THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
"As soon as possible, as far a we're concerned."

Iraq PM did not back Obama troop exit plan: government

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.

Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.

The German magazine said on Saturday that Maliki supported Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months. The interview was released on Saturday.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," Der Spiegel quoted Maliki as saying.

Dabbagh said statements by Maliki or any other member of the government should not be seen as support for any U.S. presidential candidate.

Obama is visiting Afghanistan and is set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.

Maliki's remarks were published a day after the White House said he and President George W. Bush had agreed that a security agreement currently being negotiated between them should include a "time horizon" for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Bush has long opposed setting a timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said the time horizon agreed by the two leaders was not as specific as a time frame pushed by Democrats and could be adjusted based on conditions on the ground.

Don't fall for the desperate spin from the Bush admin.

Quote:

Iraq official says US troops could leave by 2010

Iraqi government spokesman hopes for US combat troop withdrawal by 2010

Staff
AP News

Jul 21, 2008 08:26 EST

Iraq's government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010.

Ali al-Dabbagh made the comments following a meeting in Baghdad on Monday between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day.

The timeframe is similar to Obama's proposal to pull back combat troops within 16 months. The Iraqi government has been trying to clarify its position on a possible troop withdrawal since al-Maliki was quoted in a German magazine last week saying he supported Obama's timetable.

That's the same guy as in the supposed 'denial' rushed out by Centcom.

This is just about the worst possible news for McCain...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I wasn't aware that what I posted was "desperate spin from the Bush admin". For some reason, I thought it was news considering it was from a news source.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I wasn't aware that what I posted was "desperate spin from the Bush admin". For some reason, I thought it was news considering it was from a news source.

You have helped me out by interpreting intent of a post now and then McG. May I return the favor?

"Desperate spin from the Bush admin" is a euphemism for 'anything that discredits what the anti-American and/or anti-Iraq people wish to believe. There are many others, but I'm sure you get my drift.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I wasn't aware that what I posted was "desperate spin from the Bush admin". For some reason, I thought it was news considering it was from a news source.

You have helped me out by interpreting intent of a post now and then McG. May I return the favor?

"Desperate spin from the Bush admin" is a euphemism for 'anything that discredits what the anti-American and/or anti-Iraq people wish to believe. There are many others, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Nah; it means 'stuff arranged to be released by the Bush admin, and released by CentCom, not the Iraqi gov't clarifying anything on their own.'

Today the very same guy had a nice report about Obama and Maliki agreeing on withdrawal plans; you going to comment on that?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Obama isn't President and Maliki is a fool for discussing anything beyond plesantries with the jr. Senator from Ill.

If/when Obama is President, they can have those kinds of conversations. It's a long 6 months between now and then.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Obama isn't President and Maliki is a fool for discussing anything beyond plesantries with the jr. Senator from Ill.

If/when Obama is President, they can have those kinds of conversations. It's a long 6 months between now and then.

When argument is blown, retreat into insults and assertions. The fact is that Obama and Maliki DID meet and they DID discuss withdrawal plans. And why not? Maliki knows which way this thing is headed as well as the rest of us, McG.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

So, most Conservative blogs spent the weekend ignoring the Maliki news as much as possible; The Corner didn't mention it once. But, it's Monday, and they gotta say something, so there's been some movement on the story today.

And an interesting thing is, many Conservatives are beginning to show their true colors. Here's John Derbyshire, from the Corner:

Quote:

We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn't like that, he can go to hell.

07/21 02:14 PM

To a large segment of Conservatives, the Iraq war is about furthering US interests, and they could care less about what the Iraqis want. I think that there is a huge segment of the Republican party that believes exactly this. This situation is going to be murder for their electoral chances this Fall, as they are going to start doing what Johnny did here and slip up, admit that we are in this thing for the money(oil) and the military positioning, not any of that 'help the Iraqi people' bullshit that Bush spewed for years. And it's not going to go over very well with those who they have been lying to about wanting to help the Iraqis, either.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, I would certainly disagree with Mr. Derbyshire. Probably why I don't read blogs because they say such idiotic things.

I would say it is a very small segment of conservatives that think what you say. For you to say there is a "huge segment of the Republican party that believes exactly this." is pretty bogus.

