US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 41 - 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, 05:43 PM   #801
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:08 PM
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, 05:49 PM   #802
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:08 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?

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, 05:49 PM   #803
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 10:08 AM
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, 05:55 PM   #804
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:08 PM
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, 06:24 PM   #805
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 10:08 AM
Did you even read Maliki's statement?
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 06:35 PM   #806
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 07:08 AM
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, 09:54 PM   #807
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,389
Local Time: 11:08 AM
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 online now  
Old 07-22-2008, 09:57 PM   #808
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,389
Local Time: 11:08 AM
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 online now  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:06 PM   #809
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:08 AM
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, 10:10 PM   #810
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,389
Local Time: 11:08 AM
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 online now  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:14 PM   #811
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Obama saying that knowing what he knows now, that the surge has reduced violence and that it has helped the situation, he still would have opposed the surge is perfect ammunition against his judgement.

It doesn't matter much because he won't risk his reputation if he gets elected and wouldn't let himself get labelled as the president who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, but as far as electioneering goes he seems weaker than McCain on Iraq policy.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:16 PM   #812
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Did you even read Maliki's statement?
You should ask yourself that question since you and others seem to think that Maliki no longer believes in a conditions based withdrawal and now wants an exclusively time based withdrawal like Obama.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:18 PM   #813
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Are you willfully blind? Obama's position isn't an exclusively time-based withdawl, it is dependent on conditions on the ground.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:25 PM   #814
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
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.

Iraq's national security advisor already expressed his ideas about withdrawal, all of which were conditions based, and different from anything Obama has suggested.

Everyone would prefer that the United States be able to withdraw from both Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible. But saying you would like to see US troops leave by x date or y date, does not mean that one has dropped the position that an US withdrawal first be based on conditions on the ground and not some arbitrary time table. The Iraqi government does not want to see US combat brigades leave before they are ready to handle the security situation on their own. They have never expressed in any way shape or form that they want US troops to leave the country regardless of the readiness of their security forces or the security on the ground.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:26 PM   #815
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,389
Local Time: 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
but as far as electioneering goes he seems weaker than McCain on Iraq policy.


his original judgment about the entire adventure is what cost HRC the democratic nomination. isn't that what ultimately matters most?

i agree that "the surge" -- insofar as decontextualized numbers used in soundbytes go -- plays well for McCain (and i posited over a year ago that this was a handout by the administration to McCain for his electioning in 2004 ... yes, i do believe the WH is that political), but it also makes him lose his grip on the overall argument, which is: 1) if it's working, why can't we leave, and 2) doesn't change the fact that it was a mistake to begin with.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:32 PM   #816
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:08 AM
The democratic caucuses are not a general election, and the public perception of the situation in Iraq has shifted, thankfully enough to a more stable one that can allow foreign forces to leave without passively enabling a genocide, but the flipside of which is that people care less about it than other issues.

Now what about offshore drilling?
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:35 PM   #817
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Quote:
Obama is The One. In the first quarter of the general election, he has simply gotten more and better coverage than McCain. For those who need more evidence than the enormous press entourage that is treating Obama’s current trip not like the campaign swing of a presidential candidate, but like the international debut of the New American President, there are several new studies which help quantify the disparity.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which evaluates more than 300 newspaper, magazine, and television stories each week, found that from June 9 (after Obama had wrapped up the Democratic nomination) until July 13, Obama was more prominently covered every single week. During one particular week, July 7–13, McCain was a significant presence in 48 percent of the stories—but Obama met that mark in 77 percent of the pieces. Similarly, the Tyndall Report, a media monitoring group, found that Obama received substantially more media attention.
... Given all that, it’s not surprising that voters, particularly those of the Republican persuasion, think the media is more or less in Obama’s pocket. A recent survey by Rasmussen found that 49 percent of the likely voters they talked to believed that reporters would favor Obama in their coverage, while just 14 percent said the same about McCain. Seventy-eight percent of Republicans thought the press would try and help Obama win, while only 21 percent of Democrats thought journalists were in bed with McCain. Complaints about bias are only exacerbated when the New York Times (the bête noire of the right) rejects an opinion piece written by McCain comparing his position on Iraq to Obama’s—just days after the Times ran a similar piece by Obama.
Vanity Fair: vanityfair.com
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:36 PM   #818
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Are you willfully blind? Obama's position isn't an exclusively time-based withdawl, it is dependent on conditions on the ground.
Really, can you name any conditions for the security environment on the ground that Obama said had to be met BEFORE he would start to withdraw a single non-surge US combat brigade from Iraq? What prerequisites does Obama have for the Iraqi military to meet before he would remove a single non-surge US combat brigade?

Obama stated consistenty throughout the first half of 2007 that US troops needed to be leaving the country, and that all US combat brigades should be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. The ONLY SINGLE condition Obama gave for suspending that time line was if the Iraqi government achieved all 18 benchmarks within that small time frame. He never made any statement to the effect that the withdrawal would be suspended because the Iraqi military was not ready or because violence was increasing, or the Iraqi government was collapsing or failing to meet the benchmarks in that time frame.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:39 PM   #819
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
You should ask yourself that question since you and others seem to think that Maliki no longer believes in a conditions based withdrawal and now wants an exclusively time based withdrawal like Obama.
Tell me where Obama said he wants an exclusively time based withdrawal. You won't find it, because it doesn't exist. You are, once again, fabricating a position in order to refute it.

Maliki clearly said, when asked about Obama's position, that Obama's timeline was one that was in line with his government's wishes.

Your continued pigheaded refusal to acknowledge this is jaw-dropping. Spin, spin, spin. Message, message, message. It's utterly ridiculous.
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-22-2008, 10:50 PM   #820
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
his original judgment about the entire adventure is what cost HRC the democratic nomination. isn't that what ultimately matters most?
I got news for you, winning the Democratic nomination involves appeasing the crazy base of that party. The impact that part of the party will have in the national election will be much less than it was in the primary.

Its obviously poor judgement to claim, that the United States is less safe, that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are less safe, because Saddam was removed from power.

Quote:
1) if it's working, why can't we leave
The United States can leave as conditions on the ground improve and the Iraqi military becomes capable of replacing any non-surge brigades that are withdrawn.

Of course, you've always claimed that its not working and that the US should still leave.


Quote:
2) doesn't change the fact that it was a mistake to begin with.
History is not on the side of people who think it was a mistake to remove someone like Saddam. But good luck defending Saddam and a continuation of his regime.
__________________

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 10:08 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
×