9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 12:52 pm
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
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 02:57 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 06:30 am
Quote:
In September 2007, 17 Iraqis died as a result of unjustified and unprovoked shooting at the Nisour Square. Personnel of Blackwater Worldwide, a private agency contracted by the U.S. to operate in Iraq, were involved in the shooting. A week later the Iraqi Government revoked the license of Blackwater to operate in the country. In the last week of September, Blackwater received a contract worth up to $92 million from the U.S. State Department. In April 2008 the assignment to provide personal protection for diplomats in Iraq by Blackwater has been renewed for the third year. The FBI is still investigating the killings at Nisour Square; more than 30 witnesses have been questioned and three Iraqis have testified before the Federal Grand Jury in May 2008. Neither the lives of the ordinary Iraqis nor the decisions of the Iraqi Government were taken into consideration while renewing the contracts for Blackwater.

"This is bad news," Sami al-Askari, advisory to Prime Minister Maliki said, "I personally am not happy with this, especially because they have committed acts of aggression, killed Iraqis, and this has not been resolved yet positively for families of victims." The neglect of such crucial Iraqi concerns by the U.S. has in fact prompted the demand for withdrawing foreign troops from Iraqi soil.

The Nisour Square killing is not an isolated incident. In February 2007 a Blackwater sniper shot three Iraqi guards, without provocation, ironically from the terrace of the Iraqi Justice Ministry. In October 2007 a Blackwater personnel was so heavily drunk that he killed the bodyguard of the Iraqi Vice-President. In the same month an Iraqi civilian was shot for simply driving too close to the State Department convoy.

The Iraqi Government has come to realize that the U.S. is attempting to run the Iraqi state through private contractors who cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds. The Report from the American Congressional Research Service in July 2007 clearly indicated that the Iraqi government has no authority over private security firms contracted by the U.S. Government. A shocking incident in the Green Zone in 2006 has demonstrated that the Blackwater personnel have gained greater impunity than the regular U.S. armed forces. A SUV driven by Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee. The Blackwater guards disarmed the army soldiers and forced them to lie on the ground at gunpoint until the vehicle was recovered.

The Nisour Square killing is not an isolated incident. In February 2007 a Blackwater sniper shot three Iraqi guards, without provocation, ironically from the terrace of the Iraqi Justice Ministry. In October 2007 a Blackwater personnel was so heavily drunk that he killed the bodyguard of the Iraqi Vice-President. In the same month an Iraqi civilian was shot for simply driving too close to the State Department convoy.

The Iraqi Government has come to realize that the U.S. is attempting to run the Iraqi state through private contractors who cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds. The Report from the American Congressional Research Service in July 2007 clearly indicated that the Iraqi government has no authority over private security firms contracted by the U.S. Government. A shocking incident in the Green Zone in 2006 has demonstrated that the Blackwater personnel have gained greater impunity than the regular U.S. armed forces. A SUV driven by Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee. The Blackwater guards disarmed the army soldiers and forced them to lie on the ground at gunpoint until the vehicle was recovered.


links at the source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 09:43 am
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.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 12:30 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
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.

Malarkey!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 12:34 pm
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
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:04 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:06 pm
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
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 02:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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 IG (i.e., Iraq government) asks us to leave that means they think they are able to protect their nation without our help. I don't want us to leave until the IG thinks that.

I think that "in real terms their armed forces and hold upon the country" will be better able to defend their country by the time they ask us to leave than they are now. The IG is more likely to ask us to leave when they, not us, are convinced that "in real terms their armed forces and hold upon the country" will be better than it was before they asked us to leave.


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?

The Iraqis will be more likely "able to support themselves without our help," when they think they are "are able to support themselves without our help,"

The IG is more competent to make that decision than we are, especially now that it is clear they are in a hurry to get to the point when they can safely send the USA home.



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!

I think CI is exactly wrong "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."

Those that think otherwise are paranoid about Bush etc.. I think these paranoids are desperate to prove Bush is no damn good and did not believe he invaded Iraq for any of the reasons he originally gave. Bush made lots of serious mistakes, but one mistake he won't make is staying in Iraq more than the time it takes to pack and leave after the USA is asked to leave.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 07:25 am
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.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 09:53 am
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.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 02:19 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 05:55 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jul, 2008 09:39 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 09:57 am
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.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 01:48 pm
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 02:59 pm
cicerone imposter 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?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 03:19 pm
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter 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?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 05:31 pm
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
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:13 am
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/08/07/14/10228687.html

Quote:
Baghdad: US and Iraqi negotiators have ended efforts to reach a formal security pact before President George W. Bush leaves office in favour of an interim deal, the Washington Post said on Sunday, citing senior US officials.

The two sides had been negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement that would provide a legal basis for US troops to remain when a UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

But in the past week Iraqi leaders have spoken of only agreeing what they call a memorandum of understanding. Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has also raised for the first time the idea of setting a timetable for US troops to leave Iraq.

The Washington Post quoted one US official close to the negotiations as saying "we are talking about dates", even though Bush has previously rebuffed calls for a timetable.

Withdrawal timetable

Iraqi Vice-President Tareq Al Hashemi, a Sunni Arab, added his support for a withdrawal timetable.

"Iraqis must know when the American and other forces will leave Iraqi land. It is our right to know, and know the truth of where the situation stands, if there is an intention for American forces to leave or not," Al Hashemi told Iraqiya state television in an interview broadcast late on Saturday.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/02/2024 at 12:25:09