War in Iraq - 3 Years

I'm not trying to converse with you. I was simply making an observation.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

But an inaccurate one, I think. Will took a fact and made an inference from it, and used that inference to make an accusation. So I asked him what connects the two, specifically.

You don't see there having been a pattern of deception and corruption within the Bush admin?

Try opening your eyes next time.

Anyways I'm out. Like I said, I'm not trying to converse with you.

Then stop talking to me, guy.

Anyway, that's not what Will said or asked. He made a very specific accusation, and I asked him to support it. It's not complicated.

Okay, I'm done talking to you.

Yay, everyone's happy now.

Of course they are!

I leave the last word to you.

And that word is...twitterpated.

It is all linked together because the war was badly bungled except for the initial invasion and the last two years by a Secretary of Defense who refused to change strategy when it was clear we didn't have enough troops on the ground to deal with the insurgents and who was strongly supported by a Vice President who wielded too much power. Bush didn't even notify him Rumsfeld was fired until after he fired him (a little afraid of him?), keeping him out of the loop for the first time. Cheney deliberately manipulated intelligence reports and information to justify invading Iraq. The Bush Administration also shows the danger when ideologues are allowed to wield power because of their inability to adapt to facts that contradict their mindset and refusal to compromise.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

>The Bush Administration also shows the danger when ideologues are allowed to wield power because of their inability to adapt to facts that contradict their mindset and refusal to compromise.

This. But, unfortunately, that's the nature of all politics.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

BAGHDAD -The Associated Press has learned that the Obama administration is abandoning plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq past a year-end withdrawal deadline.

A senior administration official in Washington confirmed Saturday that all American troops will leave except for about 160 troops attached to the U.S. Embassy. The Pentagon had considered leaving up to 5,000 troops to train security forces and hinder Iranian influence.

A senior U.S. military official said the withdrawal could allow future, limited U.S. military training missions if requested.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Iraqi political leaders have rejected giving legal immunity to U.S. troops — a deal-breaker to Washington.



Good. Finally. Get out of there. And with us gone the violence will flare up again out of control, but the Iraqis don't want us there because they want to scapegoat American troops so let the mess they will get be their sole responsibility.

Iraq says it's asked for 5,000 U.S. trainers, awaits reply.

I rather doubt that people who are determined to scapegoat American troops will stop doing so based on this. It would be extremely easy for them to blame us for coming in and then leaving even when they'd asked for further assistance. That ship has sailed.

Can you read? They are no longer negotiating so that is an ultimatum, not a request. They want the troops on terms unacceptable to the United States on a take it or leave it ultimatum. Do you think it would be right for American soldiers in a combat situation to be subject to Iraqi law where there is still a lot of resentment and hatred to the United States and their court system is corrupt and biased?

Do you ever argue with things I actually say? You say they don't want us there, I point out that that's not entirely true, and that scapegoating Americans isn't going to stop based on what you're saying. Nothing in your last post seems to address or dispute that at all.

This is getting really exasperating. I'm perfectly glad to argue, discuss, whatever, but I end up spending half my time in these discussions wading through non-sequiturs.

1) They aren't out yet. No one should be assuming it will happen.

2) Even if they do get out, I have a suspicion its a re-election ploy because it'll be the only card Obama will be able to play next year

No, they don't want us there because even the conditioned "request" bypasses the legislature where the troop request wouldn't pass under any circumstances:

Nixon did it, and I trust Obama even less than him. Nixon wasn't the only one either.

What exaxtly is the election ploy? The timetable deadline is from The Bush Administration and we would be leaving five thousand troops there if the Iraqi government were not making an unaccetable demand unacceptable to both Republicans and Democrats.

First of all, it doesn't matter whose deadline it is, the general public doesn't know dick, especially that we still have troops everywhere we've ever been. Second of all, the ploy is to shed an illusion that we've withdrawn from Iraq "just like he promised" and hope it will draw in more votes solely from that. It's exactly what Nixon did in the early 70s, and it worked then.

But Iraq is not controversial right now and if he wanted just to withdraw the troops he could. It is only happening because of Iraqi demands American troops can only stay if they are subject to Iraq law.. He can't leave troops beyond the deadline without breaking a treaty negotiated by Bush.