them to make it work. The big problem I see now is their economy which is still just stitched together. If they can't find a way to make that work then security will be the least of their problems. They really do need to get their act together on their oil sales. They have a wonderful opportunity with oil being what it is price wise to help all their citizens.

luv2fly · Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:04 pm

Well the longer we are in Iraq means a shorter commute for US Troops when we invade Iran.

Big grin

RJdxer · Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:33 pm

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 7):
Well the longer we are in Iraq means a shorter commute for US Troops when we invade Iran.

I really hope we don't end up having to do that. Let's hope the Iranians are smarter than they let on.

luv2fly · Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:51 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 8):
Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 7):
Well the longer we are in Iraq means a shorter commute for US Troops when we invade Iran.

I really hope we don't end up having to do that. Let's hope the Iranians are smarter than they let on.

Believe me when I say that I hope so to. Though let's all hope that the idiot in the White House gets out before he gets a chance to act, once again.

seb146 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:03 pm

I can see it now:

BushCo will order the pullout of troops and be done with in by January 2009. Just in time for them to say "We did it! We were the best war administration ever!" Yet, leave trillions of dollars of debt (owed to China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia) and a failing economy, and resentment the world over to the next president.

Yeah... good job there, chief... /sarcasm

mt99 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:03 pm

Just in time for the Election.. How convenient... I guess McSame's 100-year comment is not polling to well now-a-days anyway

StarAC17 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:07 pm

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 7):
Well the longer we are in Iraq means a shorter commute for US Troops when we invade Iran.

Big grin Big grin Big grin Big grin

That's the idea and Iraq isn't going for it, it is unlikely that Iraq will allow for US bases in the long term future because they don't want the US there.

Falcon84 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:47 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
It sounds like a fair proposal and one I would hope the President would accept.

I agree with you. But it sounds like Imperious Leader wants to keep them there, and I think we all know the reason why. Care to guess? Hint: look to the east.

RJdxer · Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:58 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
But it sounds like Imperious Leader wants to keep them there, and I think we all know the reason why. Care to guess? Hint: look to the east.

Actually I think he is waiting to hear from the military before making a decision. If they come back and say that the ground security situation continues to improve I believe he'll agree to the Iraqi program. Regardless something has to be hammered out, was going to have to be hammered out anyway, before the end of the year not because of an election, but because the UN mandate runs out then.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10):
BushCo will order the pullout of troops and be done with in by January 2009.

No he won't. He might sign on to the Iraqi agreement which does not involve a pull out but U.S. troops will be there for a few more years no matter who gets elected.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10):
Yet, leave trillions of dollars of debt

News flash, we were already in debt, and will continue to pile up debt as long as Congress, no matter who is in charge, does nothing about runaway entitlement spending which dwarfs what we have spent in Iraq.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10):
and a failing economy,

Care to cite figures?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10):
and resentment the world over to the next president

Ah but the messiah will fix all that the day after he is inaugurated. sarcastic

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 9):
Though let's all hope that the idiot in the White House gets out before he gets a chance to act, once again.

Would you care to quote where this President has said he "wants" a chance to act militarily against Iran? So many people on this forum seem to have that as a foregone conclusion when he has never said any such thing.

Confuscius · Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:03 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):
Time To Start Talking About Pullout In Iraq

That'll put a damper on McCain's A Hundred Year War plan.

NIKV69 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:06 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 2):
Unfortunately all indications from this still-bullheaded White House are that they will not accept any proposal that isn't on their terms.

Well wasn't it us that saved that country from being ruled by a vicious dictator and gave them the chance to think and speak and vote for themselves? I think we have earned the right to have a say as to when we leave.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 8):
Let's hope the Iranians are smarter than they let on.

Smart? They want Isreal destroyed and will not stop till they either do it or we prevent them from doing it.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
But it sounds like Imperious Leader wants to keep them there, and I think we all know the reason why. Care to guess? Hint: look to the east.

