THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

cicerone imposter wrote:

If a new president doesn't listen to the majority of the public's wishes on pulling out from Iraq, and the new president ignores it, I doubt the president will last very long as an effective one.

If they wish to match GW Bush's performance rating, they are free to make any choice. We'll have to wait and see.

Fortunately, the public doesn't get to make decisions of national security.

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

If a new president doesn't listen to the majority of the public's wishes on pulling out from Iraq, and the new president ignores it, I doubt the president will last very long as an effective one.

If they wish to match GW Bush's performance rating, they are free to make any choice. We'll have to wait and see.

Fortunately, the public doesn't get to make decisions of national security.

The occupation of Iraq is a question of national security? Who knew?

Only ignorant dolts refer to it as an "occupation".

It's a brilliant plan for ultimate victory, as strategized by our illustrious CIC, ain't you heard?

McTag wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

If a new president doesn't listen to the majority of the public's wishes on pulling out from Iraq, and the new president ignores it, I doubt the president will last very long as an effective one.

If they wish to match GW Bush's performance rating, they are free to make any choice. We'll have to wait and see.

Fortunately, the public doesn't get to make decisions of national security.

The occupation of Iraq is a question of national security? Who knew?

Only ignorant dolts refer to it as an "occupation".

It looks like victory is no longer the goal of this administration. The new word is containment.

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:

McTag wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

If a new president doesn't listen to the majority of the public's wishes on pulling out from Iraq, and the new president ignores it, I doubt the president will last very long as an effective one.

If they wish to match GW Bush's performance rating, they are free to make any choice. We'll have to wait and see.

Fortunately, the public doesn't get to make decisions of national security.

The occupation of Iraq is a question of national security? Who knew?

Only ignorant dolts refer to it as an "occupation".

This subject came up in the context of the leadership of Iraq saying that in 18 months they should be able to take over security of all Iraq. I raised a question as to what would happen if the Iraqis asked us to leave (completely) and we refused to leave. In that sense if we didn't leave after the leadership of Iraq asked us to leave, we would indeed be occupiers of Iraq.

revel wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

McTag wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

If a new president doesn't listen to the majority of the public's wishes on pulling out from Iraq, and the new president ignores it, I doubt the president will last very long as an effective one.

If they wish to match GW Bush's performance rating, they are free to make any choice. We'll have to wait and see.

Fortunately, the public doesn't get to make decisions of national security.

The occupation of Iraq is a question of national security? Who knew?

Only ignorant dolts refer to it as an "occupation".

This subject came up in the context of the leadership of Iraq saying that in 18 months they should be able to take over security of all Iraq. I raised a question as to what would happen if the Iraqis asked us to leave (completely) and we refused to leave. In that sense if we didn't leave after the leadership of Iraq asked us to leave, we would indeed be occupiers of Iraq.

And if invaders from mars came and obliterated all of our defenses, they too would be occupiers. Hypotheticals serve no purpose.

revel wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

McTag wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

If a new president doesn't listen to the majority of the public's wishes on pulling out from Iraq, and the new president ignores it, I doubt the president will last very long as an effective one.

If they wish to match GW Bush's performance rating, they are free to make any choice. We'll have to wait and see.

Fortunately, the public doesn't get to make decisions of national security.

The occupation of Iraq is a question of national security? Who knew?

Only ignorant dolts refer to it as an "occupation".

This subject came up in the context of the leadership of Iraq saying that in 18 months they should be able to take over security of all Iraq. I raised a question as to what would happen if the Iraqis asked us to leave (completely) and we refused to leave. In that sense if we didn't leave after the leadership of Iraq asked us to leave, we would indeed be occupiers of Iraq.

And if invaders from mars came and obliterated all of our defenses, they too would be occupiers. Hypotheticals serve no purpose.

McGentrix wrote:

McTag wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

If a new president doesn't listen to the majority of the public's wishes on pulling out from Iraq, and the new president ignores it, I doubt the president will last very long as an effective one.

If they wish to match GW Bush's performance rating, they are free to make any choice. We'll have to wait and see.

Fortunately, the public doesn't get to make decisions of national security.

The occupation of Iraq is a question of national security? Who knew?

Only ignorant dolts refer to it as an "occupation".

This subject came up in the context of the leadership of Iraq saying that in 18 months they should be able to take over security of all Iraq. I raised a question as to what would happen if the Iraqis asked us to leave (completely) and we refused to leave. In that sense if we didn't leave after the leadership of Iraq asked us to leave, we would indeed be occupiers of Iraq.

McGentrix wrote:

revel wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

McTag wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

If a new president doesn't listen to the majority of the public's wishes on pulling out from Iraq, and the new president ignores it, I doubt the president will last very long as an effective one.

If they wish to match GW Bush's performance rating, they are free to make any choice. We'll have to wait and see.

Fortunately, the public doesn't get to make decisions of national security.

The occupation of Iraq is a question of national security? Who knew?

Only ignorant dolts refer to it as an "occupation".

This subject came up in the context of the leadership of Iraq saying that in 18 months they should be able to take over security of all Iraq. I raised a question as to what would happen if the Iraqis asked us to leave (completely) and we refused to leave. In that sense if we didn't leave after the leadership of Iraq asked us to leave, we would indeed be occupiers of Iraq.

And if invaders from mars came and obliterated all of our defenses, they too would be occupiers. Hypotheticals serve no purpose.

It's not really as far fetched as Mars invading the earth for the Iraqi leadership to ask us to leave. Maliki did say that in 18 months they would be able to take over all security of Iraq. (Smart aleck answers don't substitute substance)

No, McG, the "real" catching point is that Bush got us involved in a illegal, unnecessary war without no end in sight. Comprende?

Complaints are not solutions, nor are they constructive.