9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 04:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From what I understand "supporting role" means that the US military won't making the decisions of where and when to carry operations but some will be there to help the Iraqis to carry out their missions if asked.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 05:28 pm
@revelette,
That may all be true, but did you hear what General Odierno said lately: he said "combat troops unlikely to return to Iraq." The door is still open, as far as I can see that situation.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 07:01 am
@cicerone imposter,
I will take your word on what Odierno said, however if you remember back in 2008 a security agreement was reached between the US and Iraq in which the terms of the US withdrawal was laid out subject to negotiations. Iraq is not going to negotiate the timeline.

Iraq will stand by U.S. troop withdrawal deadline
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 10:38 am
@revelette,
"...subject to negotiations"....tells me the door is still open.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2010 01:43 am

Nelson Mandels spoke out against the invasion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/12/nelson-mandela-tony-blair-peter-hain-iraq-invasion

A wise and honest man.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Sep, 2010 11:03 am
@McTag,
McT, Good link to Mandela's anger when Blair agreed to invade Iraq with the US.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 05:22 pm
I thought Obama declared U.S. military combat role in Iraq was over? Are libs going to make fun of Obama like they did of Bush when he made that pronouncement on the aircraft carrier "Mission Accomplished" ? Anyone with any sense knew that further missions in Iraq still needed to be taken care of. So, Bush was accurate, the initial mission was accomplished, but Obama's statement is turning out to be clearly inaccurate.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiqGwD9I8J2E80

"Firefight involving US-Iraq forces leaves 6 dead
By REBECCA SANTANA (AP) – 1 day ago

BAGHDAD — For the second time in less than a week, U.S. forces were drawn into deadly fighting against insurgents — a reminder of the ongoing dangers American forces face well after President Barack Obama declared a formal end to combat."

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 05:35 pm
@okie,
okie, That's old news. Besides, I've already said that the "no combat role" was a fraud. This was some weeks ago. Where have you been?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2010 10:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You said it, but you arent the President.
Obama did say that "combat operations" were at an end in Iraq.

So, if Bush was wrong for saying "mission accomplished" and was soundly criticized and attacked for it, shouldnt Obama also be attacked and criticized for saying that combat operations were over?

After all, if they were, not 1 American would die, or be wounded in Iraq from gunshot wounds or from any other type of hostile action. Nor would they even be shot at, because they arent in combat of any type.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 07:23 am
@mysteryman,
Because he didn't just say combat mission over, he explained the transitional role which includes supporting Iraqi troops and supporting our civilians. He explained how ending the combat mission does not mean an end to violence. We really don't have a choice but to get out according to the security agreement and he explained how in the end of the year we will.

Quote:
Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces, supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians -- diplomats, aid workers, and advisors -- are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. That’s a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq -- one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.



transcript
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 11:45 am
@revelette,
This is what Obama said:
Quote:
Obama says U.S. role in Iraq combat over

President turns emphasis of war address to dire state of economy

By Ben Feller
Associated Press

Published on Wednesday, Sep 01, 2010


I sneered at this statement.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 07:30 am
@cicerone imposter,
I am aware of his statement CI, he also said that violence will not end and they are still around to help at least for the next year and that after that diplomats and other civilians will be around to help.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 09:52 am
@revelette,
The real problem is his emphasis that "combat role was over." Saying violence will continue is a no-brainer.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 10:51 am
@cicerone imposter,
CI, we have been over this issue quite enough times to know that we will not agree. Suffice it to say that I believe Obama when he explained the transitional role our military will have in Iraq changing from one of a combat mission where we are in control to one more of a advise and train and support Iraqi troops. Therefore, I think Obama use of the term "combat mission over" appropriate in this case.

