|
Post by socal on Jul 18, 2008 13:48:47 GMT -6
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071801308.html?hpid=topnewsAs McBush changes their stances to those of Obama, I'm confused at the unwillingness to call things as they are. It's like they have been in the closet for so long, they are resorting to extreme measures of denial. Are they oblivious to the fact that their "base" will always heel when asked to - but that everybody else sees these things as GOOD? So set whatever "Time Horizon" you'd like - and send our diplomats to Iran to discuss our anti-discussion stances.... and I'll applaud. But stop with the contortions of denial. Because they allow for easy Larry Craig associations.
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Jul 18, 2008 17:04:46 GMT -6
I think that it's vitally important to occupy Iraq for 100 years. After all, we can't have big government tranfer payments to actual Americans at home. That's liberal douchebaggery. It's so important that we occupy Iraq that we should ignore Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's also really important that the total equal 3 trillion dollars, so that those dirty hippies can't spend MY hard earned money on crazy liberal things like public schools, and health care for the uninsured. Anyone who thinks differently is a big government, knuckle dragging bleeding heart liberal douchebag. We should only trust the government when it comes to the military, because they could never make a mistake. If you think otherwise, you are a knuckle dragging dirty hippie.
If anyone has a problem with several thousand American dead, and tens of thousands maimed, then you are probably queer. Additionally, if you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq dying, then you are clearly from France, and likely drink little tiny espresso shots.
Ain't it grand being a hypocritical republican?
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jul 19, 2008 0:07:47 GMT -6
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071801308.html?hpid=topnewsAs McBush changes their stances to those of Obama, I'm confused at the unwillingness to call things as they are. It's like they have been in the closet for so long, they are resorting to extreme measures of denial. Are they oblivious to the fact that their "base" will always heel when asked to - but that everybody else sees these things as GOOD? So set whatever "Time Horizon" you'd like - and send our diplomats to Iran to discuss our anti-discussion stances.... and I'll applaud. But stop with the contortions of denial. Because they allow for easy Larry Craig associations. Things sure change quickly. A few days ago you were blathering about how the Iraqi government was begging us for a "timeline" and how Bush the Evil was denying the requests. Now we have a "time horizen". Is a timeline(or horizen) still a timeline(or horizen) if there is no real time involved? Wouldn't the simple solution be to not negotiate any agreement with the US prior to 12-31-08 when the un mandate runs out? US forces would be withdrawn and Iraq could get along by itself. I wonder why the Iraqi government isn't pushing for this. Yep, that's a tough one to figure out. The Administration has been very consistent in it's stance in Iraq: We'll leave when conditions on the ground dictate. Maliki is on board with this, he just has to appease his "base". If McBush's stance has changed , or is changing, to the views held by Mr. Chope, we should be expecting a rapid withdrawal over the next 16 months. Can you point out where your link(or any link) states this? We've got timelines, time horizens, timetables, schedules, benchmarks and milestones. Yet they don't mean dick. There's only one thing that will dictate us to leave.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Jul 19, 2008 6:22:48 GMT -6
This is all smoke and mirrors. The American Military leadership will notify the American political leadership when they believe the Iraqi's can adequately defend themselves against terrorists insurgencies. At that time, POTUS will announce some withdrawal time lines. Not before. By the way, it won't matter who POTUS is so don't believe for a second that it will. I've tried to make this easy for all the white flag wavers out there by telling you that you will know we are departing Iraq when Iowafan1 or one of his delegates tells you so. We're not there yet, so stop kicking the back seat.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jul 19, 2008 8:43:44 GMT -6
Things sure change quickly. A few days ago you were blathering about how the Iraqi government was begging us for a "timeline" and how Bush the Evil was denying the requests. Now we have a "time horizen". Is a timeline(or horizen) still a timeline(or horizen) if there is no real time involved? Wouldn't the simple solution be to not negotiate any agreement with the US prior to 12-31-08 when the un mandate runs out? US forces would be withdrawn and Iraq could get along by itself. I wonder why the Iraqi government isn't pushing for this. Yep, that's a tough one to figure out. The Administration has been very consistent in it's stance in Iraq: We'll leave when conditions on the ground dictate. Maliki is on board with this, he just has to appease his "base". If McBush's stance has changed , or is changing, to the views held by Mr. Chope, we should be expecting a rapid withdrawal over the next 16 months. Can you point out where your link(or any link) states this? We've got timelines, time horizens, timetables, schedules, benchmarks and milestones. Yet they don't mean dick. There's only one thing that will dictate us to leave. Absolutely... things DO change quickly. I wonder if the Bush administration will announce these statements by Maliki....... "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." ..... as a translation error too? www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSL198009020080719
