ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:Hey Bush, why not tell your buddy Maliki:
Fail to establish by 8/31/2008 a uniform distribution of Iraq profits to the Iraqi people from Iraq crude oil, and we're outa here by 12/31/2008.
But, Bush doesn't want to leave. Surely you understand this?
Cycloptichorn
Bush has frequently declared the USA military will leave Iraq when the government of Iraq asks us to.
Is he stating what he truly believes or is he lying?
I don't have any evidence he's lying about that. Until I have such evidence I'll believe he is not lying.
On the otherhand you have provided a preponderance of evidence that either you do not know what you are talking about or you are a fraud.
Well, we'll have to wait and see.
But I am highly skeptical that the Right Wing of America, whose leadership sits in the WH, is looking to leave Iraq any time soon, whether they ask or not. After all, we have Interests to Protect, right?
Cycloptichorn
Wrong!
Now our interests are best protected by the Iraq government asking us to leave and our leaving.
MANY of your fellow Conservatives disagree with you strongly on this point. I suggest you explain to them that it doesn't matter if we leave after spending all that money to build the embassies, bases, and oil infrastructure.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:ican711nm wrote:Hey Bush, why not tell your buddy Maliki:
Fail to establish by 8/31/2008 a uniform distribution of Iraq profits to the Iraqi people from Iraq crude oil, and we're outa here by 12/31/2008.
But, Bush doesn't want to leave. Surely you understand this?
Cycloptichorn
Bush has frequently declared the USA military will leave Iraq when the government of Iraq asks us to.
Is he stating what he truly believes or is he lying?
I don't have any evidence he's lying about that. Until I have such evidence I'll believe he is not lying.
On the otherhand you have provided a preponderance of evidence that either you do not know what you are talking about or you are a fraud.
Well, we'll have to wait and see.
But I am highly skeptical that the Right Wing of America, whose leadership sits in the WH, is looking to leave Iraq any time soon, whether they ask or not. After all, we have Interests to Protect, right?
Cycloptichorn
Wrong!
Now our interests are best protected by the Iraq government asking us to leave and our leaving.
MANY of your fellow Conservatives disagree with you strongly on this point. I suggest you explain to them that it doesn't matter if we leave after spending all that money to build the embassies, bases, and oil infrastructure.
Cycloptichorn
Those that want us to stay regardless of what the Iraq government wants are not true conservatives. They are merely conservatives in name only (CINOs).
By the way truth is not governed by what most people in a group of people believe or say they believe.
If our government disagrees with the Iraqi government's assessment and demands, we'll work around them to continue our uninvited occupation of their country. It's the Bush doctrine as a superpower.
A question, Ican - why is it a failure and a sign of retreat for us to leave without them asking, but not one to leave if they ask? In real terms their armed forces and hold upon the country will be no different.
If the Iraqis are able to support themselves without our help, then we shouldn't wait for them to ask us to leave; if they are not, then why does it matter if they ask or not?
I think that CI is exactly right; that Bush et others will claim that the Iraqis are not ready to defend themselves, and therefore we shouldn't leave, and abandon the country to teh tewworists!
Cycloptichorn
No sense in waiting til the Iraqi government actually asks US forces to leave before deciding we won't, right? Might as well accuse Bush now and get it over with as you guys obviously know everything about what plans have been made, what deals have been struck and what the results will be.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/11/135110/836/169/550038
A tale of KBR, and just how little they cared for the cleanliness of the water that they were paid to produce; how difficult Halliburton makes it for their own employees to have health screens and tests done, after drinking the water; and how the DoJ is uninterested in prosecuting those who took billions of our tax dollars while providing our troops water heavy in waste products, heavy metals, and harmful viruses and bacteria.
Cycloptichorn
One of the conditions of the security deal the Iraqis are asking for is a specific date for a timetable for withdrawal of US forces. If Bush signs off on it; he will to honor it and so will the next president. The Iraqis have something the Bush administration wants which is this security deal and a deal with the oil, so they can hold hostage any agreements they want until their demands are met.
It's any wonder that Bush earned an MBA from Harvard; in business situations, one's word is their bond. If a businessman says something, others should be able to depend on what he says. If not, that is fraud.
Bush said "we'll leave when they ask us to leave," but now sets conditions beyond the meaning of his original statement. Oh, we'll leave when "we" think we're ready to leave.
cicerone imposter wrote:It's any wonder that Bush earned an MBA from Harvard; in business situations, one's word is their bond. If a businessman says something, others should be able to depend on what he says. If not, that is fraud.
Bush said "we'll leave when they ask us to leave," but now sets conditions beyond the meaning of his original statement. Oh, we'll leave when "we" think we're ready to leave.
No, his condition is exactly as it has been from the beginning:
"we'll leave when they ask us to leave".
Assuming the Iraqis want us to leave by a date certain without any conditions, they would have already specified that date. A report of such a specification would be all over the media if it were to be given. If Bush were to ignore such a request, I personally would be enraged and demand he be impeached and removed from office BEFORE January 20, 2009.
at least one and as many as 3 of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn or at least scheduled for withdrawal, the officials said.
Yet the new Iraqi effort runs a high risk of failure: The government is disorganized, fears of favoritism remain and the shadow of corruption haunts every step.
It seems the violence is being shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan while Bush talks about reducing our troops in Iraq and transferring them to Afghanistan - not to comply with Iraq's demands to make a time-table for the withdrawal of our troops, but to fight the increasing insurgency in Afghanistan. Keeping it open-ended has always been Bush's plan; that's the reason we're building permanent military bases and the largest embassy in Iraq.
***************
Police say 24 killed in Afghan suicide blast
By NOOR KHAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - A suicide bomber on a motorcycle blew himself up next to a police patrol in southern Afghanistan on Sunday killing 24 people, while a two-day battle sparked by an insurgent attack killed at least 40 militants, officials said.
The bomb attack on a police patrol at a busy intersection of the Deh Rawood district in the southern province of Uruzgan killed five police officers and 19 civilians, wounding more than 30 others, said Juma Gul Himat, the province's police chief. Most of those killed and wounded were shopkeepers and young boys selling goods in the street, he said.
Afghan civilians have suffered from a rash of bombings this month. About 55 civilians were killed in a massive bomb attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul Monday, while a government commission said this week that U.S. airstrikes killed 47 civilians in eastern Nangarhar province on July 6.
And that is what many have been saying all aolng, and you have denigrated them for that.
Others, including myself, have said that a reduction in US troops in Iraq, RIGHT NOW, will lead to more and deadlier attacks on the troops still there.
Now you are saying the same thing?
What changed?
mysteryman wrote:
And that is what many have been saying all aolng, and you have denigrated them for that.
Others, including myself, have said that a reduction in US troops in Iraq, RIGHT NOW, will lead to more and deadlier attacks on the troops still there.
Now you are saying the same thing?
What changed?
Are we making progress or not? What does that "progress" look like?
Are we going to remain in Iraq forever? If not, how long? When is success accomplished?
a study by canada's defence department has made it official : a convential war cannot be won in
AFGHANISTAN (see link)
of course , that's what canadian soldiers on the ground have said for years - but now it's OFFICIAL !
hbg