Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice try, but stating specifically that he will have the troops out in 16 months and his current position are very different. Also, his statement about leaving residual support in Iraq to assist with the establishment of the new gov't is similar to McCain's comments about the long term committment.
When it comes to Iraq now McCain's position moving forward is very similar to Obama's.
Interesting...Here's what the NY Times reports he said.
"According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we're not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we're making a determination – in this region we see some stability. We've had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we've still got problems, it's going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out." [New York Times, 11/1/07]
And here's the AP & Washington Post
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama was expected to say in a speech Wednesday at Ashford University.
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year _ now," the Illinois senator was to say.
Obama said the U.S. and the Iraqi government should discuss how to go about withdrawing troops.
"We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later," Obama said in prepared remarks. Key excerpts were obtained by The Associated Press.
Although he stopped short of calling for an immediate pullout of all troops, Obama said there should be a clear and certain timetable.
"But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month," he said. "If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."
By arguing that only combat brigades should be withdrawn _ there are 20 in Iraq, including five President Bush sent January _ Obama appeared to suggest that other U.S. troops could remain." [The Associated Press | September 12, 2007]
How is this different than his current position and can you quantify what the new position is and how it differs from the above statements?
Senator McCain's position now run's counter to the American people as well as the Iraqi Government. It will be interesting to see how he will apply his foreign policy expertise in resolving the current issue.
The problem is his position a year and a half ago when he was against the surge. Unfortunately for him it turned out to be a success in spite of his dire predictions.
If not for the Iraqi government coming out in the last few days saying they want a timetable of troops going home (which was always Mccain's position based on success on the ground, and "W"'s, btw) you would be twisting in the wind trying to explain his tortured positions.
Quote:
Although he stopped short of calling for an immediate pullout of all troops, Obama said there should be a clear and certain timetable.
"But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month," he said. "If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."
Nice try. He said this BEFORE victory was even close, when Iraq was still in chaos, on the brink of civil war. If we would have listened to this weak, pacifist, we would have had a major defeat to AQ and Iran.
Now that strategy makes sense, as the conditions on the ground warrant troop withdrawal, then it didn't.
The problem is his position a year and a half ago when he was against the surge. Unfortunately for him it turned out to be a success in spite of his dire predictions.
We simply have a fundamental difference in opinion and as well, apparently different access to information.
The quality of life for the average Iraqi has been so badly decimated since 2002 that it's hard to understand how you deem a troop surge and less violence to be a success.
If you studied your Iraq history, you would know that the same continued troop surgers occurred already... nearly a century ago when the British attempted to control the same territory. In 1933, what happened Sanrene? Mass revolt? Ohhh yeah, that.
You're battling an uphill climb with no end in sight. Would you want a foreign entity which doesn't have your best interest in mind attempting to run your country? Ah, but you will retort: We're not running it. We're giving the Iraqis the ability to run their own country well.
I say: Are you OUT OF YOUR MIND? Did you learn nothing from British run Iraq? How about India? If you're under the impression that Iraqi citizens are stupid, you're crazy. I suppose you think most Iraqi's fell for the transparent ''free vote'' --- but then again, I bet you're also not aware that it was under widespread boycott in urban Baghdad. Read some old diaries written by Iraqi females -- get an understanding of where people are coming from instead of playing armchair Quarterback with people's lives (though I'm sure you're quite good at it).
They know why we're there, they don't want us there, they don't care what makes you feel better and able to sleep at night -- they want their Iraq back. A few diaries I reccommend: Baghdad Burning I and II; and Baghdad Diaries. I also reccommend, if you do not already speak Arabic, to put down the Faux News and read the English transliterations of Al-Jazeera, Al-Alam, and Al-Hurra for starters.
The problem is his position a year and a half ago when he was against the surge. Unfortunately for him it turned out to be a success in spite of his dire predictions.
If not for the Iraqi government coming out in the last few days saying they want a timetable of troops going home (which was always Mccain's position based on success on the ground, and "W"'s, btw) you would be twisting in the wind trying to explain his tortured positions.
What you consider success has never been quantified. What is considered failure is easily stated & while I acknowledge that the forces on the ground have made progress this was not the overriding need for the troops. They were called to provide stability so that the diplomatic process could be solidified and instituted. If on the other hand, the Iraqi Government's call for a timetable is the new mark for success, it has been met. Why are we still there? I personally do not need to explain a politician's position. The lack of understanding is in one's wish to see what isn't there and ignore what is.
I have posted a link to the recent report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress. Have you read it?
