Reply With Quote
You're not proctecting any backtracking?
He ran on a platform of an "IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL". Now, he's changing it. What's not to understand??
So?
Again, so?
You're not proctecting any backtracking?
He ran on a platform of an "IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL". Now, he's changing it. What's not to understand??
In the latest Iraqi flip-flop, the Dubya administration drops any pretense that it cares about leaving al-Maliki in power....
LinkWASHINGTON (AFP) — In a rebuff to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the Pentagon said Monday that any timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq would depend on conditions on the ground there.
Maliki told Arab ambassadors on Monday he was pressing for such a timetable in negotiations with Washington on an agreement on the status of US forces in Iraq beyond 2008.
Asked about the prime minister's comments, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters: "With respect to timetables I would say the same thing I would say as respects to the security situation -- it is dependent on conditions on the ground."
Whitman said the United States had made clear "that we have no long term desires to have forces permanently stationed in Iraq."
"But timelines tend to be artificial in nature," he said. "In a situation where things are as dynamic as they are in Iraq, I would just tell you, it's usually best to look at these things based on conditions on the ground."
Maliki's comments to Arab ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates marked the first time he has specifically demanded a timetable for a US withdrawal.
"The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal," a statement from Maliki's office quoted him as saying.
"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq," he added.
A UN mandate that provides the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq expires at end of the year, and the two countries are negotiating a bilateral agreement to replace it.
The two sides have agreed in principle to sign a Status of Forces Agreement by July.
But both Shiite and Sunni politicians have raised objections, and Democrats in the US Congress have expressed fears it would tie the hands of the next president.
So the Iraqis want us to leave, the Iraqi government wants us to leave, the UN mandate that provides legal mandate for our military precense expires at the end of the year........so we're gone right? Wrong!
That's the whole point. Iraq, Afghanistan, the whole middle east does not want Americans anywhere on their land in the 1st place, so if they want to be left alone, then leave them alone. It's the U.S that takes the initiative to whether or not they should invade if they deem a particular country is a threat and they've failed on which ones to invade. They should have invaded Afghanistan, which they did, and completely eliminate the Taliban, which they didn't. And they should have invaded Pakistan as well, well not as much as invade, but track down terrorists there with the help of the current Pakistani govt. So if you want to blame somebody blame the Govt. As far as invading Iraq, I guess taking Saddam down was the highlight and everything else not much really.
Just expressing my opinion. Just like your 'flee right now' one (which I actually agree with). I think if Maliki thinks the US can leave right now and he can take care of things, he's high on drugs.
Immediate withdrawal doesn't mean in one day. And if any Commander in Chief is not wise enough to change their strategerie when the cir stances change then that is not the kind of Commander in Chief I want.
I was Bush's refusal and should I say determination to "Stay the Course" when others were telling him otherwise is why the Iraq war has carried on for so long.
Flip-flopper.For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of the fact that we went into Iraq, and now al-Maliki wants us to withdraw?
Wait a second here . . . you mean like voting for the Iraq War due to the information that was given and then wanting to get out because of the mess it created and because the pretense to invade was based on lies?
Is that what you mean?
Because I remember Obama ting on Hillary for that.
Now it's okay for him to do a 180 because you have a crush on him?
Expressing your opinion is just fine.
I've got no problem with that.
But, us worring about what might happen in that region if we leave is just ridiculous. Really, who gives a what these people do to each other?
I don't want to lose another single soldier for the sake of that worthless region. We get absolutely nothing out of it.
Exactly my sentiment when people talk about an 'ordered withdrawal'. They've been fighting each other and foreigners for centuries, and they'll keep fighting when we leave.
Hillary voted to authorize military action in Iraq, Obama did not....besides, Obama hasn't changed his policy to get troops out of Iraq, he has said before that he intends to let the Generals on the ground make the call as to when and how many troops can withdrawal from Iraq without leaving the place a complete cluster-f@ck..Wait a second here . . . you mean like voting for the Iraq War due to the information that was given and then wanting to get out because of the mess it created and because the pretense to invade was based on lies?
