US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 54 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-22-2008, 06:18 PM   #796
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
this is the key (deliberate?) misunderstanding that you have.
Ain't no "?" about it.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 06:21 PM   #797
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Again, where did any Iraqi official stated that they wanted US combat brigades out of Iraq by 2010 REGARDLESS OF CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND OR THE CAPABILITY OF IRAQI FORCES!?!

Do you have any idea of how much of Iraq the Iraqi's currently provide security for? Do you know who the Iraqi military is currently dependent on for most of its logistical needs without which it could not function?
Where did any Iraqi official state that U.S. combat brigades must leave Iraq ONLY BASED ON CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND OR CAPABILITY OF IRAQI FORCES?
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 06:22 PM   #798
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
but STING, i thought the Iraqi troops were performing brilliantly, better than expected! are you saying that the US military has failed to adequately prepare the Iraqi army to function in their own country? that they'd be a total disaster without over 100,000 American troops propping them up?

and here we get into what's going to be McCain's big issue.

if The Surge has succeeded, why can't we leave?

if we can't leave, The Surge has clearly failed.
Excellent point. . can't wait to see how what kind pretzel shapes he'll twist into to get out of this. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 06:29 PM   #799
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
but STING, i thought the Iraqi troops were performing brilliantly, better than expected! are you saying that the US military has failed to adequately prepare the Iraqi army to function in their own country?
The Iraqi military has made significant progress, but they are currently not in control of security in every province of the country. Of the 18 provinces they currently provide the security in 10, which yes is an enormous improvement from 3 years ago when they provided none. But as I have stated before, its going to take more time before they can assume security responsibilty in all 18 provinces, and even more time after that before they can logistically provide for their forces independent of the United States.

Quote:
and here we get into what's going to be McCain's big issue.

if The Surge has succeeded, why can't we leave?

if we can't leave, The Surge has clearly failed.
As I have said before, nationbuilding and counterinsurgency operations take time to fully succeed in creating a sustainable development environment and security situation that will not be in danger of falling apart without US ground forces.

The Surge has been an enormous success, but the Iraqi's have not yet reached the level of sustainable development and security necessary for US troops to leave. As conditions on the ground continue to improve, and the Iraqi military grows stronger, US combat brigades will start to come home. The situation on the ground is still prone to setbacks and could be reversible without US troops until the Iraqi's reach the proper level of security force capability.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 06:37 PM   #800
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Where did any Iraqi official state that U.S. combat brigades must leave Iraq ONLY BASED ON CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND OR CAPABILITY OF IRAQI FORCES?
Yes, Sting, enlighten us.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 06:43 PM   #801
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Maliki could have said that in his interview. But he didn't. After several days of international reporting that Maliki agreed with Obama, Maliki's spokesman could have clarified and set the record straight that it depended on conditions on the ground. But he didn't.
Or he could have said that it DID NOT depend on conditions on the ground. But he didn't.


Quote:
Completely ignoring and not mentioning conditional withdrawal when discussing US troops leaving Iraq despite several opportunities to, combined with his explicit name-check of a Presidential candidate opposed to that philosophy leads to the quite clear conclusion that the Prime Minister does not support McCain's conditional withdrawal. Keep grasping at straws.
Not mentioning that any withdrawal would NOT be based on conditions on the ground signals the fact that Iraq is still in line with its current stated policy of only supporting withdrawal as conditions on the ground warrent it.


The Iraqi government over the years has consistently stated that they did not want to see coalition forces leave the country before they were ready to take care of the situation on their own. They consistently stated that any withdrawal plan must be conditions based.

Unless they explicity come out and state that they are no longer for a coalition conditions based withdrawal, then their policy on that obviously has not changed.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 06:49 PM   #802
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Where did any Iraqi official state that U.S. combat brigades must leave Iraq ONLY BASED ON CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND OR CAPABILITY OF IRAQI FORCES?

Multiple times over the past several years including the withdrawal proposal just issued by Iraq's National Security advisor which explicitly stated that US forces were not even to withdraw from the cities until the Iraqi military had been able to achieve security responsibilty for each province in Iraq. Once that occurs, US forces would move from any cities they were still in, but remain in the country for the next 3 to 5 years to help continueing developing key parts of the military with the situation reviewed every 6 months an changes implemented as needed.

The Iraqi national security advisor stated earlier this year that he did not think Iraq would be able to handle internal security all over the country independent of US help until 2012 and that Iraq's military forces might not be able to defend the country from an external threat without the United States until 2018!
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 06:49 PM   #803
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Unless they explicity come out and state that they are no longer for a coalition conditions based withdrawal, then their policy on that obviously has not changed.
That's incredibly poor logic.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 06:55 PM   #804
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
That's incredibly poor logic.
Its common sense. For example would it be logical for me to assume that you have changed your position on a particular issue without you first stating that you have?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 07:24 PM   #805
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Did you even read Maliki's statement?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 07:35 PM   #806
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Unless they explicity come out and state that they are no longer for a coalition conditions based withdrawal, then their policy on that obviously has not changed.
It's funny how easily and readily you offer qualifiers and conditions to Maliki's statement, yet when given the chance neither the PM nor his spokesman said them. The world opinion seems to be that they support a variant on Obama's plan, and the PM seems to be quite fine with that.

I wonder why. Perhaps he knew what he was saying?

It's not common sense to inanely demand explicit rejections of a policy before admitting that someone no longer advocates it. More like stubbornly grasping at straws to avoid conceding that Obama might have had the right idea on Iraq.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:54 PM   #807
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:11 PM
it's interesting ...

ONLY BASED ON CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND OR CAPABILITY OF IRAQI FORCES = whatever Patraeus (who only has one job and one theater to worry about) wants = military junta.

which is what it seems STING would prefer.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:57 PM   #808
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Or he could have said that it DID NOT depend on conditions on the ground. But he didn't.

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 11:06 PM   #809
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Whats really funny is that there are about all of one McCain supporters on FYM
Quote:
Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.
Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.
Marc Ambinder (July 22, 2008) - Obama , Couric Spar Over Surge

Hmmm, what's the cost-benefit of Iraq as a failed state? So many unknowns.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 11:10 PM   #810
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post

Hmmm, what's the cost-benefit of Iraq as a failed state? So many unknowns.


more false choices?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com