Oh yea we are going to steal all their oil right? sarcastic

Falcon84 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:07 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
But it sounds like Imperious Leader wants to keep them there, and I think we all know the reason why. Care to guess? Hint: look to the east.

Oh yea we are going to steal all their oil right?

Has nothing to do with oil, Sherlock. It has to do with Iran.

RJdxer · Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:09 pm

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 15):
That'll put a damper on McCain's A Hundred Year War plan.

Continue the myth. Shame you don't take the time to get the facts.

itsjustme · Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:03 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
Continue the myth. Shame you don't take the time to get the facts.

Here is what McCain said: Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/

RJdxer · Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:05 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 19):
"As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me

Which destroys the myth of a "100 year war".

itsjustme · Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:07 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 20):
Which destroys the myth of a "100 year war".

I won't dispute the possibility that what McCain said was taken out of context. But, doesn't it bother you when someone who has the potential of being our next Commander in Chief says it's "fine with me" when commenting on the possibility of our young men and women being deployed thousands of miles away for 100 years?

Confuscius · Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:23 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 21):
doesn't it bother you when someone who has the potential of being our next Commander in Chief says it's "fine with me" when commenting on the possibility of our young men and women being deployed thousands of miles away for 100 years?

For a self-professed foreign policy expert that's a pretty poor prognostication. He missed by over 90 years.

NIKV69 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:35 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
It has to do with Iran.

Yes, I guess we are going to invade them for no reason right? sarcastic

Confuscius · Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:40 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 23):
Yes, I guess we are going to invade them for no reason right?

Nope, but like Iraq for made up reason.

Mir · Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:46 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16):
Well wasn't it us that saved that country from being ruled by a vicious dictator and gave them the chance to think and speak and vote for themselves? I think we have earned the right to have a say as to when we leave.

Chest-thumping doesn't make Iraq any better. We've been taking an active role in there long enough (and it was us who let the place slide into disaster initially), and if they want us to sit back and let them take care of their own security, we should do that.

Otherwise we're just perpetuating occupation, and I can't blame the Iraqis for being sick of us.

-Mir

luv2fly · Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:56 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14):
Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 9):
Though let's all hope that the idiot in the White House gets out before he gets a chance to act, once again.

Would you care to quote where this President has said he "wants" a chance to act militarily against Iran? So many people on this forum seem to have that as a foregone conclusion when he has never said any such thing.

If you believe otherwise more power to ya! Look at it this way if he gets us into a war with Iran he can be known as the President that got us into THREE wars and not be remembered as the worst US President EVER!

Falcon84 · Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:02 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 23):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18):
It has to do with Iran.

Yes, I guess we are going to invade them for no reason right?

Did you read the other Iran thread going on, where reports our out that Mr. Bush is bound and determined to launch an attack on Iran before he leaves office? That Cheney and he are disregarding the advise of advisors and intel estimates that no military action need take place at this time?

This is a president who launch and unprovoked war on Iraq. What makes you think he's learned anything, and would not be willing to do the same on Iran?

RJdxer · Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:36 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 21):
But, doesn't it bother you when someone who has the potential of being our next Commander in Chief says it's "fine with me" when commenting on the possibility of our young men and women being deployed thousands of miles away for 100 years?

As opposed to Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia.........

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
Did you read the other Iran thread going on, where reports our out that Mr. Bush is bound and determined to launch an attack on Iran before he leaves office?

Considering his public stance has not change one iota in the past two years from whom is this "report" coming from? The same people who claim he is the mastermind behind 9/11?

Aaron747 · Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:35 am

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 12):
That's the idea and Iraq isn't going for it, it is unlikely that Iraq will allow for US bases in the long term future because they don't want the US there.

Are you somehow completely unaware that the SOFA currently under negotiation calls for 40 years of US exclusivity for several Iraqi bases?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16):
Well wasn't it us that saved that country from being ruled by a vicious dictator and gave them the chance to think and speak and vote for themselves? I think we have earned the right to have a say as to when we leave.

