Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 22, 2008 09:29AM
The Bush Administration has finally seen the light and has worked out an agreement to pull U.S. troops out of major cities and urban areas of Iraq early next year and a has adopted a timeline for full withdrawal of troops by 2012...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.main/index.html
I guess Bush decided his legacy was more important than Blackwater's and KBR's contracts.
Hmmm. Seems to me Obama has been calling for this for a while as John McCain has been saying we can stay in Iraq 100 years. Doesn't sound too good for McCain.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.main/index.html
I guess Bush decided his legacy was more important than Blackwater's and KBR's contracts.
Hmmm. Seems to me Obama has been calling for this for a while as John McCain has been saying we can stay in Iraq 100 years. Doesn't sound too good for McCain.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
Capt. Obvious
()
Date: August 22, 2008 09:38AM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bush Administration has finally seen the light
> and has worked out an agreement to pull U.S.
> troops out of major cities and urban areas of Iraq
> early next year and a has adopted a timeline for
> full withdrawal of troops by 2012...
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.mai
> n/index.html
>
> I guess Bush decided his legacy was more important
> than Blackwater's and KBR's contracts.
>
> Hmmm. Seems to me Obama has been calling for this
> for a while as John McCain has been saying we can
> stay in Iraq 100 years. Doesn't sound too good for
> McCain.
EXCEPT that Senator Obama has called for a redeployment of 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 - two years ahead of the Bush administration's plan. The administration's plan therefor is NOT what Sen. Obama has been calling for.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bush Administration has finally seen the light
> and has worked out an agreement to pull U.S.
> troops out of major cities and urban areas of Iraq
> early next year and a has adopted a timeline for
> full withdrawal of troops by 2012...
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.mai
> n/index.html
>
> I guess Bush decided his legacy was more important
> than Blackwater's and KBR's contracts.
>
> Hmmm. Seems to me Obama has been calling for this
> for a while as John McCain has been saying we can
> stay in Iraq 100 years. Doesn't sound too good for
> McCain.
EXCEPT that Senator Obama has called for a redeployment of 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 - two years ahead of the Bush administration's plan. The administration's plan therefor is NOT what Sen. Obama has been calling for.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: August 22, 2008 09:45AM
It's essentially the same plan with a more aggressive schedule to get things finished.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
Capt. Obvious
()
Date: August 22, 2008 10:02AM
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's essentially the same plan with a more
> aggressive schedule to get things finished.
Not really. After looking at Sen. Obama's plan, I see no caveats, such as the one mentioned in the article - that f the Iraqi government sees the necessity of keeping the American forces in cities and towns or in Iraq past December 31, 2011, it would ask that the Americans stay. A joint Iraqi-U.S. committee would help define the duration and number of forces that would be needed and regularly assess the security situation on the ground. Sen. Obama's plan is simply a withdrawal plan. You can debate the merits of each plan, but it is not accurate to say that they are "essentially the same."
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's essentially the same plan with a more
> aggressive schedule to get things finished.
Not really. After looking at Sen. Obama's plan, I see no caveats, such as the one mentioned in the article - that f the Iraqi government sees the necessity of keeping the American forces in cities and towns or in Iraq past December 31, 2011, it would ask that the Americans stay. A joint Iraqi-U.S. committee would help define the duration and number of forces that would be needed and regularly assess the security situation on the ground. Sen. Obama's plan is simply a withdrawal plan. You can debate the merits of each plan, but it is not accurate to say that they are "essentially the same."
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: August 22, 2008 10:14AM
>> Obama's plan is simply a withdrawal plan
FWIW, the Obama plan includes the need for a residual force to remain in Iraq after 2010 to help manage counter-terrorism activities and train Iraqi forces.
FWIW, the Obama plan includes the need for a residual force to remain in Iraq after 2010 to help manage counter-terrorism activities and train Iraqi forces.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
Capt. Obvious
()
Date: August 22, 2008 10:23AM
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Obama's plan is simply a withdrawal plan
>
>
> FWIW, the Obama plan includes the need for a
> residual force to remain in Iraq after 2010 to
> help manage counter-terrorism activities and train
> Iraqi forces.
True, but that is still different than the caveats listed above. Like I said, there are differences in the plans that go beyond just a "timeframe."
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Obama's plan is simply a withdrawal plan
>
>
> FWIW, the Obama plan includes the need for a
> residual force to remain in Iraq after 2010 to
> help manage counter-terrorism activities and train
> Iraqi forces.
True, but that is still different than the caveats listed above. Like I said, there are differences in the plans that go beyond just a "timeframe."
