US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 20 - 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 07-03-2008, 07:10 PM   #381
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
we're getting mad at him for doing exactly the opposite of what has made Bush the worst president in recent history.
Whats funny about people who think this is that Barack Obama's alleged policy adjustments on Iraq move him much closer to Bush, and away from his strongest supporters on the one issue that may have won him the Democratic nomination.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 07:21 PM   #382
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:36 AM
These changes would be very interesting

Quote:
Mile-high Obama? Invesco Field may be venue
By: Chuck Plunkett
Created 07/03/2008 - 3:48pm

Barack Obama's campaign is considering moving his nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention from the Pepsi Center convention hall to Invesco Field at Mile High to accommodate the uncredentialed masses, sources say.

The move would mark a major departure from tradition, but would be in keeping with the candidate's desire to build a large grass-roots campaign focused on "change."

It also would leave behind the multi-million-dollar broadcast studios, media offices and high-tech podium and stage to be constructed at the Pepsi Center.

"No decision has been made in regards to this," wrote Matthew Chandler, the Colorado press secretary for the Obama campaign.

Denver's convention host committee declined to comment on the possibility, first mentioned on the blog demconwatchblog.com.

Mile High stadium, home of the Denver Broncos professional football team, seats 76,125. The Pepsi Center holds less than 20,000 and is to be restricted to delegates, media, high-dollar donors and guests of the Democratic Party.


Quote:
The Los Angeles Times

-- Dems consider shortening convention by a day: "Barack Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee are toying with a convention scheduling change that has been broached before in theory but never seriously considered: cutting the party's conclave in Denver short by one day to give Obama an extra day of post-nomination bounce in the crowded August calendar. ... Obama aides have floated the idea of ending the Denver convention on Wednesday, Aug. 27, instead of Thursday, Aug. 28.
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 07:41 PM   #383
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think you've misunderstood what Obama's position on Iraq always was. to stick to a promise of "16 months" no matter what is Bush-like in it's rigidity. such black-and-white thinking is what got us into this mess to begin with.

he's always retained flexibility in his position, even when it seemed as if the most politically astute thing to do would be to go hard to HRC's left. and he didn't do that. his stated position is a withdrawal of combat forces on a 16 month time frame which brings us -- contrary to what other posters would like you to believe -- to a departure of *combat* forces in June of 2010. depending on many things. that's plenty of time for him to influence the course of events over there. contrast this to a Senator who's quite excited about the construction of 50-60 permanent bases.

Obama has always been centrist -- orderly, timely, reasoned withdrawal. not pull out all the stops. it seems you've believed the lies that are put forth by some on this forum -- immediate withdrawal! -- that are critical to the false narrative they put forth about both the course of the war and the positions of the two candidates.

i'm as anti-Iraq as you get, but i don't want immediate withdrawal, nor do i want an absolutist "16 months" president. nor do i want a presidential candidate who isn't going to make several wise post-primary adjustments in policies. do you think candidate HRC would be any different? do you think she would do the Bush thing and do what she wants irregardless of what people on the ground say?

so it seems both you and STING have fooled yourself into believing what you wanted to be true about Obama in order to continue to justify your "opposition" to his candidacy.

there's no real story here. people want there to be a story, since the dominant narrative this week is "Obama tacks right," but if you look at the details beyond the headline, there's not much that's different.


Irvine says it all so I don't have to. Thanks, my friend! :highfive:

It's hard to differentiate between someone who is employing nuance and someone who is being blown by where-ever the current politcal winds are blowing. Unfortunately, the tendency in this country is to ALWAYS read thoughtfulness and nuance as flip-flopping. It's the whole Kerry "I voted against the war before I voted for it"--I always thought that it was so wrong and disingenuous how he was savaged for that statement. There is quite the possibility of nuance behind that convoluted statement but all that was ignored. And of course the U.S. electorate gave us another four years of a president for whom nuance is a foreign concept.