I guess we will disagree. We will ALWAYS have a presence in Iraq. That doesn't mean it has to be a military one. We will continue to help them rebuild their country that was decimated before we invaded. They will continue to depend on us for quite a while as they struggle to reconcile and deal with the hostile entities that would like to see them fail.
We are not going to steal their oil if that's what you're implying.
sort of a catch 22 when McCain and Bush say "we cant leave due to the intense levels of violence" and then repeat the same when the violence has decreased.
We will continue to help them rebuild their country that was decimated before we invaded.
How were they decimated before we invaded? A war before the war? You may need to quantify this, because aside from our Baghdad bombings under GHWBush, urban sectors of Iraq were nothing but flourishing, even under Hussein.
Sure, they had a devastating 8-year miscalculation on the part of Hussein with Iran, but this was for the most part, a border conflict which didn't didn't infiltrate Baghdad -- and this was the 1980's.
Let me give you an example:
Women under Hussein's Ba'athist regime held more employments in Iraq than an American woman has in the United States currently. They made equal pay and nearly 50% of the workforce were women. They were also not required to wear the Hijab.
Now while I concede that such a brutal dictator has been relinquished, this isn't the end-all-be-all. When a coup occurs and there is NOTHING in place, no plan to improve the landscape, a dangerous vaccuum of power occurs -- and in this case, a very fundamentalist Islamic power struggle has occured in urban and rural sectors of Iraq. I can tell you that the fate of women doesn't look good right now -- it is no longer the liberal landscape, comparable to Lebanon, that we once saw. Women don't just not make up nearly half of the workforce because the economy is in shambles, but in part because the landscape for fundamentalist Islam has attempted to change the roles which women play in society. Women have been burned in the face with acid if they are not in proper Hijab accord. Gangs of fundamentalist bandits rule parts of the urban sectors as they attempt to stamp their power into the new POWERLESS Iraq.
You see, Sanrene, you can have your military presence, and you can tell people not to leave the house after a certain time (which is also insane, considering it's often too hot to leave before those times -- Arabs tend to be active at night time) and you can have your politican walking through the Green Zone with armored battalions claiming to CNN that it's safe, but the second you leave and including now, life has not been the same for the me and you of Iraq.
Please PM for more information. If you're the type of person that wants to learn more about the world, you'll put away the misinformation you're receiving from CNN, from Faux News, and you may take an interest in the real Iraq. (I hate that that sounds so arrogant, but it's unable to be helped -- we Americans simply don't get real information)
It's common knowledge that Iraq's infrastructure had been in decline for years.
Your claim that all the infrastructure of Iraq was in pristine condition is ridiculous. Their waste/water/sewage systems was basically failing apart. The energy grid/infrastructure was outdated and unreliable. Years of war with Iran coupled with sanctions for 12 years took it's toll. In addition to Saddam's & Sons years of neglect, it's not surprising that what the Coalition wfound was a general state of disrepair, neglect and waste.
Yeah, Saddam was really good to his people.
Sadr City was basically a slum with waste flowing down the streets. Flourishing, indeed.
It's common knowledge that Iraq's infrastructure had been in decline for years.
In relativity to when Baghdad was possibly the most gorgeous medina on the planet, sure.
In relative terms to modernization in the middle east and elsewhere? I'm not sure how you would be equipped to say that because I find that to be borderline sensationalist. Have you spent any time anywhere in the area yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Their waste/water/sewage systems was basically failing apart.
If it wasn't then, it sure is now! By the way, don't you think after the amount of time we've been there, that children shouldn't be dying of malaria, houses should have clean drinking water, and electricity isn't embarrassingly intermittent? What is 12 billion dollars per month paying for these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Your claim that all the infrastructure of Iraq was in pristine condition is ridiculous.
It would be a ridiculous claim, however, I didn't say this.
What I did say was that the current conditions are so far worse than what their quality of life was under Saddam Hussein.
I also said that along with other misinformation, the notion that we went to Iraq to liberate women is as misguided as it gets considering socially, they had more employment rights than YOU do right now. (Not anymore, of course)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Years of war with Iran coupled with sanctions for 12 years took it's toll.
Excellent point -- who's sanctions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Yeah, Saddam was really good to his people.
No one said that either. However, you seem to forget that we a) wanted him in power in the 1970's, b) we equipped him with military and financial support when he was using chemical warfare with Iran, c) We misguided Iraqi Kurdistan into a rebel which we promised to defend and never did. You can't really use the idea that we were saving the day and the world from Saddam Hussein when we manipulated the area and used him as a pawn hardly more than 15 years ago, can you? Hallaluja, thank you United States. You're everyone's heros!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
