Want more of the same? Vote Obama!

[smockers83]

Since there was a thread about "McBush", I've decided to create a thread called Obush. Why? Because as Obama comes under more scrutiny due to his extensive media coverage, we're beginning to find the doublespeak, misconceptions, inexperience, and arrogance that Bush has as well. It seems to me, after watching CNN today, that CNN is starting to attack Obush.

I'll start and I can cover all of those points with one issue. Obama talked, for the first time with Gen P about Iraq. Gen P told him 16 months isn't going to work, yet Obush says 16 months. During Bush, we have seen calls for more supplies and more troops, yet he stood by his own policy until just recently with the surge. Today, Obush dismissed Gen P's opinion completely and said 16 months and that's it. He also dismisses the apparent success the surge is currently enjoying, saying even in hindsight that he wouldn't vote for it, only to vote for his own proposal. We don't have the benefit of hindsight of his own proposal. A little bit of inexperience, misconception, and arrogance.

On the same issue, sort of, Obush is reported of wanting to orchestrate his own surge in Afghanistan, which is also under the control of Gen P, in order to bring more security back to the country, while dismissing the successes of of the surge in Iraq and still wanting to vote against it. Doublespeak.

With these reports and his ongoing trip to the Middle East, I as an undecided, am leaning more and more towards McCain by the minute.

[rn79870]

I suppose I could call your guy McAnus, but that would be about as revelant as calling Obama a name.

The rest of your post shows that you don't understand the position of the candidates. McCain is the one being referred to as GW Jr.

If you want something to reconsider, look at this quote, It reflects on the 100 year issue in a different way, and yet, it adds yet another fact that McCain said - now it's up to a million years. 1,000,000 years in Iraq.

After the event ended, (referring to a town hall meeting) I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation. After McCain told Tiffany that he could see troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years, a reporter sitting next to me quipped, "There's the general election campaign ad." He meant the Democratic ad: John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years.....

Well, it was straight talk. And McCain's combativeness livened up a session during which he alternated between the old McCain (as in punchy, feisty, humorous) and the old McCain (as in just plain old).

Let’s assume that he is intelligent enough to mean what he says and let’s not guess what we think he meant. I think it’s pretty obvious, he wants to move in and never leave.

Here is another indication that McCain is just plain too old for the job. It's time to take his walker and head off to the Sunny Acres Retirement Home.

http://www.motherjones.com/moj....html

[OriginalWheelman]

I suppose I could call your guy McAnus, but that would be about as revelant as calling Obama a name.

The rest of your post shows that you don't understand the position of the candidates. McCain is the one being referred to as GW Jr.

If you want something to reconsider, look at this quote, It reflects on the 100 year issue in a different way, and yet, it adds yet another fact that McCain said - now it's up to a million years. 1,000,000 years in Iraq.

After the event ended, (referring to a town hall meeting) I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation. After McCain told Tiffany that he could see troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years, a reporter sitting next to me quipped, "There's the general election campaign ad." He meant the Democratic ad: John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years.....

Well, it was straight talk. And McCain's combativeness livened up a session during which he alternated between the old McCain (as in punchy, feisty, humorous) and the old McCain (as in just plain old).

Let’s assume that he is intelligent enough to mean what he says and let’s not guess what we think he meant. I think it’s pretty obvious, he wants to move in and never leave.

Here is another indication that McCain is just plain too old for the job. It's time to take his walker and head off to the Sunny Acres Retirement Home.

http://www.motherjones.com/moj....html

All I see McCain doing is trying to get people to focus on the important thing. We may never remove all our troops from Iraq. We have military bases in lots of countries, and we may end up with one there as well, with the Iraqis' permission. What is important is, ending the conflict and stopping the loss of life. McCain is not saying we will be over there fighting forever, he is saying we may not "totally leave". What is wrong with that?

[audtatious]

The plan has always been to have a base in Iraq. Thus, if we have a base and we are never asked to leave the base by the Iraqi Gov't then we could be there for an indefinite period. Based on what you posted he does state "nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object."

So, your war mongering point is moot. There is no intention on his nor Bush's part to keep an "occupying force" there. Based on Obama's statements he has the same intention.