It would appear that we're going to play that same game this year and that is to our country's loss. And it's not going to be good for Obama either.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 08:05 PM   #384
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post

And of course the U.S. electorate gave us another four years of a president for whom nuance is a foreign concept.
When your clearly wrong about policy, its always good to make some sort of shift to the policy that does work, even if for political reasons your unable to admit that your doing that. If Obama is now for keeping US troops in Iraq as long as conditions on the ground warrent their presence he will essentially be abandoning a policy that has defined him on Iraq for the past 18 months and joining one that has defined Republican thinking on Iraq for the past 5 years.

If Barack Obama becomes President on January 20, 2009, his CENTCOM commander will be General Petraeus and the commander of US forces in Iraq will be General Ordinero. They are currently the #1 and #2 commanders of US forces in Iraq and the chief architects of the Surge strategy which Barack Obama was against but has succeeded. Would Barack Obama listen to them and follow their successful policies are will he attempt to change them in order to satisfy the base of his party and fullfill a narrow campaign promise?
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-04-2008, 01:54 AM   #385
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:

The Barack Obama campaign hopes to turn the last evening of the Democratic National Convention in Denver on Aug. 28 into a giant rally of voters in a football stadium.

The unusual move, confirmed by two sources, would be an echo of John F. Kennedy’s acceptance speech in 1960. Kennedy delivered his address before thousands of supporters at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Obama’s big moment also would fall on the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
this will be 'must see' t v
deep is offline  
Old 07-04-2008, 11:58 AM   #386
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:36 PM
oh ... the surge, the surge ... i've had a long planned post on this subject, but it's a long weekend and i've better things to do. the only quick thing i'll say is that when you pay people not to kill you in a city that has already been effectively ethnically cleansed and barricaded, yes, violence does go down. but, as ever, it's far, far more complicated than that.

what's hard is what this has done for McCain. as conditions "improve," how does he continue to justify staying? if conditions "worsen," then he was as wrong today as he was in 2005 as he was in 2003.

now, as for Obama, to say that he's anywhere near the Bush position is hilarious. i will say that since the 2006 election, which was a smack in the face of the president, Iraq Policy has fallen from the hands of Cheney and Rumsfeld and into the far, far smarter hands of Patraeus and Gates. i think people underestimate just what a moderating influence Gates has been, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Obama kept him as SecDef when he wins in November. it's laughable to make the comparison that the Bush of 2004 and the Bush of 2008 are somehow the same person. we have a defeated, smashed president dazed by a shocking 23% (!!!) approval rating, and he's rightly ceded power and control of Iraq to the adults in the room -- Gates and Patraeus. Obama has made a complete and sharp contrast with the Republicians and McCain on this issue, and it will be this contrast upon which much of the election will fall.

as far as Obama goes, he is maintaining his commitment to a prudent, cautious, orderly withdrawal strategy that does not jeapordize whatever small and highly reversable gains that have been made in the reduction of violence over the past year. he will not stick to a game plan irregardless of empirical evidence. this is what Bush has done, this is what "last throes" Cheney has done, this is what "stuff happens" Rumsfeld has done. do we really want Obama to be the anti-war version of these walking disasters?

the goal remains withdrawal as soon as is prudent and possible. the goal is not the creation of 60 permanent bases in Iraq and the continued American presence -- and empire by any other names -- in the middle of the most volatile region in the world.

so all we can fault Obama for is a bit of election year cynicism (or just realism?). shocking. and he's yet outflanked McCain on another position. what STING and his irrational ilk kept screaming about was "precipitous" withdrawal and the chaos that may or may not follow. Obama has said he won't do this, but he has said he is commited to withdrawal. he does not want an indefinite occupation.

he has now shrewedly framed the Iraq question: do you want to prudently withdraw, or do you want indefinite occupation?

what reason is there, then, to vote for McCain?