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 22, 2008 10:34AM
Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >> Obama's plan is simply a withdrawal plan
> >
> >
> > FWIW, the Obama plan includes the need for a
> > residual force to remain in Iraq after 2010 to
> > help manage counter-terrorism activities and
> train
> > Iraqi forces.
>
> True, but that is still different than the caveats
> listed above. Like I said, there are differences
> in the plans that go beyond just a "timeframe."
It is a redeployment strategy and a timeframe, two things Bush refused to consider before. As for Obama's 16-month timeframe, he has said that that is subject to change depending on the security situation.
Semantics aside, let's just say that this plan is a lot closer to the Dem plan than it is the Bush plan of 2007.
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >> Obama's plan is simply a withdrawal plan
> >
> >
> > FWIW, the Obama plan includes the need for a
> > residual force to remain in Iraq after 2010 to
> > help manage counter-terrorism activities and
> train
> > Iraqi forces.
>
> True, but that is still different than the caveats
> listed above. Like I said, there are differences
> in the plans that go beyond just a "timeframe."
It is a redeployment strategy and a timeframe, two things Bush refused to consider before. As for Obama's 16-month timeframe, he has said that that is subject to change depending on the security situation.
Semantics aside, let's just say that this plan is a lot closer to the Dem plan than it is the Bush plan of 2007.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
FUNdamental
()
Date: August 22, 2008 10:37AM
Why did we go to Iraq in the first place? I mean, the president was told by our weapons inspectors that Curveball was a liar, so, it doesn't make any sense why we went in.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
Capt. Obvious
()
Date: August 22, 2008 10:40AM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for
> Obama's 16-month timeframe, he has said that that
> is subject to change depending on the security
> situation.
He backed off that and according to his website, the 16 month timeframe is still the plan.
> Semantics aside, let's just say that this plan is
> a lot closer to the Dem plan than it is the Bush
> plan of 2007.
The Bush plan said certain milestones needed to be met. The Dem plan never talked about meeting milestones, it talked about dates. That is the fundamental difference.
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for
> Obama's 16-month timeframe, he has said that that
> is subject to change depending on the security
> situation.
He backed off that and according to his website, the 16 month timeframe is still the plan.
> Semantics aside, let's just say that this plan is
> a lot closer to the Dem plan than it is the Bush
> plan of 2007.
The Bush plan said certain milestones needed to be met. The Dem plan never talked about meeting milestones, it talked about dates. That is the fundamental difference.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
hop
()
Date: August 22, 2008 10:48AM
the obama plan is to leave regardless of outcome, the republican plan is to leave when victory can be assured - it's only a coincidence of time that the two seem to be converging
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 22, 2008 11:26AM
hop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the obama plan is to leave regardless of outcome,
> the republican plan is to leave when victory can
> be assured - it's only a coincidence of time that
> the two seem to be converging
What is "victory?" And how can it be "assured?" If there is stability, there is no way to ensure it will continue when we leave. I thought "victory" was to have a pro-U.S. democratic government in place. The current government is pro-Iran and undoubtedly Al Sadr or some other wannabe strongman is going to make a play for power whether we leave in 16 months or 16 years.
-------------------------------------------------------
> the obama plan is to leave regardless of outcome,
> the republican plan is to leave when victory can
> be assured - it's only a coincidence of time that
> the two seem to be converging
What is "victory?" And how can it be "assured?" If there is stability, there is no way to ensure it will continue when we leave. I thought "victory" was to have a pro-U.S. democratic government in place. The current government is pro-Iran and undoubtedly Al Sadr or some other wannabe strongman is going to make a play for power whether we leave in 16 months or 16 years.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
Victor
()
Date: August 22, 2008 11:35AM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is "victory?" And how can it be "assured?"
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country. An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is "victory?" And how can it be "assured?"
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country. An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 22, 2008 12:56PM
Victor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What is "victory?" And how can it be "assured?"
>
>
> An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and
> neutralized the insurgency.
> An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable,
> democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the
> institutions and resources they need to govern
> themselves justly and provide security for their
> country. An Iraq that is a partner in the global
> war on terror and the fight against the
> proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
> integrated into the international community, an
> engine for regional economic growth, and proving
> the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
You mean like Saudi Arabia? Oh no, wait. That's not a democracy. Then like Syria. Nope. They don't like Israel or the U.S. Hmmm. Then like Lebanan. Nope. They aren't exactly "stable" these days, are they? Maybe Kuwait? Oh yeah. Kuwait is occupied by the U.S. Hmmm. What about Pakistan? Errr. Forget I said that. Dubai? Nope. No democracy there.