We all knew Obama's position regardless of what Patreus has to say on the subject. He was all for having troops pulled out by March of this year regardless of whether it left Iraq in a shambles. When that was not going to work he changed to the 16 month stance. He is blindly unwavering on that stance and is wholly arrogant about it. He has been against the surge and refuses to admit that it is working. He knows what is best and has that "damn the torpedo's" attitude on it.

You people thought Bush was arrogant and had blinders on, Obama makes him look like a novice. Makes you wonder how his other proposed plans will be "so, health care is going to require xxx trillions to implement and will bust our economy, sure, implement it anyway because I know what is best for everyone".

Socialism at its finest, Barack Obama will save you all regardless of you needing saving or not. He says it is so, thus it must be done. Bow and kiss his ring.

[rn79870]

Wheelman, Matt - this brings us back to the issue of whether the US has a right to have troops in a country that specifically doesn't want us. al-Maliki and the Parliament have both indicated that they want the US out of Iraq, and out as soon as possible. That is the Iraq government speaking for the Iraq people - why are we so arrogant that we refuse to honor their sovereign right to control who stays within their own borders?

Let's try something new. Let's not spread our military so thin all over the world under the guise that communism is a real threat to our way of life. Maybe 30 years ago, but seriously, this is 2008 - let's stop thinking in 1950 terms. Take a good look at the declining opinion of America abroad, and see how much our "save the world with our military" philosophy plays in that problem.

[rn79870]

So, your war mongering point is moot. There is no intention on his nor Bush's part to keep an "occupying force" there. Based on Obama's statements he has the same intention.

What are you talking about? He (McCain) has clearly said he wants troops there indefinitely, he just doesn't want them "killed." I call a "base" an occuping force. You fumbled that one Matt.

We all knew Obama's position regardless of what Patreus has to say on the subject. He was all for having troops pulled out by March of this year regardless of whether it left Iraq in a shambles. When that was not going to work he changed to the 16 month stance. He is blindly unwavering on that stance and is wholly arrogant about it. He has been against the surge and refuses to admit that it is working. He knows what is best and has that "damn the torpedo's" attitude on it.

Obama simply wants to bring this stragetic disaster to an end. So do most of the American people. We want our troops home and we want it sooner than later.

I really love the "surge" is working argument. Iraqi people are still dying, but ironically, they don't count in any "win" formula do they? Yep, we saved 'em good.

You people thought Bush was arrogant and had blinders on, Obama makes him look like a novice. Makes you wonder how his other proposed plans will be "so, health care is going to require xxx trillions to implement and will bust our economy, sure, implement it anyway because I know what is best for everyone".

Yes, Obama isn't perfect. He isn't the answer except in relation to what the other option is. He is merely the best choice, not the perfect choice.

If you want to run Matt, I might change my support to you as long as you agree that US troops in the middle-east is part of the problem, not the solution.

Socialism at its finest, Barack Obama will save you all regardless of you needing saving or not. He says it is so, thus it must be done. Bow and kiss his ring.

Damn, that sounds much much like McCain's foreign policy. And what a silly idea, use taxpayer money for the benefit of America and Americans. What is Obama thinking. We should spend trillions on a war that really benefits no one except the guy making bullets and bombs.

[audtatious]

No, this has to do with you constantly perpetrating the "war monger" stance. Nobody has EVER stated we would stay in Iraq regardless of what their Gov't wants. Even your highness Obama says we would have troops in Iraq after his "pullout" so if you want to lump Bush and McCain as being in the war monger boat then you may as well toss an oar to Obama because his plans in that aspect is the same.

So, Iraq Gov says they like the idea of Obama's 16 month plan. Where is their timetable to us for pullout? Why have they not stepped up and given a timetable? Because they know better. They know that putting "in stone" withdrawal plans will bite them in the butt. They have even stated that any withdrawal of US troops is based upon what is happening on the ground. That is the same thing that Bush, Mac and Patreus are saying. Obama does not care and is letting his ego run his mouth. Patreus is highly thought of by the Iraq Gov't and people because he has been able to get things back where there is an end in sight. You think they would listen to his opinion or Obama? You think they (Iraqi people) will appreciate us more if Obama comes in and pulls all the troops out regardless of the well being for Iraq, which was his plan last year? Hell no. Based on your thoughts, that would give them more reason to hate us and that is simply not acceptible in your book. Why do you support going against your beliefs simply because Obama is doing it?

