Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

niggs0026 wrote:

I ask you to respond to this quote, everlong:

"PETERSON: ...What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/

That's obviously the result of a bad translation of what McCain actually said (who coincidentally was talking about his concerns regarding the "Iraq/Pakistan" border on Good Morning America today).

Haha damn those english translators translating english into english. Everybody has an agenda!

It's very funny because that scenario has evolved almost word for word.

Last edited by niggs0026 (2008-07-21 10:05 am)

I'm not sure though that 16 months is at all realistic. But were the situation to warrant it (meaning iraq is stable, can secure itself, is not a terrorist state, is our ally in the war on terror)

That last goal is fundamentally at odds with democracy

everlong205 wrote:

Its already improved a hundred fold. 15 of 18 benchmarks have been met, more provinces have been turned over to Iraqi control. Al Qaeda has been routed,violence between the various groups is way down. The surge has produced dramatic results already. Just note the lack of news coverage in the NYT.

If it's already improved "a hundred fold" and that's not enough, when will it ever be?

You always here this argument from people who don't want a policy to go through. (ie when there was discussion sending a man to the moon some would argue why are we wasting resources on that when we haven't addressed problems x,y,z here). Of course we can walk and chew gum at the same time and its never an either or. One could just as soon make the argument about Afghanistan, or the Balkans.

The problem is, our government is not walking and chewing gum at the same time. There are so many problems going unaddressed domestically. The government doesn't even have the money to buy gum. They just keep borrowing and borrowing and landing themselves in further debt. We're losing over here while the people of Iraq are perhaps "winning".

It's a good thning then that this past Friday an agreement was signed by Maliki and Bush that troop removal will be dictated by facts on the ground by an artificial time line. Maliki wants to stay in power. Were we to remove all our troops and iraqis were unable to pick up the slack then he and his administration would suffer (along with the Iraqi people) and be in danger. Which is why he earlier said things like we couldn't simply remove troops and were obligated under our arrangements and the UN mandate to not abandon Iraq by pulling out troops (this was back prior to the surge when the debate was going on as to pull out troops). Because obviously the Iraqis weren't ready to govern or maintain security at that point. If though we are now at the stage where situations on the ground dictate that we can start removing troops then obviously the situation has improved markedly (in which case, All hail Bush). (And as I suggested, the surge has largely won this war already). But in any case, thats when troops can be brought out, and will be brought out.

You didn't at all address McCain, but that's alright. There is no way to address it except give the runaround. You keep saying when situations on the ground improve. You said the situations have already improved a hundred fold. Whether it's now or later, there's no telling what's going to happen when we leave. Even if things appeared pacified, the minute we leave, hostilities could swell up. Meanwhile, on the home front, we have to worry about the troops, blowback, and the economy.

I'm not sure though that 16 months is at all realistic. But were the situation to warrant it (meaning iraq is stable, can secure itself, is not a terrorist state, is our ally in the war on terror), then by all means remove troops then. But not because we've lost, but because we've won.

When Iraq can secure itself is when the situation will warrant it? How the hell are we supposed to know when that is when we have massive presence over there? The only way we can know that is by scaling back greatly or leaving. Again, the war is not for us to win, it's for the Iraqi people to win. You're kidding yourself if you think America will ever eradicate terrorism. We make it worse by provoking them. Basically, your policy is, force other nations into being our allies? Sounds good to Emperor Bush.

Last edited by niggs0026 (2008-07-21 10:38 am)

bratboy wrote:

That's obviously the result of a bad translation of what McCain actually said (who coincidentally was talking about his concerns regarding the "Iraq/Pakistan" border on Good Morning America today).

I thought Venezuela was between Pakistan and Iraq

bratboy wrote:

What a convoluted rationalization....

... so what else is new with him?

No spin needed, they finally wised up and went with Steyr AUG's timeline !

niggs0026 wrote:

If it's already improved "a hundred fold" and that's not enough, when will it ever be?

Having things improve this much opens the door for more removal of troops. It's certainly fragile at the moment and you don't want to leave and have things fall apart because we left too quickly. But this is all part of the strategy outlined by BUsh at the start of the war, and certainly is part of the surge strategy. Stablilize the situation so that work can be done both politically and militarily on the ground, with our help, by the Iraqis. THey are gaining their legs now, but work is required to continue and maintain this success. But our forces are their dependent on people on the ground. We draw down forces,dependent on what's occuring on the ground.

The problem is, our government is not walking and chewing gum at the same time. There are so many problems going unaddressed domestically. The government doesn't even have the money to buy gum. They just keep borrowing and borrowing and landing themselves in further debt. We're losing over here while the people of Iraq are perhaps "winning".

Hyperbole. Couldn't you say the same thing about our involvent in Afghanistan? Or pick any policy. If for example we cut some money from entitlements which consume a MUCH larger share of the budget than all military operations combined, we might address things like housing or debt. ITs not an either or of either we deal with Iraq or deal with housing or if we just stopped spending on Iraq it would instantly go towards the policy that most afflicts us.