I'd say far more Dems believe it then Reps. That is to say that there is a huge segment of Democrats that believe Republicans believe that the Iraq war was about furthering US interests and could care less about what the Iraqi's want.

Democrats aren't going to be voting for McCain, and Independents, at least the smart ones, will be waiting to see what the actual platforms are and how the debates pan out once the candidates are actually nominated.

0 Replies

Those who scour the mostly leftwing blogs looking for something to post do seem to come up with distorted or incorrect ideas about many things. The problem is that they keep posting the same wrong stuff over and over on all the blogs until they have convinced themselves that it must be true.

I can't speak for all Republicans or all Conservatives as each of us have our own point of view. But there are some things that I have concluded are true despite what opinions are expressed on the blogs:

1. All Republicans do not think alike. On some issues they can be pretty evenly split.

2. All Conservatives do not think alike. One some issues they can be pretty evenly split.

(Conclusion re Nos. 1 & 2: All issues are not identifiable as either Republian or Conservative or Democrat or Liberal.)

3. Republican and Conservative are not necessarily synonymous. Most people who register Republican however do so because the Republicans are generally more likely to represent Conservative values on more issues than are the Democrats.

4. Re Iraq you can find Republicans and Conservatives who support one or more of the following concepts:
--a. The mission is completed and the troops should come home now.
--b. A general timetable to begin withdrawal would be appropriate.
--c. A published timetable for withdrawal is not appropriate as it would provide valuable information to the enemy that is not in our or Iraq's best interest for them to have.
--d. No timetable is appropriate as it would deny our commanders sufficient flexibility to make whatever adjustments are necessary to meet goals.
--e. Established goals are to leave Iraq with ability to defend and sustain their fledgling democracy and to eliminate it as a component of the War on Terrorism as much as possible.
--f. The best possible outcome in Iraq is for the people to maintain a democratic government that provides a better quality of life for the people, including freedom and human rights, and for Iraq to be a good neighbor and positive influence in the world.
--g. A permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, subject to approval of the Iraqi government, would provide a strategic advantage for the U.S.
--h. It is not acceptable to give up any U.S. sovereignty in order to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq.

0 Replies

The Iraq government and the USA government have now agreed to the following:
(1) Their goal is to evolve from current conditions in Iraq to conditions where Iraq troops can protect the Iraqi people without the help of the USA;
(2) Their goal is to evolve to those conditions by December 31, 2010.

Frankly, I'm disappointed. I was hoping both were convinced they could evolve to those conditions by December 31, 2008. But at least, the Iraq government has now agreed to set rational conditions for USA combat troops to leave Iraq.

0 Replies

It is worth noting that the term withdrawal, let alone a full unconditional withdrawal that will satisfy most of the Iraqi people, has never been part of Obama's vocabulary

Obama has even pre-empted a possible line of attack from hawks by chillingly suggesting he would possibly invade Iraq again if necessary. His website states: "He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq." The word potential is worth pausing over; it is salutary to remember Bush and Blair occupied Iraq and caused the death of perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent people for "humanitarian" reasons.

Neither is Obama opposed to signing a military treaty with Iraq. He has two conditions to make Bush's current attempts to impose a pact acceptable: the pact should get Congressional approval, and renounce "permanent" military bases. However, leaked drafts of this colonialist-style pact do not mention the word "permanent" at all. And his "benchmarks" for continued support for the corrupt Iraqi politicians protected by US forces in Baghdad's Green Zone are strikingly similar to those of the Bush administration.

Tactical differences and issues of style aside, Obama's message on occupied Iraq is deeply troubling - not because it has U-turned but because it has been consistent. His 300 foreign policy advisers are making sure that he will not stray from protecting US imperialist interests, even if it does mean launching new wars and bolstering puppet regimes and corrupt dictatorships throughout the "greater Middle East".

· Sami Ramadani, a political exile from Saddam's regime, is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/22/barackobama.uselections20081

0 Replies

Oddly enough I agree with the above, Obama has stated more or less he is in favor of removal of most troops but leaving a residual of troops to protect our interest all along.

To be quite honest I have overlooked those details myself and just heard words like "withdrawal."