Obama just redefined the lame "patriotism" issue, he made a smooth play for the evangelicals through his position on faith-based initiatives (while retaining and reiterating important distinctions between himself and Bush), and he's just repositioned the Iraq question.

and you thought Bill Clinton was a master strategist?
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-04-2008, 11:59 AM   #387
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
But "out of Iraq now" is the campaign cry of so many of his supporters, the majority of the liberal and moderate wings of the Democratic Party. If he truely is trying to quietly change his policy on Iraq, its because his past predictions on Iraq have been so way off the mark and he has been opposed to the Surge policy in Iraq which has dramatically changed conditions on the ground in Iraq for the better. If Obama is adjusting his Iraq strategy from "out of Iraq now" to the Buch/McCain strategy of withdrawal as conditions on the ground warrent such withdrawals then that is really a huge shift.

Lets be clear, Obama had his own very specific policy proposal in opposition to the Surge Strategy in January 2007. It proposed essentially the same thing he had been proposing consistently up until the past couple of months. Withdraw 1 to 2 combat Brigades per month with ALL US combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. He wanted to do this despite the difficult sectarian violence which had grown since the Febuary 2006 Shia Mosque bombing, and the lack of an Iraqi military and police force ready to replace US combat brigades as they withdrew. A recipe for disaster according to the latest NIE on Iraq. Obama's policy was much closer to fellow Democrat Jack Murtha than it was to any policy that was based on conditions on the ground or had some sort of flexibility to it.



Now, 18 months later, the Surge has been completed or will be by the end of this month. US casualties have been reduced to the lowest levels of the entire war despite many Democrats claims that the surge would only increase the violence and the casualties. People on here claimed that the US military presence on the ground was causing the sectarian violence!!? Yet, civilian casualties in Iraq have dropped to their lowest levels of the entire war, dramatically lower than they were 12 months ago thanks to a strategy that Barack Obama was firmly opposed to. The Democratic congress report card on Iraq's current 18 Benchmarks for development show satisfactory progress on 15 of the Benchmarks, up from just 8 a year ago. The only two Benchmarks where progress was unsatisfactory was on the disarmament of Militia's and the passing of a final oil law. Despite that, Militia activity has dropped to record lows and thousands have been disarmed. Despite the fact that the Oil law has not been passed yet, Oil revenues are being distributed to all provinces in Iraq. The Sunni block of the government that had left last year is now ready to rejoin. The one Benchmark that was given "mixed" progress was on the security forces because the police force development has been rated unsatistifactory. But Iraqi military development has progressed very well, and despite some early setbacks during the winter, it has dramatically demonstrated many new capabilities that few thought would be possible to develop in this short time frame.

All Democrats still wedded to the 2006 Democratic campaign promise to yank all US troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible can say now, is that the United States is still taking casualties, Iraqi civilians are still being killed, and not all of the political benchmarks have been met yet. Essentially, the only way you can believe that the Surge policy failed is if it was supposed to produce an environment in just 18 months where nobody was being killed and Iraq had succeeded in making political developments that have taken some countries decades to complete. The fact is that the murder rate in Iraq is now lower than it is in most large US cities like Atlanta, Detroit, and Washington DC. Not all of the political benchmarks have been met yet, but progress is being made on all of them, and things are substantially improved from where they were just a year ago. Iraqi oil production is almost back to its pre-war capacity and in the years to come could set a new all time record for the country. GDP per capita is now nearly equal to neighboring Syria.

So much progress has been made in such a short time that even Barack Obama might be trying to quietly revamp his policy on Iraq. The one area where the public rates McCain better on is Iraq policy. Policies that are an obvious success often eventually receive the support of many who opposed the policy even if its done in the shadows. That may be happening with Obama now but there is still a large part of Obama's party that is ideologically wedded to "out of Iraq now" regardless of conditions on the ground, which had previously essentially been Obama's policy on Iraq. Obama does not want to anger such a voting block, so he'll be trying to have it both ways in the weeks to come along with a little historical revisionism on what his past remarks on Iraq policy meant.