You didn't at all address McCain, but that's alright. There is no way to address it except give the runaround. You keep saying when situations on the ground improve. You said the situations have already improved a hundred fold. Whether it's now or later, there's no telling what's going to happen when we leave. Even if things appeared pacified, the minute we leave, hostilities could swell up. Meanwhile, on the home front, we have to worry about the troops, blowback, and the economy.

Good point abou the potential for things to go wrong. Which is why you don't want to leave before the mission is complete. We shoudl base  our policy on facts on the ground. As it becomes stablizied, and stays stablized then we draw down troops as needed, not because Barack told his base he would remove two brigades a month. That's not how you address any issue. Is that how he's going to fight the war in Afghanistan? Wouldn't he want to deal with the situation on the ground there in determining how many troops are needed? and once in wouldn't he deal with situations on the ground to determine how much longer to keep them there? I'll note that afghanistan has already lasted longer than Iraq, and Obama is planning on escalating there (or so he says). So I could ask you the question when will it ever be enough when dealing with Afghanistan. Or does OBama hope to fight that war in his 16 month fashion?

When Iraq can secure itself is when the situation will warrant it? How the hell are we supposed to know when that is when we have massive presence over there? The only way we can know that is by scaling back greatly or leaving.

As they stand up we start drawing down. We start turning provinces over to Iraqis, We meausre by benchmarks. Which is all stuff that has been going on for years. And more and more provinces are now being controlled by Iraq, and more and more benchmarks have been met. Then, as they are no longer needed in the area troops are redeployed elsewhere. WHich is why they talk about having what's happening on the ground dictate strategy, not political timetables.

Again, the war is not for us to win, it's for the Iraqi people to win. You're kidding yourself if you think America will ever eradicate terrorism. We make it worse by provoking them. Basically, your policy is, force other nations into being our allies? Sounds good to Emperor Bush.

SO you might want to talk to Obama as he is planning on escalating in Afghansitan get us back on track in fighting the real war on terror. Will that eradicate terrorism? IS that fight for us to win or afghanistan to win? is it not an occupation? If more troops are needed to win that fight wont that mean we'll need to occupy Afghanistan even more to win? Hasn't Afghanistan lasted longer than even Iraq, and hence all the other wars IRaq was compared to as a reason why Iraq shouldn't be fought? Wont we make it worse if we provoke al qaeda in Afghanistan? If we go after OBL directly isnt' that going to provoke them? (Do you see how easy it is to poke holes in your inane talking points by the way?) Everything you're saying about Iraq one could say about afghanistan and the real war on terror. OR about any war.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-21 1:08 pm)

everlong205 wrote:

They can't give schedules or dates but were working on a timetable that was an Iraqi vision. However, it is not simply a matter of vision that determines whether this can be achieved.
WOudln't this suggest its still dependent on facts on the ground? Dont forget the "if all continues to go well". And lets not forget to run it by generals who may not find this to be at all a realistic goal.

A "real timetable" suggests...a timetable.  You set a schedule for withdrawal and then refine that process as it is being implemented.

I don't know that Obama has claimed that a strict timetable will be adhered to without compromise, regardless of intervening events.   It certainly sounds as if what the Iraqis want is much closer to what Obama is proposing.

niggs0026 wrote:

Your whole premise is a contradiction. You say things have improved, but things on the ground haven't improved so we can't start pulling out. Which is it? Have they improved or haven't they? My original point is, it's very possible that there is never a point where things are stable, at least not while we're over there.

I never said things haven't improved. They have. The critics have tried denying any improvements, but they are  readily apparent and incontrovertible.ANd situations have changed. I believe we are now down to our presurge levels in terms of troops. Just the other day another province was turned over to Iraq to start controlling. See, as they get more proficient we have them do more of the work and our troops are then sent elsewhere. if they fail on the job, then we move troops back in. See hows its results based? Would it make sense to turn a province over to Iraqis if their soldiers can't control the province? So, when you withrdaw troops you withdraw them because they are no longer needed, not because someone in washington says he wants to start removing 2 brigades a month, without even consulting generals on the ground.
What I said was not a contradiction. There has been progress, to the point where we might start drawing down troops, but you don't want to draw down troops too quickly, and any drawdown should only be done if the situation on the ground warrants it.

Hyperbole?! Look up the costs of the war and how it's going to burden American taxpayers. It's being financed by deficit spending. Who do you think is going to pay for it and how? What about gas prices? That is already having a huge impact. If you want me to supply you with sources, just let me know. It is far from hyperbole. You're just being nearsighted.

High gas prices have little to nothging to do with the IRaq war itself. If you're looking for solutions though, Iraq just so happens to have a large oil reserve, and their supply,whent worked into the world supply might actually assist in lowering prices. So will drillling off our coasts and in ANWR among other places. I do wonder what gas prices would be like were we still containing Iraq. I'd imagine all the countries who bough illegal oil from iraq under oil for food would be having a field day right about now, and would be going further to undermine containment.

The rest of your response is a complete runaround. My point is, we don't benefit from the Iraq War, but we are hurting because of it. The Iraq War is unnecessary for us to be in. Why should we affect domestic policy to make room for what the war is costing us? You've heard all these arguments before, but they go in one ear and out the other.