What an arrogant statement. They're either a sovereign country or they're not. As I said before the war - be careful what you wish for in any case. If they have a Shia majority for decades that is buddy-buddy with a pissy Iran, who will be responsible for that? A consequence of democracy to be sure. If they remain an American client-state that becomes a greedy ingrate, again, who will be responsible for that?

Tbird · Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:38 am

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16):
Well wasn't it us that saved that country from being ruled by a vicious dictator and gave them the chance to think and speak and vote for themselves? I think we have earned the right to have a say as to when we leave.

Nick we DO NOT have a right to say when we are going to leave...its not our country. Bush has said time and time again that if the Iraqi gov't asked us to leave we would and now he's backing down. If we stay against their wishes then we are an occupying force who will have no one to blame but ourselves for w/e outcome it brings.

NIKV69 · Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:13 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 27):
Did you read the other Iran thread going on, where reports our out that Mr. Bush is bound and determined to launch an attack on Iran before he leaves office? That Cheney and he are disregarding the advise of advisors and intel estimates that no military action need take place at this time?

Bush is not determined to launch an attack on Iran. He is making sure Iran doesn't attack Isreal or develop a nuclear weapon which would be a disaster. Huge difference.

Quoting Tbird (Reply 30):
Bush has said time and time again that if the Iraqi gov't asked us to leave we would and now he's backing down.

No he is not Tommy. Iran is asking for a time table for our departure. Not for us to just start pulling out. Bush will listen to his Generals and together with Iraq they will make a decision that is right for everyone involved. Not a decision to make people like codepink happy.

Tbird · Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:36 am

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 31):
No he is not Tommy. Iran is asking for a time table for our departure. Not for us to just start pulling out. Bush will listen to his Generals and together with Iraq they will make a decision that is right for everyone involved. Not a decision to make people like codepink happy.

Nick who ever mentioned Codepink? Codepink isn't in Baghdad's Parliament asking for the U.S to pull out! The Iraqis are..its their country and if they want us gone then we should hop the first turnip truck out of there!

baroque · Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:24 am

Reality check for some of the more ambitious, as far as is known, Iran is not negotiating with the US on its withdrawal from Iraq and as yet, Iran does not completely control "Baghdad's parliament".

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 21):
Commander in Chief says it's "fine with me" when commenting on the possibility of our young men and women being deployed thousands of miles away for 100 years?

Worry not Itsjustme, one of the succeeding Presidents will just find it is too expensive. The US is coming to the point that the UK was in from 1960 to 1970 as it withdrew from E of Suez.

The statements of Wolfie prior to the war will also prevent any attempts to have the US occupation paid for out of Iraqi oil.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 29):

Are you somehow completely unaware that the SOFA currently under negotiation calls for 40 years of US exclusivity for several Iraqi bases?

Which is why whatever agreement there is will be broken by the government of Moqtada when he kicks Maliki out - or whoever it is, and the even more rabid guys who take over from him.

So the US can think it has bases in Iraq for 40 years, but I will bet it does not! And all the shouting at Iran, just makes the Shia in Iraq more unlikely to compromise.

norcal · Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:18 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
Worry not Itsjustme, one of the succeeding Presidents will just find it is too expensive. The US is coming to the point that the UK was in from 1960 to 1970 as it withdrew from E of Suez.

I really hope we do what the UK did before we bankrupt ourselves like the Soviet Union. I would like nothing more than for us to step away from the world for awhile so that we can fix our own problems at home.

RJdxer · Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:06 pm

Quoting NorCal (Reply 34):
I would like nothing more than for us to step away from the world for awhile so that we can fix our own problems at home.

That's a nice thought but unfortunately recent history has shown us something different. Remember that period between January 2001 and September 2001? What was the worlds and the media's biggest problem with President Bush? What were we accused of in those first 9 months? Of course the President was focused on what he ran on, domestic affairs, and he was taking a beating for ignoring what?