A position that is flexible to when it comes to troop levels in Iraq, that is willing to withdraw troops when conditions on the ground warrent it, or send in more troops when conditions on the ground warrent it, has been McCain policy since day 1, and at least Bush policy since late 2006 if not earlier. Thats not where Barack Obama has been since at least January 2007 until perhaps recently. Moving closer to Bush and McCain on Iraq policy would certainly be the right thing for Obama to do, but it is risky since his victory in the Democratic nomination race was largely based on his total oposition to all phases of the Iraq war and his firm commitment to withdrawal regardless of conditions and problems on the ground because in his view those were things that the United States could not help resolve and did not need to help resolve. The facts on the ground in Iraq though over the past 18 months have helped to destroy that myth, and Obama may be trying to find a way to jump on the bandwagon that is moving Iraq closer to a day of peace, stability and prosperity.


you know what i've just realized?

you don't even understand the Republican position on Iraq.

no wonder no one can discuss anything with you.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-04-2008, 06:24 PM   #388
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 08:36 AM
In Iraq, Obama thinks US troops are the problem, McCain thinks US troops are the solution. It's a very clear distinction. At the end of the day, if you want most troops gone in 16 months, plus or minus a couple of months or few brigades at troop commander's discretion, vote Obama. If you want to double down, cross your fingers and hope that somehow Germany will emerge from the rubble, vote McCain.

Is this all because of Obama's press conference and the use of the word "refine"? As if that word negates everything....
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-04-2008, 08:29 PM   #389
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you know what i've just realized?

you don't even understand the Republican position on Iraq.

no wonder no one can discuss anything with you.
It doesn't matter, Obama is not going to go out to appease the netroots and any policy towards Iraq will be geared towards the national interest and that presidents legacy; each of which is not served by a removal of troops without some degree of stability, the point where American troops are more of an impediment to stability than being the barrier against genocide kicking off is coming and all the politicians are having to deal with that.

I think it's interesting to note how your views seem to have evolved along with Obamas on the issue of the surge.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 02:37 AM   #390
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Obama will be about one mile from my residence.

Quote:
Obama to visit, raise funds in Newport Beach

Sen. Barack Obama is coming to Newport Beach to raise money for his presidential bid. He’s holding a reception benefiting the Obama Victory fund at 3:30 p.m. July 13 at the Balboa Bay Club.

There will be two events. A VIP reception will start at 2 p.m. followed by a general reception at 3:30. The VIP reception will cost $28,500 and the general $2,300.

“I actually like the fact that we’re taking it right here at the beach,” said Melahat Rafiei, executive director of the Orange County Democratic Party.

“We have so many people helping out with this event since Hillary [Clinton] is out of the race. Democrats are really coming together for Obama.”

Democrats hope to raise $1 million, Rafiei said. For more information call (714) 835-5158.
deep is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 01:38 PM   #391
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
oh ... the surge, the surge ... i've had a long planned post on this subject, but it's a long weekend and i've better things to do. the only quick thing i'll say is that when you pay people not to kill you in a city that has already been effectively ethnically cleansed and barricaded, yes, violence does go down. but, as ever, it's far, far more complicated than that.
If Baghdad or any other Iraqi city has been ethnically cleansed, it would not have multiple ethnic groups still living within yards of each other. Good examples of what ethnically cleansing really is can be found by looking into the Bosnian conflict. The Iraq Study Groups report which criticized the administration specifically stated that the idea of partitioning Iraq was absurd and simply unworkable do to how mixed ethnically the country still was in provinces north and south as well as in Baghdad. That was in late 2006, just before the start of the surge.

More importantly though, Bosnia shows that even when real ethnic cleansing does occur, it does not reduce violence. Much of the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia occured durring the first year, yet the most deadly years of the conflict were the ones that followed that first year.

Most of the Sunni Awakening groups sprung up in the more rural area of Sunni majority Iraq. Such groups did not play a significant role in Baghdad like they did in Anbar province.

Secondly, nearly half of those in the Awakening groups have never been involved with any insurgent or Al Quada groups in the past.

Third, these groups, half of which are not former insurgents, are being payed to secure their neighborhoods, gain intelligence, fight insurgents and members of Al Quada. The intelligence they have provided has helped the US and Iraqi military to capture or destroy Iraqi insurgent groups and members of Al Quada. This is classic counterinsurgency strategy and the United States military has been trying to set up such Sunni groups since 2004. The challenge now is to start integrating many of these groups into formal military and police units.