[rn79870]

I guessed you missed the post I made yesterday where al-Maliki endorced Obama's Iraq plan. That kind of changes things a little doesn't it?

[audtatious]

What are you talking about? He (McCain) has clearly said he wants troops there indefinitely, he just doesn't want them "killed." I call a "base" an occuping force. You fumbled that one Matt.

I have not fumbled anything. Go to YouTube and listen to what McCain said. Hell, look at what you posted. They will be there if the Iraqi Gov says so. Obama plans to have a force over there as well so you are barking up the wrong tree.

Obama simply wants to bring this stragetic disaster to an end. So do most of the American people. We want our troops home and we want it sooner than later.

Obama want's the recognition. He could care less what happens afterward. As far as "so do most of the American people", I'd answer yes to pull the troops back home too. Now, ask the same question and add "at whatever cost to the Iraqi people" and you will have a completely different percentage. We all want the troops home but not at the cost of Iraq civil war or Iran coming over and taking over the Govt.

I really love the "surge" is working argument. Iraqi people are still dying, but ironically, they don't count in any "win" formula do they? Yep, we saved 'em good.

Damn Bob, you are so blind it's really pathetic.

Yes, Obama isn't perfect. He isn't the answer except in relation to what the other option is. He is merely the best choice, not the perfect choice.

You forgot "in my opinion". But then again, you have no issue with using your opinion as the direction everyone should follow, just like Obama does. You are not wrong and after everyone gets used to playing by your rules everyone will be better off, right?

If you want to run Matt, I might change my support to you as long as you agree that US troops in the middle-east is part of the problem, not the solution.

I think a sniper squad that will go around and take out the nut jobs would be more appropriate than troops on the ground. "Boom, head shot". Of course, then you have to trust the Gov't that pulls their strings.

Damn, that sounds much much like McCain's foreign policy. And what a silly idea, use taxpayer money for the benefit of America and Americans. What is Obama thinking. We should spend trillions on a war that really benefits no one except the guy making bullets and bombs.

[/QUOTE]

[audtatious]

I guessed you missed the post I made yesterday where al-Maliki endorced Obama's Iraq plan. That kind of changes things a little doesn't it?

Obama does not have a plan. He has a overview with a deadline that has no leniency.

I saw what Maliki said. He also quantified it as being based on what is happening on the ground. Hell, with the way things are progressing I would have assumed the majority of troops would have been out within 2 years anyway, even with Bush in office as Patreus would be setting troop withdrawal up based on what is happening. But, since Obama has changed his stance of pulling troops out in March regardless of what is happening on the ground to pulling troops out over a 16 month period then only Obama has a clue and we all need to hail his insight as. What a crock of crap. Talk about political footmanship

[rn79870]

I have not fumbled anything. Go to YouTube and listen to what McCain said. Hell, look at what you posted. They will be there if the Iraqi Gov says so. Obama plans to have a force over there as well so you are barking up the wrong tree.

You missed McCain's attempt to clearify what he meant - this happened at the same meeting..

After the event ended, (referring to a town hall meeting) I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

Yes McC, the government in Baghdad does object.

Obama want's the recognition. He could care less what happens afterward. As far as "so do most of the American people", I'd answer yes to pull the troops back home too. Now, ask the same question and add "at whatever cost to the Iraqi people" and you will have a completely different percentage. We all want the troops home but not at the cost of Iraq civil war or Iran coming over and taking over the Govt.

Let's not forget that this region of the world has been in colflict for what, 1400 years... We're not even addressing the underlying issues of their strife, so let's not put the halo back on America, we're part of the problem, not necessarily the solution.

Damn Bob, you are so blind it's really pathetic.

Why, becasue I see things the way more and more Americans are seeing things? Or becasue I'm willing to look throught the BS that the GW administration has flooded us with and see what the issues really are?