Falcon84 · Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:49 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16):
Well wasn't it us that saved that country from being ruled by a vicious dictator and gave them the chance to think and speak and vote for themselves? I think we have earned the right to have a say as to when we leave.

I think if you said that statement to most Iraqi's, you'd get the shit beat out of you. The don't see us as saviors over there, NIK. They see us as invaders and occupiers, who threw their nation into chaos and war, and from which it still hasn't recovered from 5 years later. We put them on the brink of Civil War.

SAVED THEM? What a cheap, arrogant, smug statement. We weren't invited to "save" them. We went in there on false pretenses, and made war on them. And, when we leave, I guarantee you they will not turn out to be grateful to us, or, in the long run, be our friends. They're staying quite now, with our troops there, but when we're gone, they'll remember what we did to that nation.

Amazingly arrogant!

Falcon84 · Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:52 pm

And, NIK, we haven't "earned the right to have a say in when we leave." Again, that is so smug and arrogant as to be an incredible insult to the people who's nation WE invaded.

When they tell us to leave, WE LEAVE. We did so in the Philippines. Why can't we do it there. You REALLY want to turn Iraq against our troops? Fine, when Iraq tells us to leave, and we say "no way, Jose", then you'll see violence against our troops of the likes that will shock this nation.

Fortunately, that won't happen with either McCain or Obama in the White House. They are both honorable enough men, unlike Cheney and Bush, that when a nation we invaded asks us to leave, we'll comply.

God Almighty, but you have some wild thoughts.

Flighty · Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:57 pm

But what about all the damage we caused? I think we owe a lot of long-term reparations to Iraq. It might actually be difficult for us to earn enough money. But we should try. Clearly, this will hurt ourselves and our kids, because it will be a lot of money. Iraq is a Rodney King who got beat up far more than he deserved.

baroque · Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:07 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 36):
We weren't invited to "save" them. We went in there on false pretenses, and made war on them. And, when we leave, I guarantee you they will not turn out to be grateful to us, or, in the long run, be our friends. They're staying quite now, with our troops there, but when we're gone, they'll remember what we did to that nation.

That parallels the logic against involvement in Vietnam in the early part of that war when the shambolic state of S Vietnam had yet to become evident.

The argument went, if we win after fighting all over their country, the S Viets are not going to be terribly grateful and it we lose, well the N Viets are going to be really shitty with us.

Strong similarities to Iraq, and there will not be many grateful Iraqis.

As always, Tom Lehrer said it well and he said it back in 1965

Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,...

.....

Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
But some think our attitude
Should be one of gratitude,
Like the widows and cripples in old London town,
Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.

Although I don't know that the widows and cripples in Iraq are going to get pensions, large or small.

AGM100 · Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:32 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 39):
Although I don't know that the widows and cripples in Iraq are going to get pensions, large or small.

OH now I am sure the government of Iraq will be up for this after we pull out. No worries the Islamic governments really are beacons of social justice. Pensions ? are you kidding pensions ? .. they will lucky to have food for Pete's sake.

No matter, the proposed time line for pull out is still years and years away. All 18 provinces + 5 years. Yep my son will most likely be their in a couple years.

Falcon84 · Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:36 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 40):
OH now I am sure the government of Iraq will be up for this after we pull out.

Oh, I'm not going to bet the farm on that. Yeah sure

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 40):
No matter, the proposed time line for pull out is still years and years away. All 18 provinces + 5 years. Yep my son will most likely be their in a couple years.

Maybe it'll change your view of George W. Bush, and the mess he's made for two nations. Ours and theirs.

The Iraqi people will remember, and I'm sure we've made them sworn enemies again, once we leave.