Quote:
what's hard is what this has done for McCain. as conditions "improve," how does he continue to justify staying? if conditions "worsen," then he was as wrong today as he was in 2005 as he was in 2003.
The rapidly improving conditions are what helped John McCain win the Republican nomination and why the general public trust him more on Iraq than they do Obama. Nation Building and counterinsurgency exercises take years to successfully complete and often involve unfortunate set backs. The goal is to develop the country's security, economic and political structures to the point that foreign military forces are no longer required to help out with most or all of these issues on the ground. Despite improving conditions, if you leave prematurely, the situation could start to reverse itself. If there is a setback and conditions worsen, then you have to adjust and try to stop the situation from sliding backwards, then push foward again. Setbacks are probably inevitable, but they don't signify that the overall policy has failed or that its time to leave. Afterall, the goal here is security and stability, and leaving because of a setback or when things get bad, certainly won't improve security or increases the chances of stability.

The Bush administration has always maintained that withdrawal will occur when the Iraqi's have developed the means to handle their own internal security on their own. Its not smart to remove a US brigade from Iraq that is providing a critical security need, if the Iraqi's have yet to develop something that can effectively replace the role that US brigade is currently providing in Iraq.



Quote:
now, as for Obama, to say that he's anywhere near the Bush position is hilarious. i will say that since the 2006 election, which was a smack in the face of the president, Iraq Policy has fallen from the hands of Cheney and Rumsfeld and into the far, far smarter hands of Patraeus and Gates. i think people underestimate just what a moderating influence Gates has been, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Obama kept him as SecDef when he wins in November. it's laughable to make the comparison that the Bush of 2004 and the Bush of 2008 are somehow the same person. we have a defeated, smashed president dazed by a shocking 23% (!!!) approval rating, and he's rightly ceded power and control of Iraq to the adults in the room -- Gates and Patraeus. Obama has made a complete and sharp contrast with the Republicians and McCain on this issue, and it will be this contrast upon which much of the election will fall.
Do you know what Bush's fundamental position on Iraq has been? Its that as the Iraqi's stand up, US military forces will stand down and come home. In standing up, we mean Iraqi forces being able to perform the same functions as a particular US brigade does in a certain part of Iraq. It means political institutions and government being able to provide Iraqi's with the services they need. It means an economy that is able to grow and develop because the security situation has improved. Thats the same position that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gates, and Patraeus have had. The only places where they have disagreed are on specific tactics and troop levels at particular points in time. From fundamental strategic point of view, they are all firmly on the same page. If anything, Gates and Patraeus are further to the right than Rumsfeld on Iraq since Rumsfeld wanted to maintain troop levels while Gates and Patraeus wanted to increase those troop levels. Contrast with Barack Obama and the Democrats who in January 2007 wanted all US combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008!

Their collective view is opposite the Democratic view of the past few years which has wanted all US troops out of Iraq "NOW" regardless of the consequences. The debate among democrats is only about how fast to withdraw troops, 6 months vs. time periods as long as 16 months. No consideration was given to the consequences or a pre-mature withdrawal. No consideration as to whether the Iraqi military was ready to replace US forces. No consideration given to whether the Iraqi police force was ready. In fact Democrats would site their failure to be ready as another reason to get out as soon as possible. To Democrats, Iraq was a conflict that the US military would never be able to help solve. Iraq was a "Civil War", and we needed to get out as soon as possible. Just bring all the US troops home now, and the Iraqi's will have to sort or fight things out on their own. How to withdraw all US troops from Iraq before Bush left office was goal of the 2006 Democratic congress. Barack Obama's plan in January 2007 was to have them all out by March 31, 2008. Congress attempted to pass multiple spending bills with conditions that would force the President to begin withdrawal. Such a withdrawal was never tied to improvements on the ground or the growing capabilties of Iraqi forces. It was withdraw US forces now regardless of what the conditions were on the ground in Iraq.