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Jul 19, 2008 9:03:50 GMT -6
Things sure change quickly. A few days ago you were blathering about how the Iraqi government was begging us for a "timeline" and how Bush the Evil was denying the requests. Now we have a "time horizen". Is a timeline(or horizen) still a timeline(or horizen) if there is no real time involved? Wouldn't the simple solution be to not negotiate any agreement with the US prior to 12-31-08 when the un mandate runs out? US forces would be withdrawn and Iraq could get along by itself. I wonder why the Iraqi government isn't pushing for this. Yep, that's a tough one to figure out. The Administration has been very consistent in it's stance in Iraq: We'll leave when conditions on the ground dictate. Maliki is on board with this, he just has to appease his "base". If McBush's stance has changed , or is changing, to the views held by Mr. Chope, we should be expecting a rapid withdrawal over the next 16 months. Can you point out where your link(or any link) states this? We've got timelines, time horizens, timetables, schedules, benchmarks and milestones. Yet they don't mean dick. There's only one thing that will dictate us to leave. Absolutely... things DO change quickly. I wonder if the Bush administration will announce these statements by Maliki....... "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." ..... as a translation error too? www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSL198009020080719You have just pointed out the reason that Hussein, yourself and your fellow white flag wavers have no credibility. Only someone with COMPLETE knowledge of the inner workings of the Iraq situation can make that judgment. Seeing how the American Military leadership is the ONLY group that has that knowledge, they are the ONLY group who can make that recommendation. As of today, they haven't. What kind of knowledge of the situation in Iraq could Hussein possibly have in order to make a well informed decision like a 16 month withdrawal time line? The answer is he no information whatsoever to make that kind of decision. Nor do you. Nor do I. See my guidance above. When it is time for the troops to leave Iraq, I will pass it on to you. Until then, shhhhhh. Hush.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jul 19, 2008 9:19:36 GMT -6
Absolutely... things DO change quickly. I wonder if the Bush administration will announce these statements by Maliki....... "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." ..... as a translation error too? www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSL198009020080719You have just pointed out the reason that Hussein, yourself and your fellow white flag wavers have no credibility. Only someone with COMPLETE knowledge of the inner workings of the Iraq situation can make that judgment. Seeing how the American Military leadership is the ONLY group that has that knowledge, they are the ONLY group who can make that recommendation. As of today, they haven't. What kind of knowledge of the situation in Iraq could Hussein possibly have in order to make a well informed decision like a 16 month withdrawal time line? The answer is he no information whatsoever to make that kind of decision. Nor do you. Nor do I. See my guidance above. When it is time for the troops to leave Iraq, I will pass it on to you. Until then, shhhhhh. Hush. Are you saying the friggin leader of Iraq - has no idea about the "inner workings of the Iraq situation"? It seems to me that "hussein" has thrown a lot of darts recently - and all have ended up being bullseyes... Shall we count: -More troops to Afghanistan (After attacking him on this stance, McBush is now saying the same thing) -16 month troop drawdown (After denying Iraq wanted any kind of timeline, Mr. Maliki explicitly endorses this plan - and McBush is starting down this road with the "Time Horizon".) -We must negotiate with Iran (After dismissing such actions at the Knesset - as "appeasement" similar to Chamberlain, McBush is now sending the 3rd highest US diplomat to Iran this weekend - and they will soon establish a diplomatic office there, for the first time since the 70's)
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Jul 19, 2008 9:34:15 GMT -6
Yes, I am saying the friggin' leader if Iraq has no idea about his Country's ability to defend itself. Our Military Leaders are the ONLY ones that do. If Maliki wants us to leave next week, but our Military leaders don't think they can defend themselves after we leave, guess what. WE AIN"T LEAVING. What Maliki wants....what Hussein wants.....what you want......means nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Jul 19, 2008 10:50:05 GMT -6
Yes, I am saying the friggin' leader if Iraq has no idea about his Country's ability to defend itself. Our Military Leaders are the ONLY ones that do. If Maliki wants us to leave next week, but our Military leaders don't think they can defend themselves after we leave, guess what. WE AIN"T LEAVING. What Maliki wants....what Hussein wants.....what you want......means nothing. I understand that the military is in the best position to assess "the conditions on the ground" and that "a horizon" is a difficult thing to project. However, Why do we quibble about timelines, when anyone with a brain can tell you that the original premise of invading Iraq was fatally flawed? The conversation needs to stop spinning, and get back to the fundamental truth. That truth is that invading Iraq was an enormous foreign policy blunder. Now, where do we focus our precious resources?