"We saved them". I just can't comprehend such nonsense. That's not meant for you AGM, but I simply can't get over that statement.

seb146 · Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:49 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14):
Ah but the messiah will fix all that the day after he is inaugurated

Huh? The United States has a HUGE public relations fiasco on it's hands and has since BushCo deiced to invade Iraq for no good reason. It could have been salvaged during this administration, but no. It, along with other major problems, will be left for the next one or two commanders in chief.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14):
No he won't.

Troop levels will be significantly lowered before January 2009 just so he can tell his biographers he did something good; that he "fixed the problem" or something similar. Wasn't Bush the one so keen on "you break it, you buy it" diplomacy? Just because he lowers troop levels to a skeleton crew does not mean victory or things there are back to normal. He already declared "mission accomplished" several times.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14):
runaway entitlement spending

And that was not a problem from 2000 to 2006? What is "entitlement spending" anyway? Is that just a fancy way of saying "pork?"

That's another thing: Why are there so many fancy buzz words coming out of the Republican camp? Why are symantics perfectly acceptable when it comes out of the mouths of anyone with an (R) behind their name? I realize I am speaking before I even know what "entitlement spending" is, but that irritates me.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17):
Continue the myth. Shame you don't take the time to get the facts.

Yeah! McCain has changed his mind on that many times. What is his stance this week?

norcal · Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:06 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 35):
That's a nice thought but unfortunately recent history has shown us something different. Remember that period between January 2001 and September 2001? What was the worlds and the media's biggest problem with President Bush? What were we accused of in those first 9 months? Of course the President was focused on what he ran on, domestic affairs, and he was taking a beating for ignoring what?

You don't have to start wars in the middle east to prevent terrorism. On the contrary all we have really done in Iraq is train the next generation of terrorists. I am not suggesting we ignore places like Afghanistan or Iran or other terrorist nations. Rather we should fight this war intelligently. Increase our intelligence gathering ability against these terrorist groups and use covert operations against them. Our enemies don't fight conventional wars, so neither should we. Quick surgical attacks against terrorist groups would be much more effective than a full blown invasion of a country that is hiding terrorists. The use of Delta Force, Navy Seals, etc. would be much more effective than a mechanized division (and cheaper).

AGM100 · Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:09 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 41):
We saved them". I just can't comprehend such nonsense. That's not meant for you AGM, but I simply can't get over that statement.

Falcon you know how I feel.. Saved them is not the words I would use but our effort their is not without merit. Our troops have given the Iraqi people a chance to form a better government and have stood between them and violent forces who want to oppress them.

The fact that their elected PM is now appealing to voters by talking about a troop withdrawal is a positive move in my mind. We did not set out to conquer and control Iraq , our mission was simply to give them a chance to join the world community as a equal and legitimate nation. Our future and the future of the " free-world"is reliant on promoting free societies , this is the chance that the people of Iraq now have.

NIKV69 · Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:30 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 36):
I think if you said that statement to most Iraqi's, you'd get the shit beat out of you

Probably not. I sure saw a lot of them happy to see us when we toppled the statue and when they voted for the first time. Of course we won't talk about that though. sarcastic

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 36):
SAVED THEM? What a cheap, arrogant, smug statement. We weren't invited to "save" them. We went in there on false pretenses, and made war on them

Oh take the tin foil hat off please. Saddam and his kids were horrible and killed how many? We did what had to be done. Quit the codepink talking points already.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
And, NIK, we haven't "earned the right to have a say in when we leave." Again, that is so smug and arrogant as to be an incredible insult to the people who's nation WE invaded.

We didn't invade a nation, we invaded a dictatorship that was perpetrated by a tyrant. We will begin to witdraw when it is safe to do so and at a timetable benefital to all. We are not going to cut and run just to appease codepink or the far left.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
Fortunately, that won't happen with either McCain or Obama in the White House. They are both honorable enough men, unlike Cheney and Bush, that when a nation we invaded asks us to leave, we'll comply.

Let's summarize, McCain will withdraw at a timetable that is safe for everyone. Obama first sasid he would pull out as soon as he could so he could get votes but now has flip flopped because he knows that immediate withdrawal is impossible and incredibly dangerous.. Way to go Obama!

