Forums | MacLife

Shine on, Baby!  MALIKI: I SUPPORT OBAMA’S WITHDRAWAL TIMETABLE

That's a pretty big endorsement.

Yay, except for two things. One, while Maliki may want troops out in 16 months it may not in fact be at all realistic. And wasn't Maliki, just a few weeks ago,to the critics of the war, in fact Iranians stooge? Obama has some arbitrary deadline of 16 months, whether we are winning or losing the war whether the surge is working or not. Beucase its based on nothing but the number 16. Why not 18 or 19. Why not 12? Completely arbitrary.

And two, and more importantly Obama was against the surge that stablized the region enough so that a withdrawal would be at the least bit feasible. Again Obama wanted us to leave in 16 months as he thought there was no chance to actually win this war. Its a difference of winning and losing.

I think you'll find that even Mccain, who supposedly wants an endless war, would suggest that you withdraw based on facts on the ground. If we are in fact winning, which we are, as he's already stated, then you draw down troops as they are no longer needed. But one way you withdraw troops as you win, the other (obama's way) you withdraw troops because you are losing.

The surge is what was needed to allow for the stablilization of the region, to allow Maliki to begin to extert control, which is what Obama was consistently against. Obama wants to take credit for all the work done by the surge (he opposed) to establish his same arbitrary timeline.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-19 12:49 pm)

everlong205 wrote:

I think you'll find that even Mccain, who supposedly wants an endless war, would suggest that you withdraw based on facts on the ground. If we are in fact winning, which we are, as he's already stated, then you draw down troops as they are no longer needed.

And if we are in fact losing, then it's important to stay the course.

bedstuy wrote:

Obama couldn't ask for a better gift in terms of headlines.  Bush is probably yanking Malaki's strings as we speak and there will be a retraction in 12 hours.

Headlines, ok.
Meaning anything, nope.

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Obama couldn't ask for a better gift in terms of headlines.  Bush is probably yanking Malaki's strings as we speak and there will be a retraction in 12 hours.

Headlines, ok.
Meaning anything, nope.

How exactly does one prevent suicidal tendencies when one is so eternally jaded?

Cakewalk.

jerwin wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

But regardless Obama will stick to that 16 months. That's how unserious he is.

He's serious about ending the war, not about buying into Republican crap.

How you end it is kind of important. How about winning the war as opposed to losing? Thankfully, this has already largely been done, no thanks to Obama. Despite the argument that this is the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of foreign policies, we're actually winning.
But Obama does have his 16 months cookie cutter strategy.

We should apply that to other issues as well. We'll get all troops into afghanistan in 16 months. Then we'll capture obl in 16 months, then get all troops out in 16 months. And well fight poverty in 16 months. And the water level will lower in 16 months. And we will get off of fossil fuels in 16 months. 16 months is the key.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-19 1:26 pm)

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Headlines, ok.
Meaning anything, nope.

How exactly does one prevent suicidal tendencies when one is so eternally jaded?

Exactly how much did Kerry's "world leaders prefer me" do for him versus hurt him.
Being realistic isn't being jaded.

Kerry's mistake with that was that he arrogantly paraded the fact. If Obama is smart enough to be subtle, it can actually help him.

Daddyo wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Obama couldn't ask for a better gift in terms of headlines.

Yeah-much better than al Qaida or Taliban endorsements.

Well, what would you expect from Obama, the Manchurian Muslim Candidate?

I swear, you're like a yapping cartoon from the cover of The New Yorker.

bedstuy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

How exactly does one prevent suicidal tendencies when one is so eternally jaded?

Exactly how much did Kerry's "world leaders prefer me" do for him versus hurt him.
Being realistic isn't being jaded.

And, of course, we're now negotiating directly with Iran and Obama's shifted the conversation to the need for more troops in Afghanistan, which he's advocated for some time.

Looks like he's batting 1000 in terms of foreign policy against Senile McFossil.

Of course, the media meme is still that being a POW 4 decades ago is somehow superior to actual good, informed judgement.

I think this time will be like the past and Iraq won't matter to the voters as much as their pockets and those are hurting.
Obama needs to concentrate more on Energy, Health Care and Jobs/Immigration.
Those are going to be the important winner/loser issues.

bedstuy wrote:

And, of course, we're now negotiating directly with Iran and Obama's shifted the conversation to the need for more troops in Afghanistan, which he's advocated for some time.

And how's that direct negotiation with Iran going? Didn't they just reveal today that they will not stop enrichment. That sounds more like a failure of direct talks than a success. As for adding troops to Afghanistan, didn't patreus say yesterday or today that Al Qaeda seems to be shifting to Afghanistan because they can't hack it in Iraq.
Wasn't there also talk a few weeks ago about how bush was going to make a renewed effort to find OBL before leaving (and the controversy that that provoked). Isn't the facts on the ground dictating what will occur in afghanistan? If more troops are needed are you forseeing a massive outcry from neocons about how we can't go into Afghanistan? You might want to talk to code pink about how they need to get on board for the good war so that Obama isn't pegged as a warmonger. Then again, since he'll be in and out in 16 months and solve all problems in that time, he can probably weather the storm.
Also, maybe its just me but I seem to think that were more trooops needed in afghanistan we don't literally have to pull them out of Iraq to deploy. Doesn't Obama for example want to give those deployed  for multiple terms a chance to rest before going to the good war? What about stop loss? Doens't obama care about the people in the military?

We have other troops that can go to Afghanistan that don't literally have to be plucked from Iraq. Hows about we keep the troops we need in iraq to win on that front, and also add more troops to afghanistan as needed to deal with that front?

Looks like he's batting 1000 in terms of foreign policy against Senile McFossil.

Of course, the media meme is still that being a POW 4 decades ago is somehow superior to actual good, informed judgement.

Good informed judgment?  From someone who is just visiting afghanistan and Iraq now to meet the generals he's never spoken to? Who had to be almost shamed into doing so by his opponent? Who pulled 16 months redeployment out of his butt? Maybe after speaking to the generals he can refine his strategic redeploymnt plan to 17 months. Because that sounds much more realistic than 16 which seems a bit arbitrary.

Seriously its kind of sad that Obama is going over to these places followed by a retinue of media following his every move. "See, see he can actually meet with foreign governments, the media says so. He really does have the chops." The fact that the media is making such a big deal of him meeting with leaders that they have to follow him really shows how out of depth he is, not to mention the depth to which the media is in the tank for him. Maybe Katie Couric can hold his hand while he meets with Maliki or while he's crossing the street.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-19 3:04 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

What you aren't getting is Iraq is important because it affects things like economy and energy, maybe not directly but to a significant degree.

No, I get it very well.
I'm a product of the education system back when it worked.