Bush Agrees to "Surrender" in Iraq - Page 8

paragon · #71 (**permalink**) 08-23-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasTequila

That should make your party of defeat very happy with him. Watch his poll numbers jump through the roof.

They will never be happy. They complain when he does something they don't like and they complain when he does something they do like.

Neoduck · #72 (**permalink**) 08-23-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solon

1. McCain was talking about the extension of the US military presence in Iraq indefinitely. Clearly, this was the Bush administration's plan. For all his claims to have visited Iraq and know it well, McCain turned out to be incredibly ignorant about what Iraqis were thinking. If anything is overstated, it is McCain's "expertise" in foreign affairs.

2. No one has claimed that Iraq is a puppet of Iran. I did point out some facts that seem to be ignored by the press and the administration. The early exit of US troops is undoubtedly influenced by Iraqi ties to Iran. The are concerned to balance between their two strongest allies without getting caught in the crossfire.

Ironically, it's al-Sadr who is the most independent leader. He will not sanction Iranian influence any more US control of Iraqi affairs. Claims of his demise are grossly overstated. His support among poor Shiites remains very high and he will capitalize on that in the future. If he escapes assassination, he will be a major player in the future of Iraq. That does not bode well for a "friendly" government in the future.

Iraqis have never bean opposed to some troops on Iraq. Now agreements have to be made but I do not think that the government of Iraq and most of people in Iraq want the U.S just to leave.

There is no doubt that Iran influence has bean weaken. Now they will always have some influence but Sadr and the special groups have bean push back because of the action of the government and the Sunni’s have come back into the government

kaspy · #73 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paragon

Now that the Iraq government is starting to get to the point where we can pull out, the Republicans are following through with what they've been saying for the entirety of the war and planning for when the US leaves. Thus the withdrawal of Iraq would no longer be viewed as a Vietnam-like 'surrender'.

And so, with the Republicans following through with what they said they would do, anti-war people feel the need to attack them for doing what they said they would do. Also, the anti-war people believe that the democrats were actually right all along when in fact it is the conditions on the ground that have made it so that the US can withdrawal.

Actually, Bush wanted to stay in Iraq indefinitely. He was for a hundred years in Iraq or more and McCain was very supportive of him. We are being asked to leave and Maliki has been demanding we leave for months.

Conditions on the ground are suicide bombers, an Iraqi civil war. An Iraq desolated by an unconstitutional US war that cost a trillion dollars, more than 4000 American lives and millions of Iraq civilians lives.

Ask the experts. If you want to commit counter-terrorism operations around the world, you don't occupy a single country during a civil war. You have no strategic thinking ability if you believe otherwise.

paragon · #74 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaspy

Actually, Bush wanted to stay in Iraq indefinitely. He was for a hundred years in Iraq or more and McCain was very supportive of him. We are being asked to leave and Maliki has been demanding we leave for months.

Conditions on the ground are suicide bombers, an Iraqi civil war. An Iraq desolated by an unconstitutional US war that cost a trillion dollars, more than 4000 American lives and millions of Iraq civilians lives.

Ask the experts. If you want to commit counter-terrorism operations around the world, you don't occupy a single country during a civil war. You have no strategic thinking ability if you believe otherwise.

Please explain why he continually stated that we would leave Iraq if the Iraq government asked us to. Maliki has not been demanding that we leave and no legislation has been ratified in Iraq demanding the removal of Coalition forces.

The State Department's weekly reports on Iraq have shown many signs of improvement. The conditions on the ground are continued improvement as a result of Coalition presence.

You don't abandon a country in the middle of a fight against Islamist extremists who commit acts of terrorism when you are trying to reduce the number of Islamist terrorists. Leaving a weak country to fend off the attacks of Islamist extremists on their own can easily lead to the country falling to chaos from which it cannot return without outside assistance. That creates a situation much like the one that existed in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in the later half of the 90s where terrorism is allowed safe haven to flourish.

kaspy · #75 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paragon

Please explain why he continually stated that we would leave Iraq if the Iraq government asked us to. Maliki has not been demanding that we leave and no legislation has been ratified in Iraq demanding the removal of Coalition forces.

It's a democratically elected government over a sovereign nation. Are you an serious?! Educate yourself on world affairs, little man.

We are in Iraq on the say-so of the Iraqi government as well as the approval of the UN agreement, which expires this year. Which is why Iraq and the US are negotiation for withdrawal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by News

Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demands US withdrawal timetable

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4288108.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diz48mH-ywM

BTW - Did you read my original post? It's official, a "time table" has been agreed upon by the US and Iraq.
Withdrawal from Iraq - A Reality

The war against terror is in Afghanistan and we've pushed Bin Laden into Pakistan. Bin Laden isn't in Iraq you ignorant people.

proof-hunter · #76 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008, 01:04 AM

Quote:

This is the same thing Obama wants -- careful withdrawal of American troops from Iraq with the Iraqis taking control of their own security. You cats keep calling it "surrender." Now that Bush is doing the same thing, all of a sudden it's a great idea. Why is that?

Hey, you left something important out of that phrase.
Obama did not, nore did he ever say he would pull out
AFTER WINNING in Iraq. Now I know this is going to be
hard for you to understand, but Bush said we would be doing
this AFTER WE WIN IN IRAQ. Has any of this creaped into your
head yet?

You Dumbocrats really take the cake.
by the way, was it not your party who said we could not win in Iraq?

...

heikstheo · #77 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008, 01:17 AM

Bush agrees to surrender in Iraq? I thought he had already declared victory in Iraq five years ago!

paragon · #78 (**permalink**) 09-01-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaspy

It's a democratically elected government over a sovereign nation. Are you an serious?! Educate yourself on world affairs, little man.

We are in Iraq on the say-so of the Iraqi government as well as the approval of the UN agreement, which expires this year. Which is why Iraq and the US are negotiation for withdrawal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4288108.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diz48mH-ywM

BTW - Did you read my original post? It's official, a "time table" has been agreed upon by the US and Iraq.
Withdrawal from Iraq - A Reality

The war against terror is in Afghanistan and we've pushed Bin Laden into Pakistan. Bin Laden isn't in Iraq you ignorant people.

You state that Bush wanted to stay in forever and I point out that he has continually said that we would leave when they Iraqi government said to leave - clearly proving you wrong and you think I need to be educated on world affairs?

A timetable is not a demand that we have to leave immediately. Try arguing against what someone actually says rather than what you wish they had said so that you could make a valid argument.

There are terrorists in Iraq, therefore part of the war on terror is in Iraq.
The war on terror is also in the Philippines because of the terrorists there. And the Horn of Africa. Educate yourself on world affairs, little man.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"Flip-Flopping" Is A Good Thing - The Governator Agrees!	muel	Current Events	6	07-14-2008 10:59 PM
Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, David "Whoremonger" Vitter Co-Sponsor "Marriage" Amendment	The Jovial One	Current Events	9	07-02-2008 08:31 AM
Videos from June 13 Iraq Forum, "Reframing the Iraq War Discussion," in Cherry Hill,	DemocratsBlog	Political Blogs	0	06-27-2008 07:50 AM
Bush: ""We have found the weapons of mass destruction."	apotropoxy	Current Events	72	04-15-2006 05:10 PM
Bush is "pleased with the progress" in Iraq	Hard-Driver	Elections & Campaigns	33	09-26-2004 01:26 PM