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 41):
The Iraqi people will remember, and I'm sure we've made them sworn enemies again, once we leave.

The power meter on your tin foil hat is rising again.

seb146 · Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:33 pm

Quoting NorCal (Reply 43):
Increase our intelligence gathering ability against these terrorist groups and use covert operations against them. Our enemies don't fight conventional wars, so neither should we. Quick surgical attacks against terrorist groups would be much more effective than a full blown invasion of a country that is hiding terrorists.

That sounds like what Clinton (supported by testimony from Oliver North) wanted to do to Afganistan. Then, came a stained blue dress....

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 44):
our mission was simply to give them a chance to join the world community as a equal and legitimate nation.

Sounds like what 1441, Bush's "manate for war" was about. Instead, Bush turned that into carte blanche for invading and occupying Iraq. Now, we have an Islamic nation occupied by foreign forces and an internal power struggle. Whereas, before, we had a secular nation with a dictator who, at least, provided health, utilities, and education for his people so long as they voted for him and his party.

RJdxer · Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:47 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42):
The United States has a HUGE public relations fiasco on it's hands

I would much rather have a public relations fiasco than a national security fiasco. What France or Germany thinks of what we do to protect ourselves is pretty low on the priority tree to me.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42):
BushCo deiced to invade Iraq for no good reason.

That is your opinion and you, of course, are welcome to it.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42):
He already declared "mission accomplished" several times.

One time, and correctly that major combat operations against the Iraqi Army had concluded and that the carrier in question had played a major part in that. Only the far left takes it as meaning something else.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42):
It could have been salvaged during this administration, but no. It, along with other major problems, will be left for the next one or two commanders in chief.

If the military comes back and says that the security situation warrants removing more troops from Iraq, and if the Iraqi security forces continue to take up the slack, that is victory. It's what has been deemed victory for several years now. But of course you won't see it that way, never will, so I don't worry too much about your rantings.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 42):
And that was not a problem from 2000 to 2006? What is "entitlement spending" anyway? Is that just a fancy way of saying "pork?"

That has been a problem since the programs were passed in the 30's (SS) and the 60's (medicare, medicaid). The Senate just voted to steal from one program to pay for another because they can't find all the money it's going to take to fund all of them to the level they really need to keep from cutting benefits. This is not some exercise run around a park or some obscure museum being funded we are talking about. These are automatically funded, never go away, continue to grow annually at an alarming rate, entitlement programs that make up the vast majority of government spending every year, year in and year out. You can cut defense spending, you can't cut these programs without changing the law around them.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 43):
Increase our intelligence gathering ability against these terrorist groups and use covert operations against them.

Everytime we do that some idiot leaks the details to the NY Times who then dutifully prints the details on page one.

itsjustme · Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:00 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 44):
our mission was simply to give them a chance to join the world community as a equal and legitimate nation.

I thought our mission was to "Fight (the terrorists) there so we don't have to fight them here". Or was it to rid Saddam of those pesky WMDs?

norcal · Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:30 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 46):
That sounds like what Clinton (supported by testimony from Oliver North) wanted to do to Afganistan. Then, came a stained blue dress....

Republicans made that into a huge deal preventing such a plan from being implemented.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 47):
Everytime we do that some idiot leaks the details to the NY Times who then dutifully prints the details on page one.

Then the punishment for leaking national secrets should be treated as treason. That'll keep people quiet.

I still don't see how one could argue that large forces of regular army is effective against small guerrilla bands of terrorists. The tactic didn't work in Vietnam, so why would it work now. Covert operations against terrorist training camps would be much more effective from a military stand point. They would never see us coming and thus could never hide from us. It requires good intelligence (not just fancy satellites, but men on the ground) and quick action. Marching into Iraq doesn't prevent terrorists, it just gives them a ton of targets to practice against.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net