You forgot "in my opinion". But then again, you have no issue with using your opinion as the direction everyone should follow, just like Obama does. You are not wrong and after everyone gets used to playing by your rules everyone will be better off, right?

Actually, Matt, this may come as a surprise to you but I'm not alone in this. I've spend hours on the internet reading and trying to understand why we're in this mess. There are untold people who believe as I do. Sorry, but I can't take credit for being all that original here.

If, in November, the majority of people feel as I do and elect Obama (the current polls show he has an 8% lead) then I will feel justified in my beliefs. On the other hand, if he pulls the lever too far left, then next time (2012) I'll be behind the candidate trying to get us back to the center of the road.

I'd run, but if I won, you'd all be driving CARB approved cars and I know how you feel about that.

I think a sniper squad that will go around and take out the nut jobs would be more appropriate than troops on the ground. "Boom, head shot". Of course, then you have to trust the Gov't that pulls their strings.

And once again, we agree...

[skylndrftr]

This thread reems to ignore the basis of American politics:

Its impossible to move very far from the status quo and win the election. the actual policies that will be put in place will likely end up beign far different and based on wahts actually happening. Remember that the current administration has classified more information than every other president combined (think about that for a minute). So at best the candidates are able to say is for slight change from current policy. Big change has been conditioned to scare Americans. The question is who will move the country away from Bush in the right direction, and that choice is pretty clear.

[WDRacing]

I would love to have a real discussion about this because I have a lot of personal issues with it. However...I'm not going to partake.

Bob, you don't discuss anything. There is no two way conversation...ever. There is the topic, then there is the you taking the conversation away from the issue...at least if it's about Obama. We have a right to discuss the issues of a future leader. Just because it makes references to Obama in a negative light does not give you the right to turn this thread into yet another abortion.

Obama is not perfect, he has flaws. Like anything else they should be discussed. Just because we're discussing Obama's flaws does not mean we need to discuss why McCain is old, or why YOU think he's just another Bush.

Discussion requires two way communication. This is the Politics forum where we all gather to discuss the topic of the thread. It is NOT the Politics Debate forum where everything needs to be argued about as it has yielded utter crap in almost every other thread where McCain and Obama are concerned.

For once I'd like to discuss something that stays on topic. This just happens to be about Obama and his stance on the war...so why is it you can't simply discuss that? Why is it that you have to dissemble and spin any thread about Obama into an attack on McCain.

As a Moderator for this forum you really need to be more bi-partisan and open to ALL discussion.

I'm more then happy to discuss McCain's various faulty stances...just not now...not in this thread. More then one member has expressed concern now and I'm starting to understand their point.

EDIT

The title of this thread sucks and breeds arguing. I'm for changing it to reflect Obama...not Obush. And we should further try to keep the titles and what not a tad bit less argumentative in nature. Perhaps then we can have a discussion. I only say this because I know I am indeed as guilty as the next guy and it hasn't gotten me anywhere either.

[audtatious]

You missed McCain's attempt to clearify what he meant - this happened at the same meeting..

After the event ended, (referring to a town hall meeting) I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

Yes McC, the government in Baghdad does object.

"Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush."

As I have repeated over and over. It's based upon what is happening on the ground. Nobody is saying we don't pull troops out.

From your quote:U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

Means we have bases but are not fighting. Nothing new there as we have bases all over the world. "Baghdad does not object" means they want us there. And again, you keep ignoring the fact that Obama plans on having US troops "on the ground" in a non-combat basis as well. As normal, jump on McCain for his stance and ignore or bow to Obama for having a similar stance. Hypocritical

Let's not forget that this region of the world has been in colflict for what, 1400 years... We're not even addressing the underlying issues of their strife, so let's not put the halo back on America, we're part of the problem, not necessarily the solution.

Because we all should be ashamed of the US. I know this Bob. I just can't bring myself to put the blame of 1400 years of conflict on our shoulders like you and other seem to be willing to do. Their underlying issues with their strife should be handled by their Gov't and not ours. Saddam sure didn't give a damn. Hopefully their new gov't and those Iraqi voters they showed on TV with purple fingers from voting will help them move onto higher ground and resolve their problems.