Barrack Obama and the Democrats all opposed Bush, Gates and Patraeus on the Surge. Their policy on Iraq for most of the past 18 months has been directly opposite of the policy supported and being implemented by Bush,Gates and Patraeus. But if because of the huge success of the Surge, Barrack Obama is now willing to withdraw US troops from Iraq based on conditions on the ground rather than to simply just withdraw as he and his Democratic colleagues in congress so vigorously tried to do for 18 months by trying to attach withdrawal timetables(with nothing to do with conditions on the ground) to every single spending bill, then this will signify a sinificant change in Barrack Obama's views and move toward Bush administration policy.

Quote:
as far as Obama goes, he is maintaining his commitment to a prudent, cautious, orderly withdrawal strategy that does not jeapordize whatever small and highly reversable gains that have been made in the reduction of violence over the past year. he will not stick to a game plan irregardless of empirical evidence. this is what Bush has done, this is what "last throes" Cheney has done, this is what "stuff happens" Rumsfeld has done. do we really want Obama to be the anti-war version of these walking disasters?
The gains that have been made in Iraq are anything but small. Talk to any US military forces or diplomatic personal that have been on the ground in Iraq the past 18 months and they will tell you that the changes have been unbelievably dramatic. Look at the casualty figures for both US troops and Iraqi troops and civilians. Casualty figures for both have been reduced by 80% to 90% in just the past 18 months. The military reports that violence is down to 2003 levels. Iraqi per capita GDP is nearly as large now as neighboring Syria. Iraqi oil production is about to surpass pre-war levels. The Iraqi's have an elected government that is making substantial progress on nearly all of the 18 political, economic, and security Benchmarks. The progress has been so rapid and substantial, that even someone like Murtha who was even more anti-surge than Barrack Obama now admits that its working.

Barrack Obama's game plan in January 2007 when Iraqi sectarian violence was near its peak in Baghdad was to withdraw all US combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 and he supported all of congress's attempts to force the President to withdraw without any regard for the consequences or conditions on the ground in Iraq. His plans and idea's on Iraq were the direct opposite of Bush, Gates and Patraeus plans for Iraq. He was a strong opponent of the surge which has helped to bring about very rapid progress in Iraq, more rapid than was previously thought possible.

Bush's initial plans for withdrawal from Iraq prior to the invasion were to have more than half of US troops out of Iraq by the summer of 2004. That plan of course changed with the rise of the insurgency. In changed again after the Shia Mosque bombing in 2006 increased sectarian violence in Baghdad, which brought about the surge. Now because of the success of the Surge, Bush may withdraw 1 non-Surge combat brigade by the end of 2008. Bush has constantly changed troop levels on the ground in Iraq over the past 5 years to respond to properly respond to the situation on the ground. Bush more than any other Democrat has been analysing the emperical evidence and making sound decisions based on that. Its the Democrats and Barrack Obama who have been wedded to "Out Of Iraq Now" for so long and finally might be coming around to the Bush strategy of withdrawal only has conditions on the ground permit.

Quote:
the goal remains withdrawal as soon as is prudent and possible. the goal is not the creation of 60 permanent bases in Iraq and the continued American presence -- and empire by any other names -- in the middle of the most volatile region in the world.
The goal of Barrack Obama and the Democratic congress in January 2007 was not only to prevent the Surge from happening, but to force President Bush to withdraw all US combat Brigades by March 31, 2008. Prudent and possible were not part of their formula, at least not when it relates to conditions on the ground. They wanted US troops out of Iraq yesterday, but now they might be moving towards the Presidents and the military's position that pre-mature withdrawal is a mistake and withdrawal should only occur when the Iraqi's are ready to start handling their own security in various parts of the country on their own. No one has ever been interested in creating an "Empire" and the United States has not created any bases in Iraq that can't be removed or given to the Iraqi military. The Bush administration and McCain only want a continued American presence in Iraq based on the Iraqi's need for such a presence. Barrack Obama and the Democrats have wanted withdrawal now regardless of Iraqi needs siting the conflict as a "Civil War" that the United States military needed to be removed from as soon as possible.