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jul 19, 2008 16:06:52 GMT -6
Yes, I am saying the friggin' leader if Iraq has no idea about his Country's ability to defend itself. Our Military Leaders are the ONLY ones that do. If Maliki wants us to leave next week, but our Military leaders don't think they can defend themselves after we leave, guess what. WE AIN"T LEAVING. What Maliki wants....what Hussein wants.....what you want......means nothing. www.cfr.org/publication/6973/You know... it's OK to admit you've lost.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jul 19, 2008 18:42:58 GMT -6
Absolutely... things DO change quickly. I wonder if the Bush administration will announce these statements by Maliki....... "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." ..... as a translation error too? www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSL198009020080719Nah, The Administration should just call out the poor reporting by Reuters. The actual quote is: SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.
~~~ So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.Obama has been calling for the 16 month timetable for over a year and a half. He intoduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 which would have required all US combat troops to be redeployed from Iraq by 3-31-08. Why didn't Maliki embrace the Obama white flag retreat plan over a year and a half ago when it was introduced? The current Maliki statement is a direct result of The Surge, which allowed security conditions on the ground to improve dramatically. Obama was against The Surge and even stated, along with most democratic leaders, that The Surge had failed. Maliki very smartly leaves himself much wiggle room with his assuming that positive developments continue caveat. And since he wants US forces out as soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned, why doesn't he just let the un mandate expire and not come to terms with Washington?
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jul 19, 2008 20:17:22 GMT -6
Nah, The Administration should just call out the poor reporting by Reuters. The actual quote is: SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.
~~~ So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.Obama has been calling for the 16 month timetable for over a year and a half. He intoduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 which would have required all US combat troops to be redeployed from Iraq by 3-31-08. Why didn't Maliki embrace the Obama white flag retreat plan over a year and a half ago when it was introduced? The current Maliki statement is a direct result of The Surge, which allowed security conditions on the ground to improve dramatically. Obama was against The Surge and even stated, along with most democratic leaders, that The Surge had failed. Maliki very smartly leaves himself much wiggle room with his assuming that positive developments continue caveat. And bince he wants US forces out as soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned, why doesn't he just let the un mandate expire and not come to terms with Washington? Let's take a bit more expansive look: Barack Obama made this statement in July 07: "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan." Let's look at some of the goings on in Iraq June-July 07: www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20416437.htmwww.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/roadside-bomb-attacks-in-iraq-reach-an-alltime-high-460806.htmlAnd let's look at the history of US troop deaths in Iraq: Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 2003 000 000 065 074 037 030 048 035 031 044 082 040 486 2004 047 020 052 135 080 042 054 066 080 064 137 072 849 2005 107 058 035 052 080 078 054 085 049 096 084 068 846 2006 062 055 031 076 069 061 043 065 072 106 070 112 822 2007 083 081 081 104 126 101 079 084 065 038 037 023 902 2008 040 029 039 052 019 029 X12 000 000 000 000 000 220
|
And...here is another thing that happened late last summer: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/sadr-calls-sixmonth-ceasefire-to-prevent-civil-war-463540.html(and renewed in February) www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013181.phpAll things being equal, the timing of the late summer action more directly coincides in the reduction of troop deaths than the "surge" action - wouldn't you say? Now let's look at the "Surge" itself- The key goals (as stated by Bush & checked up on by the GAO do not limit themselves to simply the "Security" situation as you do) www.gao.gov/new.items/d08837.pdf: On Security: On Developing Iraqi Security Forces On Key Legislation: On Capital Budgets: On Providing Essential Services: Summary Recommendation: PS - It's already been reported that due to the Bush administration demands, an agreement is highly unlikely to be reached by the end of the year. Maliki's words kind of sealed the deal - as Bush is a bit too hard headed to concede. As I see it: -85% chance no agreement will be signed until Obama takes office next year. -14.5% chance of a "continuation" agreement of, say, 6 months is signed while Bush is in office. -0.5% chance Iraq will sign a long term agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Jul 20, 2008 1:53:48 GMT -6