Why, becasue I see things the way more and more Americans are seeing things? Or becasue I'm willing to look throught the BS that the GW administration has flooded us with and see what the issues really are?

It's Bush. Everything was rosy until he came to office in 2001. The fat bastid.

Actually, Matt, this may come as a surprise to you but I'm not alone in this. I've spend hours on the internet reading and trying to understand why we're in this mess. There are untold people who believe as I do. Sorry, but I can't take credit for being all that original here.

I know you are not alone and not original in it. Realize that I have not been a steadfast Bush supporter either and I place blame in more than just one location for issues we are having.

[rn79870]

"Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush."

As I have repeated over and over. It's based upon what is happening on the ground. Nobody is saying we don't pull troops out.

Again, building bases there isn't pulling out.

From your quote:U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

Means we have bases but are not fighting. Nothing new there as we have bases all over the world. "Baghdad does not object" means they want us there. And again, you keep ignoring the fact that Obama plans on having US troops "on the ground" in a non-combat basis as well. As normal, jump on McCain for his stance and ignore or bow to Obama for having a similar stance. Hypocritical

But Baghdad has objected, clearly and concisely with their "we want US troops out" statement.

Because we all should be ashamed of the US. I know this Bob. I just can't bring myself to put the blame of 1400 years of conflict on our shoulders like you and other seem to be willing to do. Their underlying issues with their strife should be handled by their Gov't and not ours. Saddam sure didn't give a damn. Hopefully their new gov't and those Iraqi voters they showed on TV with purple fingers from voting will help them move onto higher ground and resolve their problems.

My suggestion is that the solution might just be in acquiring an understanding of the people, their problems and their conflict. That will probably do more to bring peace than 1 dozen more tanks will.

It's Bush. Everything was rosy until he came to office in 2001. The fat bastid.

That was the residual Clinton period. True Bush was dealt a poor hand, but it's also true that he misplayed it.

I know you are not alone and not original in it. Realize that I have not been a steadfast Bush supporter either and I place blame in more than just one location for issues we are having.

I know Matt, you hit the ball to both fields equally well. You've got a little more than 3 months to see how this all sorts out, but in November, you're going yo have to make a mark next to one of the candidates names. I doubt that after all we've gone through here, all of us will hesitate for a moment to make sure we know what we are really doing. It is really a big choice we're making, choose wisely.

[audtatious]

Again, building bases there isn't pulling out.

There has never been a statement from the Iraqi Gov that we would not have a base there. The pullout concerns active combat troops. Call the ball on Obama if you are going to do it because his intent is the same.

We can argue symantics all day long and I'm tired of it. I'd rather spend my time working on NICO projects than aguing the same points over and over again. It's time for me to take my lieing un-trustworthy comments with me and go away.

[rn79870]

I would love to have a real discussion about this because I have a lot of personal issues with it. However...I'm not going to partake.

Bob, you don't discuss anything. There is no two way conversation...ever. There is the topic, then there is the you taking the conversation away from the issue...at least if it's about Obama. We have a right to discuss the issues of a future leader. Just because it makes references to Obama in a negative light does not give you the right to turn this thread into yet another abortion.

Brian, I'm glad you're back. Feel free to discuss for a while now, I've got to go.But please, don't criticize those who don't agree and are willing to support that belief. Would you rather have a thread full of +1 and me too comments? What fun would that be.

[WDRacing]

You can agree and or disagree with the topic...you don't have to involve McCain at all...anywhere. We're simply trying to talk about Obama and his stance on Iraq. How McCain feels or stands doesn't matter. We're deciding who to vote for, just discussing things about THIS particular candidate.

[smockers83]

Why change it? There was a McCain thread titled just the same way. Its not my fault Bob got sand in his box because Obama is beginning to look like an actual politician. I admit its provocative, but so was the McCain thread, so are quite a few things being discussed as of late.

For the sake of argument, lets define what an occupying force is, thereby requiring the territory being occupied, by international law:

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

If we're going to get all hissy about staying in Iraq with a base and not as an occupying force, lets get all hissy about staying in Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc. The Korean border is probably the 3rd most militarized zone in the world right now, and has been that way since the war there ended. McCain wants to stay there because he's old? So what does that make of every president since WWII--are they old too?