Yeah. No problem getting out in 2011.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2008 12:56PM by WashingToneLocian.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What is "victory?" And how can it be "assured?"
>
>
> An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and
> neutralized the insurgency.
> An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable,
> democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the
> institutions and resources they need to govern
> themselves justly and provide security for their
> country. An Iraq that is a partner in the global
> war on terror and the fight against the
> proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
> integrated into the international community, an
> engine for regional economic growth, and proving
> the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
You mean like Saudi Arabia? Oh no, wait. That's not a democracy. Then like Syria. Nope. They don't like Israel or the U.S. Hmmm. Then like Lebanan. Nope. They aren't exactly "stable" these days, are they? Maybe Kuwait? Oh yeah. Kuwait is occupied by the U.S. Hmmm. What about Pakistan? Errr. Forget I said that. Dubai? Nope. No democracy there.
Yeah. No problem getting out in 2011.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2008 12:56PM by WashingToneLocian.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 22, 2008 04:37PM
Yes, the anointed one spoke, and Bush listened...
What a load. Like Obama is even plugged into what is happening in Iraq. His first plan was to pull out as fast as possible. He has only refined his plan over time based on second hand inputs he is getting from folks who have a clue.
The Bush administration had always maintained to not set a timetable because the threat of escalating violence, or an ebb in the violence based on anticipation of a scheduled date of departure was a bad idea. Now that the violence has been severely curtailed, it is possible to discuss a plan for drawing down troops.
If we were to believe the stupid argument presented here, the Bush administration would have never had any kind of plan to draw down troops. Anyone here that believed planning a draw down of troops with escalating violence in Iraq obviously has no clue.
Iraq is a bad situation all around. It was before we went in, and it will be after we leave. We can only hope that with firm support from future administrations we won't see a repeat of what happened in Iran when the Shah's government was overthrown and Jimmy Carter stood by and watched it happen. Lets not see a repeat of that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2008 04:37PM by Registered Voter.
What a load. Like Obama is even plugged into what is happening in Iraq. His first plan was to pull out as fast as possible. He has only refined his plan over time based on second hand inputs he is getting from folks who have a clue.
The Bush administration had always maintained to not set a timetable because the threat of escalating violence, or an ebb in the violence based on anticipation of a scheduled date of departure was a bad idea. Now that the violence has been severely curtailed, it is possible to discuss a plan for drawing down troops.
If we were to believe the stupid argument presented here, the Bush administration would have never had any kind of plan to draw down troops. Anyone here that believed planning a draw down of troops with escalating violence in Iraq obviously has no clue.
Iraq is a bad situation all around. It was before we went in, and it will be after we leave. We can only hope that with firm support from future administrations we won't see a repeat of what happened in Iran when the Shah's government was overthrown and Jimmy Carter stood by and watched it happen. Lets not see a repeat of that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2008 04:37PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
Registered NAMBLA Voter
()
Date: August 22, 2008 05:48PM
Let's not see a repeat of the last 7 years of mis-management. Vote Obama.
Re: Bush Administration Adopts Dem Plan on Iraq
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 22, 2008 10:05PM
As so eloquently described by WashingToneLocian the current agreement being negotiated betweeen the US and Iraq is nothing more then smoke and mirrors. It is an attempt by the republikan party to fool enough of the people into thinking that the issue of pulling troops out of Iraq has been pulled out from under the democratic party. Of course as is typical republikan propaganda.
The "condition" based language in the agreement raises a numbaer of concerns...
Who decides when/if the conditions have been met?
Will the determination be subject to yet another series of negotiations between Iraq and the US? Or will it be the US alone...the Iraquis alone (after all it is there country)?
What are the "conditions"? If we wait for the conditions described by the Victor to materialize it will be the first time such conditions have ever existed in the Middle East. Hell, the British would still be in ISrael/Palestine if them getting out of the area had to meet his criteria. But isnt that the point....
The current wording is designed to keep us in Iraq for the next 100 years...McSame's 100 years of war phrophecy.
The "condition" based language in the agreement raises a numbaer of concerns...
Who decides when/if the conditions have been met?
Will the determination be subject to yet another series of negotiations between Iraq and the US? Or will it be the US alone...the Iraquis alone (after all it is there country)?
What are the "conditions"? If we wait for the conditions described by the Victor to materialize it will be the first time such conditions have ever existed in the Middle East. Hell, the British would still be in ISrael/Palestine if them getting out of the area had to meet his criteria. But isnt that the point....
The current wording is designed to keep us in Iraq for the next 100 years...McSame's 100 years of war phrophecy.