Wrong.
He called for an "immediate withdrawal".
I don't know of any state legislator that voted to authorize military action in Iraq.
Yeah, but he thought about it. Before he didn't!
Not hard to understand, and also very predictable.
It is very easy for people to say "get out of Iraq now, damn the consequences" when you don't know the consequences.
The more one learns about Iraq, one finds it is a VERY complex problem that the Bush administration only now is getting handle on, 4 years too late.
My guess is that he has had some rather in depth briefings on the subject, and has changed his mind somewhat as he has learned how unrealistic a total immediate withdrawal is.
That and he probably was undoubtedly saying something in part to appeal to the portion of the Democratic party that is virulently anti-war.
It was probably a mixture of both, although whether it was more of the former or more of the latter will depend on your point of view, of course.
Well at least you know what will happen to the price of oil. As long as you are cool with that, there is still a few more things to consider:
What happens when Turkey gets in a shooting match with Iran, and we are forced, through NATO, to help them?
What happens when the Saudis who control literally hundreds of billions of dollars of US-denominated investment assets ask us for help?
"Oh by the way, help us with Iran, otherwise we just *might* have to sell off the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US-dollar based investment assets to pay for the war..."[note: that would be bad for us. very, very bad]
The risks of leaving before a fairly stable Iraqi regime is in place far outweigh the risks of staying a while longer.
No Iraqi govt will be credible AND stable until the US "liberators" end their imperialistic occupation.
Maliki isn't credible with most Iraqis because he's a weak US puppet.
Watch the bull Maliki pulls (like invading Sadr City a couple months ago and got his butt kicked) against both the Sunnis and other Shiite factions in the runup to the October elections, supported of course by US military as his personal goons.
My guess is that Iraqi elections will be postponed until after the US election.
Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.
We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Language is getting amped up by Iraq
More than a grain of truth there. Kind of a damned if you do, and damned if you don't thing.
A phased withdrawal over time would do wonders to sharpen the Iraqi government's motivation.
Again, a central core of truth, if a bit vitriolic.Maliki isn't credible with most Iraqis because he's a weak US puppet.
Watch the bull Maliki pulls (like invading Sadr City a couple months ago and got his butt kicked) against both the Sunnis and other Shiite factions in the runup to the October elections, supported of course by US military as his personal goons.
My guess is that Iraqi elections will be postponed until after the US election.
Maliki has gained some consolidation and strength from this though. He appears to be eager for the US to leave, and seems to be preparing for it.
So Captain Sunshine is backtracking already? Surprise, surprise.
Much ado about nothing.
Here's my prediction...
They will make an agreement.
It will be secret.
An announcement without details will be met.
Now the conditions in politics are set, everybody's happy.
Except lib s, demonrats, and demoncraps.
Why does it have to be secret?
If you don't know, then you don't get a balanced blend of news. If you have heard it and disregard it, why should I repeat it?
No I haven't really heard it.
If the US forces stay, it won't be a secret.
So how can the agreement be a secret?
Please explain how tens of thousands of American troops can stay in Iraq secretly.
Are you referring to McCain?
Sounds like he has flopped from 2004ABC News’s Bret Hovell reports: Sen. John McCain responded late Tuesday to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s call for a drawdown in foreign troops from Iraq as a prerequisite for a security agreement with the United States.
McCain said he was not concerned about the call for a "timetable" for withdrawal, a concept McCain has consistently criticized.
"I know for a fact that will be dictated by the situation on the ground, as it always has been," McCain said Tuesday evening at a stop for dinner in Pittsburgh, Pa.
"Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable," he said..........
In 2004, McCain Admitted We'd Leave Iraq if the Iraqi's Wanted Us To
ABC NewsQuestion: “What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?”
McCain’s Answer: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