Bob, the Iraqi people want us out as an occupying force. They also want us to stay to help them out, but not as an occupying force. There is clear evidence of that and the only way to do that is to keep a small force at a base in Iraq. When the time comes and the government doesn't want that even, fine, but they can still agree to that with a treaty. al-Maliki, as stated before, agrees with 16 months given that conditions on the ground are going as they are now and continue to do so. And I can quote Obama even saying that tribal leaders and local governments are concerned about us leaving to quickly.

[rn79870]

Upon reflection, Brian is right, the slam on Obama's name does breed argumentive responses. I've changed it.

Smocky, If you would like to point out the other thread where McCain's name was used in an equally argumentive way, I'll be happy to change it too.

In the future, all slamming of a candidates name will be edited, whether it is Obama or McCain, or their running mates.

Let's all knock off the name calling. Me included.

[rn79870]

Bob, the Iraqi people want us out as an occupying force. They also want us to stay to help them out, but not as an occupying force.

You almost agreed with me, but you sort of blew it. If we station troops in Iraq after they ask us to leave, we are an occupying force.

There is clear evidence of that and the only way to do that is to keep a small force at a base in Iraq.

Two things strike me as funny. First of all, you missed the "occupying force" argument you presented above. Second is that al-Mikili and their Parliament want us "completely" out asap.

When the time comes and the government doesn't want that even, fine, but they can still agree to that with a treaty.

Sure, they want us complete out and you want a treaty to allow us to have a base there. Unnecessary, unfair and unreasonable.

al-Maliki, as stated before, agrees with 16 months given that conditions on the ground are going as they are now and continue to do so.

Don't forget to add the part where he said he wanted us OUT.

And I can quote Obama even saying that tribal leaders and local governments are concerned about us leaving to quickly.

Perhaps that's why there is a 16 month plan, not a 16 day plan.

[smockers83]

I think it used to be this one, but its already been changed.zerothread/349948

By definition, if we have a base there it is not an occupying force of the country. But if were do have a base there like we do pretty much everywhere else, it would be with a treaty.

No, they don't want us out ASAP, al Maliki wants us out given that conditions now continue and improve.

You took me out of context on the treaty. I didn't say I wanted the treaty, if they want a treaty. Also, I apparently can't reiterate it enough for you that there is evidence that they don't want us out completely.

Yes he wants us OUT conditionally as well, just like the majority of the Iraqi people, as I just said above and before.

[heliochrome85]

you have to realize that iraq is 3 seperate countries tied together by the coalition forces. for us to pull out completely would be to throw gasoline on a fire. trust me. WE. DONT. WANT. the kurds are already making their own gas and oil deals, seperate, and without the consent of, the al-maliki govt. the oil fields in the south are in the heart of Shiite territory and therefore are as secure as an african inflation rate. for those reasons, its in everyones' not just the US's, best interests that a force remain, regardless of how difficult it may be.

NOW, on the othe rhand, if you look at statements made by members of alqaeda and other fringe organizations, they lay their legitimacy for war on the fact that the US has bases in Saudi Arabia and turkey, both islamic and soverign nations. Any additional bases in the region would only add fuel to the fire of terrorism as well. so the situation is one of the lesser of two evils. you decide, you are going to lose either way.

[rn79870]

Would UN troops, with worldwide support defuse the situation in that area (vs. US troops?)

[smockers83]

I think I need to take a break from this area of NICO for awhile. Don't worry, I'll be back, just taking some needed PTO.

[heliochrome85]

UN would be better than US, but the UN has become impotent. In any case, its a situation for statesmen, of which i am not one.

[heliochrome85]

ive read a couple threads, you need it. i understand the points you are trying to make. i actually agree with a couple. dont be off for too long!

[Zjay626]

OBAMA!!!

[WDRacing]

OBAMA!!!

I suggest a hot bath in a tub full of razors

[AZhitman]

Finally, Tariq shows up and graces us with some rational thought... from someone who COMPREHENDS Middle Eastern conflicts (both political and religious factions)...