Quote:
so all we can fault Obama for is a bit of election year cynicism (or just realism?). shocking. and he's yet outflanked McCain on another position. what STING and his irrational ilk kept screaming about was "precipitous" withdrawal and the chaos that may or may not follow. Obama has said he won't do this, but he has said he is commited to withdrawal. he does not want an indefinite occupation.
Obama in January 2007 when Iraqi sectarian violence was at its near peak, and the Iraqi military and security forces were much less developed than they are today, wanted to withdraw all US combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. He never backed off from that position during that time nor did he ever suggest that such a timetable would ever be tied to conditions on the ground in Iraq. Just about everyone though has picked up on what might be changes on Obama's position on this over the past few weeks.

Bush has never been interested in an indefinite occupation. The initial plans for Iraq called for a sharply reduced US presence in Iraq by the summer of 2004, but that changed when the insurgency started to grow.

Quote:
he has now shrewedly framed the Iraq question: do you want to prudently withdraw, or do you want indefinite occupation?
Actually, he is lying about the position that Bush, the Republicans, and the US military have had since the start of the war, and appears to be in fact adopting their true position on Iraq. Barrack Obama has never been closer to "As they stand up, we'll stand down" as he is now.

Quote:
what reason is there, then, to vote for McCain?
Well, he has his current opponent abandoning his former opposition to the withdrawal only as conditions on the ground permit, and appearing to join him in supporting US military operations in Iraq for as long as they are needed and necessary for security and stability there.

Quote:
and you thought Bill Clinton was a master strategist?
Bill Clinton had no problem abandoning the left wing of his party when it suited him and moving to right. If Barrack Obama wants to do the same so he has a better shot at winning in November, thats a smart move, and the country will be better off if he sticks to some of the positions that are indeed to the right of the views of his most loyal supporters and far to the right of Senator Obama's voting record in the Senate if he should win in November.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 01:44 PM   #392
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
It doesn't matter, Obama is not going to go out to appease the netroots and any policy towards Iraq will be geared towards the national interest and that presidents legacy; each of which is not served by a removal of troops without some degree of stability, the point where American troops are more of an impediment to stability than being the barrier against genocide kicking off is coming and all the politicians are having to deal with that.

I think it's interesting to note how your views seem to have evolved along with Obamas on the issue of the surge.

never have i once said that i wanted an immediate withdrawal. i want a withdrawal, but always with nuance.

how have my views evolved in regards to "the surge"?
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-05-2008, 01:46 PM   #393
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:36 PM
[q]Their collective view is opposite the Democratic view of the past few years which has wanted all US troops out of Iraq "NOW" regardless of the consequences. [/q]


herein lies the problem. you're entire post is premised on this fundamental misunderstanding. you've fabricated a position, and then rebutted it.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-05-2008, 02:01 PM   #394
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
[q]Their collective view is opposite the Democratic view of the past few years which has wanted all US troops out of Iraq "NOW" regardless of the consequences. [/q]


herein lies the problem. you're entire post is premised on this fundamental misunderstanding. you've fabricated a position, and then rebutted it.
Sorry but its not fabircated. Its been argued in here time and again, and listed in a million newspaper and journal articles over the past 18 months. Its a fact that in January 2007, when Iraqi sectarian violence was at its peak Barrack Obama opposed the Surge, and proposed his plan to begin immediately withdrawing all combat bridages from Iraq with the withdrawal to be complete by March 31, 2008. You can pretend that is a frabication all you want to, but its not.

I've always supported a withdrawal from Iraq, only when the Iraqi military was sufficiently developed to handle the security situation on the ground. That definitely was not your view or many other peoples view in here a year or two years ago or perhaps even now.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 02:53 PM   #395
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 11:36 AM
I, for one, would like to see if you could find any posts by FYM regulars arguing for the immediate withdrawal of troops regardless of the consequences. I don't think you'd find much, if anything.
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 04:00 PM   #396
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I, for one, would like to see if you could find any posts by FYM regulars arguing for the immediate withdrawal of troops regardless of the consequences. I don't think you'd find much, if anything.
Most people in FYM have been advocates of withdrawal for some time. Yolland even started a thread about ways the Democratic congress could force the Bush administration to immediately start withdrawing troops. The position advocated by most of the regulars in here has never been "as they stand up, will stand down". There have been all kinds of responses like, we need to get out now before more of are people are killed in this failed enterprise, or the claim that the US military is causing the sectarian violence, Iraq is a Civil War and the United States military can't help solve Iraq's problems. There have even been claims that the United States has lost the war, the surge has failed etc etc.