I read an article about having a base in Kurdistan near the Iranian border and Obama seemed to support the idea.

Quote:

The Iraqi government and head of northern Iraq's regional Kurdish administration, Massoud Barzani, along with the leadership of US forces in Iraq have started to suggest that American forces be permanently based in Kurdistan.

These ideas are welcomed by Democratic US Presidential candidate Barack Obama who believes the survival of US combat forces in Kurdistan does not pose any real danger to the lives of US troops and therefore it would be appropriate to redeploy US troops there in the future, added the sources.

Iraqi and US negotiations continued in Baghdad to conclude a memorandum of understanding to sign this agreement, which will allow the US military to stay permanently in Kurdistan, and Iraqi and US negotiators agreed to focus these negotiations on the issue of determining a timetable for the agreement.

source

I am not sure what to make of the whole thing and I don't know how the rest of the Iraqis feel about the idea; after all, the last I looked Kurdistan is part of Iraq and they would have something to say about it.

0 Replies

I know my memory isn't always reliable, but I had the impression from early on that Obama would not remove all (100%) of our troops from Iraq, but the vast majority of the 140,000 now there. That's what is important as far as I'm concerned.

0 Replies

0 Replies

What? They're just realizing this? Where have they been all these years? Bush didn't even let flag draped coffins released to the media from the very beginning of this war.

******************

4,000 U.S. Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images
By MICHAEL KAMBER and TIM ARANGO

Some journalists say the American military is making a growing effort to control graphic war images from Iraq.

0 Replies

Bush respects the sacrifice of our soldiers so much, he doesn't want the American people to know when they come home in a coffin.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bush respects the sacrifice of our soldiers so much, he doesn't want the American people to know when they come home in a coffin.

What kind of disturbed and sadistic mind would want to know when dead members of the military come home in a coffin? That's something that should be known only to the dead's family.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush respects the sacrifice of our soldiers so much, he doesn't want the American people to know when they come home in a coffin.

What kind of disturbed and sadistic mind would want to know when dead members of the military come home in a coffin? That's something that should be known only to the dead's family.

The disturbed and sadistic mind of a ican and Bush who refuse to let the American People live in the reality of this war is a new twist. Remember the Vietnam war? We saw all of the ugliness of it, and the American people were against it almost immediately. Bush didn't want that to happen to his illegal war, and knew when we saw too many coffins coming home from Iraq, the people will turn against this war. It only took a little longer without the facts about the cost of this war being shared with the American people, but the majority eventually realized it was too high a price to pay; now over 4,000 of our military men and women sacrificed. Most Americans want them to come home - alive.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush respects the sacrifice of our soldiers so much, he doesn't want the American people to know when they come home in a coffin.

What kind of disturbed and sadistic mind would want to know when dead members of the military come home in a coffin? That's something that should be known only to the dead's family.

The disturbed and sadistic mind of a ican and Bush who refuse to let the American People live in the reality of this war is a new twist. Remember the Vietnam war? We saw all of the ugliness of it, and the American people were against it almost immediately. Bush didn't want that to happen to his illegal war, and knew when we saw too many coffins coming home from Iraq, the people will turn against this war. It only took a little longer without the facts about the cost of this war being shared with the American people, but the majority eventually realized it was too high a price to pay; now over 4,000 of our military men and women sacrificed. Most Americans want them to come home - alive.

The Vietnam war cost the lives of over 50,000 of our military in about 4 years. The North Vietnamese found sanctuary in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese did not mass murder almost 3,000 American non-murderers.

The Iraq war has cost less than 5,000 lives of our military in more than 5 years. Al-Qaeda found sanctuary in Iraq. Al-Qaeda mass murdered almost 3,000 American non-murderers in less than a day.

It is legal and lawful to wage war against mass murderers of non-murders and thereby mass murder mass murderers and their accomplices.

It is a disturbed and sadistic mind that wants the coffins of dead military to be put on public display.

0 Replies

On the contrary, compare this with the publicity given to the victims of 9/11. (not all Americans btw, not by a long chalk) These things are managed for political ends, and c.i. is right, the homecoming coffins have been shielded from public gaze for political reasons.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know