You say we don't benefit from Iraq. I beg to differ. Were we to start withdrawing troops and al qaeda started moving back in to get the safe haven, when we move all our troops to Afghanistan it will impact us. Failng in Iraq will similarly impact our efforts in Afghanistan. Having a stable Iraq that is not a terrorist state, that is stable and doesn't have WMD's or the the desire to  get WMD's taht can only be stopped by an expensive containment process is a positive for us.

The facts on the ground may never dictate that we can leave. There is no guarantee that the area will ever be stabilized. It hasn't happened yet, or else we would've been out according to your arguments.

The facts on the ground post surge are infinitely better than pre surge. As such it looks like we can draw down troops to pre surge levels which has been done. see how that is results based? You are arguing that Iraq can't be won, in fact no war can be won, based on your criterion. We stilll have troops in Kosovo after Mulosovic (probably not needed at this point), but they were kept there till the stiuation was stablized. Now they are still htere but aren't actually fighting there. ANd far fewer troops are there as they are no longer needed. All based on facts on the ground. Iraq while not completely secure is certainly more stable and secure than  presurge (which Obama was against) and this added stability makes it that much more possible to start removing more and more troops, provided more and more facts on the ground warrant it. If we were to remove 2 brigades a month under barack I'd hope that people would study the results of each 2 brigades that are removed. Is it safe to do so? Requires guaging fact on the ground after each 2 brigages is removed. If it isn't safe to do so, then don't do it. If 2 brigades are removed and destabilization occurs, then maybe put the 2 back in, or stop removing more brigades until the facts on the ground dictate.

Even when we think our mission is complete, things could swell up again. Arguably, the only way we can tell how things are over there now is by getting out and observing how they do.

You are essentially saying we should remove all troops and then look at the fact on the ground to see how its going. If facts on the ground are good then great, if not then what? put all our brigades back in? If obama has his way then brigades would be removed, 2 at a time. Woudn't you use the facts on the ground to deytermine how removing said brigades impact the situation? It would be a constant adjustment, certainly not based on some artificial deadline not based on reality. You could have a situation where you've moved 12 brigades or so and then the situation does destabilze endangering the reduced amount of troops there, becuase you were not removing troops based on any assessment of facst on the ground. Better to look at the situation and remove troops when they are not needed anymore. If of course you remove troops and the situation does destabliize then you put the troops back in. THe whole point is, one side is arguing, remove troops as NECESSARY based on winnning conditions and the other side is arguing 16 months to get out, without looking at,in any way, what such a removal will do to facts on the ground.

So the elected Prime Minister who speaks for the people of Iraq asking us to provide a timetable and supporting a relatively short-term one isn't standing up? That isn't standing up? You really do sound like McCain.

Funny, it was only recently that he was described as an Iranian stooge, and by Barack obama and the democrats as not doing enough to stand up. That he and the Iraqis were failing, and not meeting any benchmarks, thus we shouldn't carry through with the surge, that when he took on Sadr and co. people on this site were arguing with me about how he (Maliki) had lost and I was arguing how he had routed the Sadrists. I"m the first one to talk about progress here, unllike most including you talking about how we can't win there. And I've talked about the progress of the surge, which has been tremendous. That being said any removal of troops needs to be based on planning and reality,not based on the wishes of any one party if those are not based on reality and certainly not one based on an arbitrary number. My time frame would be get it done as soon as you can, how ever long that is, so that we dont have to go back in because we were so  careless exiting, or based our exit strategy on wishes or expediency. My idea of an exit strategy is one where goals are met, and a larger loss of life doesn't ensue. It may take 16 months, it may take 32 months. but its one where we leave based on strength not weakness. If i sound like mccain, its because he, like Patreus and Crocker are right about this.

You say we will stand down when they stand up, but when they stand up, they really aren't standing up huh? You talk about facts on the ground and benchmarks. Define these things, explain objectively how and when they will be satisfying, and provide sources. You talk about facts on the ground, but you haven't yet said what is happening on the ground that is unsatisfying for us to stay or leave.

I said they've been succesful. Ive said the surge has been a tremendous success. I give them far more credit than the democrats saying the war has been lost or that they haven't met any of the benchmarks (remember that was the argument only a few months ago about how the surge was failing). They've done a tremendous job. More work needs to be done. We need to be careful when leaving that all the progress doesn't collapse because of our rush to bug out.

I'm not sure why you're talking about Obama. I don't support Obama. Whether it's realistic or not, I support nonintervention. So, yes, I agree with you that you could say these things about any war!

Its not realistic, though it does explain a lot about your objections to Iraq, which sound more like arguments against war in general as opposed to a specific war (iraq).

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-21 4:11 pm)

I tl;dr everlong

TOO MANY NESTED QUOTES; DR

Q:  Is Obama losing his shine?

A:  Did you just catch that just-released Dept. of Defense television footage of Obama landing a 3 pointer in a basketball gym in Iraq with surrounded by cheering troops?

I have to say this new TV footage was rather amazing.  McCain can't even answer a question about birth control on TV, and you got Obama shooting 3 pointers.  Imagine the great TV commercial you could make.