THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Foxfyre wrote:

Our leaders do not want to leave prematurely, that is true. They want Iraq to have the best possible shot at maintaining a new, and therefore naturally shaky, democracy in the face of very evil people who would deny them that ability. I believe the Iraqi leadership wants what we want for them. Of course they want the prestige of being able to show that they can accomplish that without having the USA at their backs. They are also realistic enough to know what risks they will be taking should they ask us to leave too soon.

Shouldn't Iraq get to decide when we leave? What is 'prematurely?'

Your paragraph is exactly the kind of thing I thought I would see written by those who don't want the US to leave and abandon our 'interests' there.

Cycloptichorn

Prematurely means to declare defeat and leave Iraq to a certain fate of resuming its status as another poor despotic nation with the possibility of becoming as dangerous as before.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Our leaders do not want to leave prematurely, that is true. They want Iraq to have the best possible shot at maintaining a new, and therefore naturally shaky, democracy in the face of very evil people who would deny them that ability. I believe the Iraqi leadership wants what we want for them. Of course they want the prestige of being able to show that they can accomplish that without having the USA at their backs. They are also realistic enough to know what risks they will be taking should they ask us to leave too soon.

Shouldn't Iraq get to decide when we leave? What is 'prematurely?'

Your paragraph is exactly the kind of thing I thought I would see written by those who don't want the US to leave and abandon our 'interests' there.

Cycloptichorn

How do you conclude, other than from your own prejudice, that I don't want the US to leave. Did I say that? Have I EVER said that? If so please post the quote because I damn sure don't remember ever even thinking that, much less writing it.

Did I say that Iraq shouldn't get to decide when we leave? If so where did I say that? I can recall numerous times I have posted that they did have the right to decide that. I don't recall that I ever posted that they didn't.

Did I say that the USA shouldn't get to decide when to leave? If so where did I say that? I don't recall EVER addressing that particular issue anywhere though I have said numerous times that the USA is committed to leaving at such time as Iraq asks them to go.

Do I want Iraq to be a free, successful, prosperous country that is an excellent role model in a sea of despotic nations? Absolutely. Do I see that as a good thing for them, for the world, for us? Yes I do. Do I think it is worth taking the necessary steps to give Iraq the best chance to make that happen? Yes I do. Do I think that requires our never leaving or being there for a very long time? No I don't.

So your insinuations, mischaracterizations, and misstatements look pretty darn silly. As they are. Your questions are almost as silly. Prematurely means to declare defeat and leave Iraq to a certain fate of resuming its status as another poor despotic nation with the possibility of becoming as dangerous as before.

Do I think that requires our never leaving or being there for a very long time? No I don't.

Okay, great. So when the PM of Iraq says 'we want a firm date for leaving' and the US leader, Bush, says 'we reject putting a date on leaving,' how would you characterize the situation other then 'the Iraqis want us to have a date for leaving, and we don't want that?'

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okay, great. So when the PM of Iraq says 'we want a firm date for leaving' and the US leader, Bush, says 'we reject putting a date on leaving,' how would you characterize the situation other then 'the Iraqis want us to have a date for leaving, and we don't want that?'

Cycloptichorn

I would characterize it as Iraqi government leaders vying for re-election pandering to their groups by asking a question they already know the answer to. They know Bush will not give them a time table for US troop witdrawal. He has repeatedly stated such.

Obviously you want to characterize it as something else and that's fine for you. Just don't believe that your POV is the only one and is hardly the right one.

Quote:

Prematurely means to declare defeat and leave Iraq to a certain fate of resuming its status as another poor despotic nation with the possibility of becoming as dangerous as before.

Since Iraq wasn't dangerous at the time of invasion; any time we leave; we will leave Iraq more dangerous than it was before.

We had no problem of leaving Afghanistan before the job was done and now Afghanistan is in worse condition than it was before we invaded it.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okay, great. So when the PM of Iraq says 'we want a firm date for leaving' and the US leader, Bush, says 'we reject putting a date on leaving,' how would you characterize the situation other then 'the Iraqis want us to have a date for leaving, and we don't want that?'

Cycloptichorn

I would characterize it as Iraqi government leaders vying for re-election pandering to their groups by asking a question they already know the answer to. They know Bush will not give them a time table for US troop witdrawal. He has repeatedly stated such.

Obviously you want to characterize it as something else and that's fine for you. Just don't believe that your POV is the only one and is hardly the right one.

Interesting that you seem to be convinced that Maliki is lying on this issue, but also convinced that Bush isn't. Do you have any proof that Maliki isn't being honest? My guess is, not so much; but I read the same thing on a couple of right-wing blogs, so I'm not surprised to see you parroting that same crap around A2K.

Cycloptichorn

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okay, great. So when the PM of Iraq says 'we want a firm date for leaving' and the US leader, Bush, says 'we reject putting a date on leaving,' how would you characterize the situation other then 'the Iraqis want us to have a date for leaving, and we don't want that?'

Cycloptichorn

I would characterize it as Iraqi government leaders vying for re-election pandering to their groups by asking a question they already know the answer to. They know Bush will not give them a time table for US troop witdrawal. He has repeatedly stated such.

Obviously you want to characterize it as something else and that's fine for you. Just don't believe that your POV is the only one and is hardly the right one.

Interesting that you seem to be convinced that Maliki is lying on this issue, but also convinced that Bush isn't. Do you have any proof that Maliki isn't being honest? My guess is, not so much; but I read the same thing on a couple of right-wing blogs, so I'm not surprised to see you parroting that same crap around A2K.

Cycloptichorn

If the Iraq government wants a timetable for USA departure, it should establish its own timetable for when they want the USA military to leave Iraq. Its their country and they have the complete right and authority to decide the timetable by which the USA must leave Iraq. That is not the USA's decision to make.

However, if the USA government were to want to leave Iraq before the Iraq government timetable says to leave, that is the USA's decision to make.

What is the Iraq government's timetable for the USA to leave? Their failure to specify that timetable implies they don't really want us to leave for a while.

I hope I'm wrong!

ican711nm wrote:

If the Iraq government wants a timetable for USA departure, it should establish its own timetable for when they want the USA military to leave Iraq. Its their country and they have the complete right and authority to decide the timetable by which the USA must leave Iraq. That is not the USA's decision to make.

However, if the USA government were to want to leave Iraq before the Iraq government timetable says to leave, that is the USA's decision to make.

What is the Iraq government's timetable for the USA to leave? Their failure to specify that timetable implies they don't really want us to leave for a while.

I hope I'm wrong!

I rarely disagree with you on this kind of stuff Ican, so indulge me this once. I don't think President Bush should agree to Maliki's timetable either. He could certainly take one under advisement, but he should not agree to put our last remaining troops in Iraq at significantly higher risk by announcing that our presence there will become progressively weaker and here's the timetable for how it happens.

Actually none of us have a clue what President Bush and President Maliki discuss and/or negotiate in private or what the finer points of the game plan is. And in time of war, that is exactly how it should be.