The fact is, Barrack Obama, the Democrats and most people in this forum wanted all US combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. Most people in here were upset and frustrated at the new Democratic congress's inability to force the Bush administration to begin withdrawing troops back in early 2007 and were opposed to the surge. I was concerned about the surge myself, but for different reasons. I thought it was too limited a response and would overstretch the active component of the US military. I wanted to see a larger infusion of troops from the National Guard combat brigades which were not being used at that time, because of rules about how often they could be deployed in any 5 year period. As it turns out, active US army has been able to handle the build up without the strain I thought would occur and Gates did finally remove the rules that limited the use of National Guard combat brigades even though few of them have yet to be deployed again.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 04:17 PM   #397
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Most people in FYM have been advocates of withdrawal for some time. Yolland even started a thread about ways the Democratic congress could force the Bush administration to immediately start withdrawing troops. The position advocated by most of the regulars in here has never been "as they stand up, will stand down". There have been all kinds of responses like, we need to get out now before more of are people are killed in this failed enterprise, or the claim that the US military is causing the sectarian violence, Iraq is a Civil War and the United States military can't help solve Iraq's problems. There have even been claims that the United States has lost the war, the surge has failed etc etc.

The fact is, Barrack Obama, the Democrats and most people in this forum wanted all US combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. Most people in here were upset and frustrated at the new Democratic congress's inability to force the Bush administration to begin withdrawing troops back in early 2007 and were opposed to the surge. I was concerned about the surge myself, but for different reasons. I thought it was too limited a response and would overstretch the active component of the US military. I wanted to see a larger infusion of troops from the National Guard combat brigades which were not being used at that time, because of rules about how often they could be deployed in any 5 year period. As it turns out, active US army has been able to handle the build up without the strain I thought would occur and Gates did finally remove the rules that limited the use of National Guard combat brigades even though few of them have yet to be deployed again.

That pretty much sums it up.

MoveOn and the DailyKos people would not have been full hog behind Obama before if he was saying it the way he is now.

I kept hearing Obama will have the troops home in 18 months.

.

I did find it odd though, when he would talk about this he would often include. "I want to be as careful, getting out as we were reckless getting in."
One might have assumed that was why he said 18 months, and not 3 months.

But a "careful" getting out could be widely interpreted, when it suited another purpose.

5 years is careful. Is ten years "more" careful?

I almost posted that he never intended to keep his word on the 18 months.

Because that would be "reckless" and not "careful'.

But, I knew it would turn into one giant "piss storm".
deep is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 05:27 PM   #398
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,145
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
That pretty much sums it up.
I side with Strongbow and deep on this one, interesting analysis from both. Our probable next president is making a fundamental shift in policy. And if he's serious about it, it's good for this country and for Iraq. The "McBush" surge has made too much progress to abandon.

Maybe when Mr. Obama makes a trip to Iraq, or is able to meet privately with U.S. commanders, we'll see the refined strategy he will sell for the general election.
Bluer White is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 05:29 PM   #399
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Most people in FYM have been advocates of withdrawal for some time. Yolland even started a thread about ways the Democratic congress could force the Bush administration to immediately start withdrawing troops.
Link please?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 05:35 PM   #400
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Link please?
Since I'm not a paying member of the forum, you'd be able to find it faster than I could. The thread involved a discussion of the options that were available to the Democratic congress to start bringing troops home from Iraq despite the Presidents opposition to such a policy. It has to be from late 2006 or early 2007. If the thread was not started by yourself, then it at least involved this discussion.
__________________

Strongbow 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 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×