Forums | MacLife

The Evil Doers® that have all departed for the Pakistani tribal areas.  But hey, let's just keep chasing them in Iraq.

bedstuy wrote:

The Evil Doers® that have all departed for the Pakistani tribal areas.  But hey, let's just keep chasing them in Iraq.

No - they are currently in America campaigning for the liberal agenda

bedstuy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

The Evil Doers® that have all departed for the Pakistani tribal areas.  But hey, let's just keep chasing them in Iraq.

are you acknowledging that we've chased them from Iraq and they are now going back to Afghanistan where they haven't been beaten so badly (which echoes what Patreus said just last week), as they were in Iraq? in which case, good thing we carried out the surge in Iraq so as to have trooops there to deal with Al Qaeda in Iraq.

LOL.  They weren't in Iraq until you morons invaded that country.  Buy a clue!

I would highlight one word in your sentence - "until". Which means you are acknowledging that we were fighting them in Iraq. However they got there, and in fact they came of their own volition to fight us there, and they themselves said it was the biggest front on which to fight us, I'd hope we can actually fight them where they are.

Two points, One do you notice how all the talk is how Bin Laden is in fact not in afghanistan but in Pakistan. That should clue you in to the fact that they can move around. Where we might have ought them back in 2001 may not be where we will fight them in 2008. Or are you arguing that we can only fight Al Qaeda where we would have fought them in 2001 even though the front shifted to Iraq (even from al Qaeda's perspective) once we went there.

also, they can choose where to fight us. They chose Iraq as their place to make their stand and send fighters to attack us. And they got decimated there and are now fleeing to more hospitable pastures (like Afghanistan) where we can fight them and decimate them some more.

But if you acknowledge that they came to fight us in Iraq then it makes no sense to argue that somehow Iraq is a diversion from the war against Al Qaeda, because in fact that is where they are currently doing the majority  of fighting against us and we are fighting them.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-26 5:36 pm)

everlong205 wrote:

You don't want to telegraph your date of withdrawal ahead of time in a strict timeline because they know they have your intinterary. They know that you will withdraw 2 brigades a month and will be out in 16 months and can plan according.
Now ultimately we will have to leave, WHICH IS WHY when we do we want to make sure that Iraq, were it to be attacked, could deal with the issue by itself, or which is not going to devolve into multiple wars in the region, or destablize and have the Kurds break off and the Shiites start killing off the Sunnis etc. or to not be able to deal with terrorists trying to reinsert themselves into the region. So then when you leave you make sure that on the important issues, Iraqis CAN fend for themselves. That has to be based on results, not on some arbitrary time frame. You also don't want to, after gaining stablitiy so that Iraqis could make these gains, literallly kick their legs out from under them and causing destablization because were getting impatient.

Even if we don't telegraph it, can't they just look at the facts on the ground to tell when we are leaving and plan accordingly?

Is there an assumption that withdrawal means all U.S. fighting forces?

Because I think all sides mean to leave tens of thousands of combat arms in place in a number of permanent bases for an indefinite period.

Has O'Bama pledged to empty the bases as well and leave no major forces in place?

I think the debate about the details of a withdrawal is just electioneering.

Ribtorus wrote:

Is there an assumption that withdrawal means all U.S. fighting forces?

Because I think all sides mean to leave tens of thousands of combat arms in place in a number of permanent bases for an indefinite period.

Has O'Bama pledged to empty the bases as well and leave no major forces in place?

I think the debate about the details of a withdrawal is just electioneering.

barackobama.com wrote:

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

Bolded for the benefit of everlong

It's defended by pointing out that he fully intends to withdraw troops rather than say "we're winning as long as we just keep them in there a couple more months" for 5 years straight.

Uh-oh... McCain will capture Bin Laden because McCain was in Vietnam!

Well, I'm not going to telegraph a lot of the things that I'm going to do because then it might compromise our ability to do so. But, look, I know the area, I have been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden -- or put it this way, bring him to justice.

We will do it, I know how to do it.

For the delusuional antiwar crowd.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzxq … gD925HT7G0

You don't say....

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-27 9:45 pm)

everlong205 wrote:

For the delusuional antiwar crowd.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzxq … gD925HT7G0

You don't say....

I spy with my little eye some dog wagging.

McCane wrote:

Well, I'm not going to telegraph a lot of the things that I'm going to do because then it might compromise our ability to do so. But, look, I know the area, I have been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars...

He's talking about Nam, isn't he?

How the hell does that show he knows a single damn thing about winning a war?

user wrote:

McCane wrote:

Well, I'm not going to telegraph a lot of the things that I'm going to do because then it might compromise our ability to do so. But, look, I know the area, I have been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars...

He's talking about Nam, isn't he?

How the hell does that show he knows a single damn thing about winning a war?

Learn from one's mistakes ?

(Of course, he wasn't in a commanding position in Nam, and I don't think his time in Congress can support any notion that he "won a war."