Before (and after bush said combat mission over) we were in control of when to attack and military missions, now Iraqis are with our support and that is difference. (If i understand it right)
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 07:07 pm
Poor Barack! He can't win for losing!
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 09:06 pm
@plainoldme,
He told us during the campaign that the war in Iraq was only a diversion from the important war in Afghanistan, and that it was a waste of time. How come he doesn't just pull all the troops out now so they can quit wasting their time?
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 05:41 am
@okie,
He also said during the campaign that we shouldn't pull out of Iraq as recklessly as we got into Iraq.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 11:16 am
@revelette,
As a matter of fact, he also said that he would get advise from the generals running that war before making a decision.

okie's myopia shows up again! His 100% negative viewpoint will never improve.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 12:19 pm
Quote:

Monday, August 30th, "8/28 Changes Hearts and Minds".

http://www.centex912project.com/index.php/component/content/article/4-website/143-admin

Saturday, August 28, 2010, my husband, two daughters, and I attended the Restoring Honor rally in Washington D.C. It was a wonderful experience for us all. The crowd was huge (500,000 + people), very peaceful, and individuals were kind and patient. You might think that the important part of the weekend was the three and a half hours (or more) that we spent together during the rally. When I was sitting under the bright hot sun with my friends from Texas, I thought so too. But I was wrong…

During our first leg of our trip from D.C. to Chicago, our two daughters, ages 22 and 16, sat next to an African-American gentleman wearing an Obama inauguration t-shirt. After take-off he mentioned to them that he had travelled to D.C. to attend Al Sharpton's Reclaim the Dream rally. Our older daughter told him that they were in D.C. for the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor rally, and the conversation took off from there.

The gentlemen told my daughters that he went to the Restoring Honor rally with several friends because Al Sharpton told them that we were holding a negative protest that was against MLK’s message and against those who had gathered for Rev. Sharpton’s rally. He said that when he and his friends arrived that they didn't see anything that they expected so they stayed a bit to listen. They realized that Restoring Honor was not anything like what Rev. Sharpton told them to expect. They then went back to the Sharpton rally to try to tell several people that what Rev. Sharpton was saying about our rally was not true. He saw that our rally was not a political or hateful rally, and that it was not meant to divide Americans. He tried to get a message to Rev. Sharpton prior to his speech, but either he didn’t get the message or he ignored the message. Rev. Sharpton went forward with his original speech as planned.

This kind gentleman then told my daughter some things that amazed us. He told them multiple times that he was a Democrat and that the tides had turned since MLK’s day and that the civil rights movement had not changed with it. He asked the girls to watch Al Sharpton on CNN. He thought that Sharpton looked ridiculous on CNN because it was the perfect opportunity to say that he was sorry for his criticism of the Restoring Honor rally. Then they discussed the media. He and the girls agreed that the lack of truth in the media and the lack of individuals’ willingness to do their own research would be our country’s downfall. He followed up by saying that Glenn was something special and possibly the modern day MLK. He said that from now on when Glenn spoke he would take the time to listen, and that Glenn or someone like Glenn would be the next great President. The girls told him that they felt sure that Glenn would never run.

The girls asked the fellow if he would come to the rally if we had another one. He said maybe, it depended on what was going on in his life. He said that he would be with us in spirit for sure. During the last few days I talked with folks and I came to understand two things.

First, the event wasn’t for or about 9-12ers, Tea Partiers, or those of us who have become politically active during the last year and a half. It was for ALL of America -- every single person that we hope will be inspired to put God, integrity and honor first in their lives. It was for the majority of Americans who may even be watching from the sidelines, but who believe that the priorities of Faith, Hope (Trust), and Charity.

Second, there is REAL hope that Americans of all ethnicities and faiths can peacefully unite around our common desire for truth in our lives and in our country. We cannot give up and we must continue to build relationships, one person at a time through kitchen table conversations. We must help every American know that they are not alone and that there are many folks who will unite with them around our honorable founding principles.

Pretty strong stuff. Our 16 year old told me that the weekend experience changed her life.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 12:56 pm
@ican711nm,
I strongly suspect that this is a work of fiction. It is structured as a lie is structured.
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 0.1 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 08:54:03