Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Was it or was it conditions on the ground will dictate how long we stay.

?

My memory is that the admin line was they couldn't give a firm withdrawal date and conditions on the ground would dictate how soon we could leave.
I don't think it's changed much with this loose timeline with the line about sooner or later depending on conditions.

Comedy, it seems, is a difficult art.

I can't believe there are some numbnuts out there who actually think that war policy is driven by events on the ground. What the hell has progress in the war ever had to do with anything? A bunch of guys in Washington want the troops in there, the troops are kept there. They have their own reasons.

The only reason there's suddenly a timetable is because they were forced into it.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I can't believe there are some numbnuts out there who actually think that war policy is driven by events on the ground. What the hell has progress in the war ever had to do with anything? A bunch of guys in Washington want the troops in there, the troops are kept there. They have their own reasons.

The only reason there's suddenly a timetable is because they were forced into it.

But they still left themselves their out to ignore it so basically I don't see anything changed yet.

I agree, there are loopholes galore, but I don't think they're nearly as large as you're suggesting.

Politically, the war is done. Washington can wriggle all it wants, but the Iraqis have spoken up loud and clear.

The South Vietnamese never wanted the Americans to leave and were heartbroken to see the troops go. The Iraqis are telling you to get the smurf out.

That's the thing:  ANY timetable will have multiple "loopholes"....the most obvious one being that they would simply not adhere to it.

And yet, they previously insisted that ANY timetable would be irresponsible and "surrender" and whatever else.  They have clearly retreated from that position.

everlong205 wrote:

bratboy wrote:

That's the thing:  ANY timetable will have multiple "loopholes"....the most obvious one being that they would simply not adhere to it.

And yet, they previously insisted that ANY timetable would be irresponsible and "surrender" and whatever else.  They have clearly retreated from that position.

They've been following a timetable based on benchmarks all along. you're the one constructing an endless strawman with which you're attacking. there is a timeline based on RESULTS (ie facts on the ground) and the president and mccain and the hawks have all said that those should determine if/when we get out of Iraq. The dems are the ones saying we had to leave because the sky was falling and the NYT all but acknowledged that EVEN if a genocide were to occur, and it very well might that we still had to leave. Leaving then, despite not achiveing said results (namely a stable Iraq) woudl be irresponsible and "surrender". Despite the caterwauling of the surrender monkeys bush stuck to his guns and in fact brought about a victory in Iraq (assuming of course that we can maintain said stability without violence rearing up again).

You don't listen to the speeches given by Dubya and his administration, do you?

There's not going to be any timetables. I mean, I've told this to the Prime Minister. We are there to complete a mission, and it's an important mission. A democratic Iraq is in the interest of the United States of America, and it's in the interest of laying the foundation for peace. And if that's the mission, then why would you -- why would you say to the enemy, you know, here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're -- you're conceding too much to the enemy.

Link.

But back in 1999, when the subject was Kosovo, Bush said this about timetables: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

Link.

But at least its a step up from previous commentary on the war. Maybe there is the audacity to hope for more change in the future that we can believe in

Steyr AUG wrote:

Its laughable to even compare "lets quit and go home" to "assuming things stay on there current track, it looks like we can go home around [date]"

It's laughable to even compare the plans that politicians are seriously proposing to "lets quit and go home."

Steyr AUG wrote:

So you are under the impression that the desire not to set an arbitrary plan to get out at the hight of "lets give up fever" meant that there would never be a plan for leaving?

No, I'm under the impression that "there's not going to be any timetables" meant "there's not going to be any timetables."

Furthermore....

Bush wrote:

...why would you say to the enemy, you know, here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're -- you're conceding too much to the enemy.

A timetable never had to be "arbitrary," but Bush asserted that ANY timetable would be bad for the given reasons.

bratboy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

So you are under the impression that the desire not to set an arbitrary plan to get out at the hight of "lets give up fever" meant that there would never be a plan for leaving?

No, I'm under the impression that "there's not going to be any timetables" meant "there's not going to be any timetables."

Furthermore....

Bush wrote:

...why would you say to the enemy, you know, here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're -- you're conceding too much to the enemy.

A timetable never had to be "arbitrary," but Bush asserted that ANY timetable would be bad for the given reasons.

Bush did not assert that. He's asserted following a timeline that had us winning the conflict and leaving behind a stable Iraq, not based on an immediate date of withdrawal, but based on whether we achieved objectives laid out. Its been pretty clear that we've moved forward on a trajectory based on achieving said results. First we set up a govt, then start training Iraqis, then they work on the constitution, then Iraqis start taking control of provinces as they get stronger. That's a timeline for you. Based on results. The dems have had nothign but a timeline based on how do we make sure we lose as quickly as possible. Iraq is a quagmire and we can never win there. we have to run as we are targets there. The sky is falling! We're doomed! this is the worst war in the history of all wars ever! that's the dems timeline

When Bush says As they stand up we stand down, doesn't that impy that a) they will stand up and b) we will then stand down? Wouldnt that suggest a timeline of sorts. i.e. we achieve a result, then we step down. That's based on results. And that has largely occured. Becasue Bush wasn't swayed by a bunch of caterwauling surrender monkeys (referring to dems in congress) and had in place a "timteable" based on results and not on the speed at which we could surrender the quickest.

And if we hadn't had a surge which all the dems were against, Maliki woudln't be working on an agreement with us to have us withdraw in 2011 based on positive conditions on the ground. Because the positive conditions on the ground woudln't be there. But that woudn't matter anyway, because positive conditions were never a criterion of any democratic timetables to begin with.

Is it surrender to leave because you finally come to the realization that it was all just a big mistake and you weren't even supposed to be there today?

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

This can't be good for McCain.

Sure it is.
It means that mom in the moveon ad doesn't have to worry about McCain sending her cute little bundle of joy to Iraq.
'course she didn't have to worry anyway, as McCain would be out about a decade before her kid could join up anyway, but ...

Of course that could also be avoided by simply not having baby boy enlist in the all volunteer army.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

This can't be good for McCain.

Sure it is.
It means that mom in the moveon ad doesn't have to worry about McCain sending her cute little bundle of joy to Iraq.
'course she didn't have to worry anyway, as McCain would be out about a decade before her kid could join up anyway, but ...

Are you sure about that?

Maybe McCain would forget that you're not supposed to send babies to Iraq. He doesn't have a very good memory, you know.