Yes, I am saying the friggin' leader if Iraq has no idea about his Country's ability to defend itself. Our Military Leaders are the ONLY ones that do. If Maliki wants us to leave next week, but our Military leaders don't think they can defend themselves after we leave, guess what. WE AIN"T LEAVING. What Maliki wants....what Hussein wants.....what you want......means nothing. www.cfr.org/publication/6973/You know... it's OK to admit you've lost. You take a McCain quote and tell me its okay to admit I've lost? I believe we have all admitted that both McCain and Hussein have flip flopped a gazillion times apiece. You can feel free to consider that McCain quote just one more of them. My logic for what I said earlier is very clear. #1. Our Country has a very, very long history of coming to the aid of other countries who request our help. #2. Iraq, to your dismay, is becoming more stable as each day passes in terms of their ability to defend themselves against terrorist insurgency. #3. You don't know jack about what is going on in Iraq. Neither does Hussein. Neither does McCain. Neither do I, but unlike you and them, I'm willing to, and have always been willing to admit it and give appropriate deference to our Military leadership. Our Military leaders are the only group who know what those current defense capabilities and future challenges are. They are also the only ones who will be in a position to make an intelligent judgment as to when Iraq can defend their own country without the help of Americans. It is my absolute belief that we will leave Iraq only after our Military leadership deems the Iraqi people can defend themselves, furthermore preventing the possibility of us needing to re-enter Iraq to start from scratch. Having said that, if the American Military gives the go ahead in 16 months, so be it. That would be great. But if the Iraqi leadership, 16 months from now, wants us gone and the American Military judges Iraq can't defend themselves, we are staying. The only caveat to that is if Iraq says publicly that they will not request American assistance if they fall on their asses. What is the likelihood of that happening? I would say zero, so we will stay until Iowafan1 tells you we will leave. That won't happen until our Military leadership deems it appropriate. Now hush.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jul 20, 2008 8:52:58 GMT -6
You take a McCain quote and tell me its okay to admit I've lost? I believe we have all admitted that both McCain and Obama have flip flopped a gazillion times apiece. You can feel free to consider that McCain quote just one more of them. My logic for what I said earlier is very clear. #1. Our Country has a very, very long history of coming to the aid of other countries who request our help. #2. Iraq, to your dismay, is becoming more stable as each day passes in terms of their ability to defend themselves against terrorist insurgency. #3. You don't know jack about what is going on in Iraq. Neither does Obama. Neither does McCain. Neither do I, but unlike you and them, I'm willing to, and have always been willing to admit it and give appropriate deference to our Military leadership. Our Military leaders are the only group who know what those current defense capabilities and future challenges are. They are also the only ones who will be in a position to make an intelligent judgment as to when Iraq can defend their own country without the help of Americans. It is my absolute belief that we will leave Iraq only after our Military leadership deems the Iraqi people can defend themselves, furthermore preventing the possibility of us needing to re-enter Iraq to start from scratch. Having said that, if the American Military gives the go ahead in 16 months, so be it. That would be great. But if the Iraqi leadership, 16 months from now, wants us gone and the American Military judges Iraq can't defend themselves, we are staying. The only caveat to that is if Iraq says publicly that they will not request American assistance if they fall on their asses. What is the likelihood of that happening? I would say zero, so we will stay until Iowafan1 tells you we will leave. That won't happen until our Military leadership deems it appropriate. Now hush. It must be easier on you to speak in generalizations... Whether you admit to the flip-flops from your candidate "a gazillion times", doesn't make it universal. Likewise, because you choose to ignore the news from Iraq - doesn't mean everybody else does too. And while most military commanders/soldiers on the ground have much better perspectives of their immediate area, they have no view of the situations of other areas in Iraq - or even a remote grasp of the "big picture". Causing even their perspectives to be subject to their personal view. I ask you to keep yourself from revising history... -We didn't INVADE Iraq at the request of a nation requesting our help. -We are an occupying army in a foreign nation. -Whether you choose to accept it or not, at least 1 of our soldiers/day in Iraq, is killed or wounded for life. For your reference- on the right side of this link, they post every "Iraq" story as it comes out. icasualties.org/oif/PS- Remember, the military is directed by the Commander in Chief... a civilian. Due to the decisions made by the civilian currently giving those commands, the surge itself became a necessity - and all throughout, many Military leaders were "retired" for proposing / stating things contrary to the Commander in Chief's beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jul 20, 2008 9:55:05 GMT -6
