Quote:
Me: What comments has Bush made that lead you to believe he is peeved or that he does not want the elected leaders of Iraq to take over security duties?
Because everytime anyone says that the US troops need to be removed and the Iraqi's put in charge, the Karl Rove and the republicans in general start whining about "cut and run".
|
That didnt answer my question.
Saying that we do not want to cut and run does not = "We dont want the Iraqi government to control Iraq". I am not sure where you got that idea.
The fact that Bush does not want to cut and run means that he doesnt want the Iraqi government to make it's own decisions...is that your argument?
Quote:
|
Show me one place where a member of this administration has made anything close to this kind of statement, that the Iraqi forces would be in charge of the country by years end.
|
They are not guilty by default. You are making the claim. You have to provide the evidence to support it.
So far I have seen zero indications that the Bush administration has even
considered overruling the Iraqi government on any decision.
Quote:
|
So why would Bush be peeved, because this is not the "stay the course" policy that he expouses.
|
Short answer: He wouldnt, as far as we know. It is an assumption you are making, and then projecting as if it is undisputed fact.
Quote:
Me: I agree. They cannot do that immediately. He is right, we are there in a support and educational role...not to do their work for them.
Well then, why don't we.
|
Because they have asked us to stay until they are ready.
Quote:
Me: If we leave too early, the insurgency will exploit the opportunity to create more chaos and try to destroy the democracy.
Iraq's elected leaders know this. That is why they have asked us to stay.
More Choas?
|
Did I stutter?
Quote:
|
Come one, they kill and the US forces are doing next to nothing to stop it.
|
I do not agree that we are doing next to nothing to stop it. More projection on your part.
Quote:
|
The deaths are continueing unabated and our presence is NOT stopping the insurgancy
|
Really? Why hasnt the insurgency destroyed the government then?
The Iraqi's elected leaders seem to think we are doing something. otherwise, why else do they want us to stay?
Quote:
|
That would require the population to turn against the insurgancy. Which will not happen while we are there.
|
We wont be there forever. Why are you so eager for us to pull out prematurely? One would almost think you
want the Iraqis to fail.
Why not wait until the Iraqi forces are strong enough to handle it on their own?
Quote:
|
And you do realize that we are already "securing" towns and then leaving and then "securing" them again. If our troops do what is proposed and start to withdrawl, and the country falls into civil war.
|
Which I think is what a lot of people on the left would like to see happen. Not naming any names. You all know who you are.
Quote:
|
We will then support the exisiting democratic government, and if that is not enough, we can re-engage militarly. Withdrawl DOES NOT mean the country will become a fundamentalist taliban regime.
|
I agree. But premature withdrawl will increase the chances of failure and prolong the transition period...resulting in more deaths and a longer recovery period in the end.
Quote:
|
Like I said, let's see. And if they then need more help, we can return with more help.
|
I think our way is more efficient than your way. And the elected Iraqi government apparently agrees with us.