Things sure change quickly. A few days ago you were blathering about how the Iraqi government was begging us for a "timeline" and how Bush the Evil was denying the requests. Now we have a "time horizen". Is a timeline(or horizen) still a timeline(or horizen) if there is no real time involved? Wouldn't the simple solution be to not negotiate any agreement with the US prior to 12-31-08 when the un mandate runs out? US forces would be withdrawn and Iraq could get along by itself. I wonder why the Iraqi government isn't pushing for this. Yep, that's a tough one to figure out. The Administration has been very consistent in it's stance in Iraq: We'll leave when conditions on the ground dictate. Maliki is on board with this, he just has to appease his "base". If McBush's stance has changed , or is changing, to the views held by Mr. Chope, we should be expecting a rapid withdrawal over the next 16 months. Can you point out where your link(or any link) states this? We've got timelines, time horizens, timetables, schedules, benchmarks and milestones. Yet they don't mean dick. There's only one thing that will dictate us to leave. Absolutely... things DO change quickly. I wonder if the Bush administration will announce these statements by Maliki....... "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." ..... as a translation error too? www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSL198009020080719Did someone say translation error? Please ask Mr. Maliki. www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.The two men "agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal," the White House said.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jul 20, 2008 15:20:17 GMT -6
Did someone say translation error? Please ask Mr. Maliki. www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.The two men "agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal," the White House said. Did you really expect anything else??? ....What was "misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately"? The "spokesman from Baghdad" making a press release through CENTCOM - isn't the most reliable argument. Besides, Speigel is standing by their story: www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566914,00.html PS - I Love this part: Maliki's comments immediately hit the headlines of US papers and Web sites across the country, partly the result of a White House employee inadvertently sending out a news alert to its full media distribution list. The White House said it was an error and that it was meant to be sent internally only......a little bit of panic by the WH???
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Jul 20, 2008 15:22:39 GMT -6
Hmmmm.......Do I take the word of the Military or Speigel? I think I'll go with the Military.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jul 20, 2008 15:24:23 GMT -6
Hmmmm.......Do I take the word of the Military or Speigel? I think I'll go with the Military. Good for you... perhaps someone from the military will say something sometime.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jul 21, 2008 7:20:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jul 21, 2008 10:42:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by socal on Aug 21, 2008 11:28:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Aug 21, 2008 11:58:11 GMT -6
This is all idiotic bullshit.
We live in a temporal universe. There is, by existential definition, a timeline for EVERYTHING. Practically speaking, the Iraq occupation has a limited shelf-life due to military and budgetary considerations. Everybody who pays any attention to such things understands this.
Of course the administration has a timeline. So will the next administration. Just because they aren't willing to admit it doesn't make it nonexistent.
Everybody knows it.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Aug 21, 2008 16:27:02 GMT -6
As has been repeatedly stated before, of course there is a time line. That time line is when the job is complete.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Aug 21, 2008 17:55:55 GMT -6
Ah yes! Now it's aspirational timetebles. That sounds pretty solid. God, you're a stupid Ass. At least read the full article. Spokesman al-Dabbagh said that any withdrawal date in the agreement could be changed if security worsened. He said the date only refers to American combat troops. Support and training forces would remain at Iraq's request, he said.
"It is in the Iraqi interests that the withdrawal of American troops not undermine the successes we've had," al-Dabbagh said. "At the end, the situation on the ground will be taken into consideration and both sides will jointly decide whether or not to make amendments." Conditions on the ground. Where have we heard that before? These aspirational timetables sure are rigid. What really cracks me up is that the people(you) clamoring for a withdrawal timetable for the last five years are crowing that we might actually be able to bring a sizeable portion of our forces home. As if this is a mark against the stay the course proponents. This kind of mentality echos the broken clock is right twice a day theme. I hope the majority of our forces do come home in the next few years. That would mean things are stable in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Aug 21, 2008 19:18:35 GMT -6
Ah yes! Now it's aspirational timetebles. That sounds pretty solid. God, you're a stupid Ass. At least read the full article. Spokesman al-Dabbagh said that any withdrawal date in the agreement could be changed if security worsened. He said the date only refers to American combat troops. Support and training forces would remain at Iraq's request, he said.
"It is in the Iraqi interests that the withdrawal of American troops not undermine the successes we've had," al-Dabbagh said. "At the end, the situation on the ground will be taken into consideration and both sides will jointly decide whether or not to make amendments." Conditions on the ground. Where have we heard that before? These aspirational timetables sure are rigid. What really cracks me up is that the people(you) clamoring for a withdrawal timetable for the last five years are crowing that we might actually be able to bring a sizeable portion of our forces home. As if this is a mark against the stay the course proponents. This kind of mentality echos the broken clock is right twice a day theme. I hope the majority of our forces do come home in the next few years. That would mean things are stable in Iraq. That thread you're clinging on to is getting more frayed with every passing moment. Is this the same al-Dabbagh that is seen here? Here's your broken clocks: icasualties.org/oif/
|
|