Bush Won't Accept Iraq War Timetable

[red states rule]

That they want to turn off the meat-grinder upsets you? The interests of the party above your nation and the interests of the Iraqi people? There can be no disgrace to the party? The party and the leader must prevail?

Libs can't see how surrendering in Iraq is a loss for America - they only see it as a loss for Pres Bush

Libs have indeed put their party ahead of their country

 

[red states rule]

Surrender date: Oct. 1
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
April 26, 2007


After lots of hard work getting the spin just right, a House-Senate conference committee has cobbled together a $124 billion war-funding bill for President Bush to veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made sure the bill, which is expected to pass the House and Senate today, included all of the pork and other essentials for Democratic Party constituencies. But when it came to the 150,000 U.S. troops now fighting in Iraq, lawmakers included enough poison-pill language to ensure a presidential veto -- which will in turn delay much-needed support for military operations in Iraq.
The Iraq portions of the bill serve to illustrate why the Framers did not give the legislative branch primary authority to conduct foreign policy. Under the legislation, American troops will begin pulling out by July 1 if the elected Iraqi government fails to meet a series of congressional demands, which include reducing sectarian violence -- meaning, in effect, that if al Qaeda wants to speed up an American troop pullout, it might want to bomb more Shi'ite mosques -- guaranteeing that sectarian violence would worsen.
Other demands include enactment of a law to share oil revenue. Desirable as this is, it is irrelevant if security does not exist in Iraq, and the U.S. military remains the only thing standing in the way of a total collapse of the government. But the bill goes on to mandate that even if the Iraqis meet all of Washington's demands, the troops will start to leave Iraq Oct. 1, with a goal of bringing most of them home by next April.
One might ask: What happens if the terrorist insurgents and militias haven't decided to go out of business by that time? In Congress's fantasy world, none of that matters. This legislation wasn't put together with the goal of defeating jihadists on the battlefield. Quite the contrary: With Republican support negligible, it was crafted to ensure the broadest possible coalition of Democrats would vote for a surrender bill. To satisfy the MoveOn.org types, particularly in the House, the bill starts the pullout as early as nine and a half weeks from now. In an effort to provide political cover for House "Blue Dogs" from more conservative districts who want to vote with Mrs. Pelosi, it contains troop-withdrawal language that sets a "goal" for pulling out rather than a deadline.
The Democrats' lack of interest in the real-world impact of their legislation is reflected in their shabby treatment of the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. Last week, House Democratic leaders initially declined Gen. Petraeus' invitation to brief members, reversing themselves only after coming under fire from Republicans. In a CNN interview that aired Monday, Mr. Reid appeared to question whether Gen. Petraeus is being truthful when saying that success is achievable in Iraq. And by tying funding for the war to a surrender bill that the president will veto, the Democrats are showing studied contempt for our troops in the field.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070425-092610-9333r.htm

 

[ErikViking]

2. The Shi'ite -dominated Iraqi government will have to reach a settlement with the Sunnis and Kurds on their own terms, not the terms dictated to them by the US. Without the US spoiling they will be able to sort things out.

This here is a good point.

 

[onedomino]

Don't be a hypocritical twat. Shorn of its pointed insults your post is:

"We're there to give the Iraqi people freedom"

No you're not, it's about oil.

For the oil? Take a long time to excrete that tired response? Not even you would be stupid enough to spend $500 billion on $20 billion per year worth of oil. America could have purchased every drop of Iraqi oil for twenty years, given it away for free, and been $100 billion ahead. Almost enough to buy you a clue. From reading another thread, I learned you are Australian. I’ve been to Sydney and it is beautiful, so you must be from some other part of the country. Where? Emesis Basin? Insipid Springs? Are you David Hick’s slow sibling?

 

[onedomino]

This here is a good point.

This is what you described as a good point: "The Shi'ite -dominated Iraqi government will have to reach a settlement with the Sunnis and Kurds on their own terms, not the terms dictated to them by the US. Without the US spoiling they will be able to sort things out." Tell me Eric, what methods would they be using to sort things out? Roving murder squads? Suicide bombings? Sniper fire? Genocide? Without US presence there would be zero security and all out sectarian war. The situation would devolve into regional war with the Saudis and others backing the Sunnis, and Iran supporting the Shia.

 

[red states rule]

This is what you described as a good point: "The Shi'ite -dominated Iraqi government will have to reach a settlement with the Sunnis and Kurds on their own terms, not the terms dictated to them by the US. Without the US spoiling they will be able to sort things out." Tell me Eric, what methods would they be using to sort things out? Roving murder squads? Suicide bombings? Sniper fire? Genocide? Without US presence there would be zero security and all out sectarian war. The situation would devolve into regional war with the Saudis and others backing the Sunnis, and Iran supporting the Shia.

There will be mass genocide in Iraq if Dems get their way

Of course Dems will say they are not to blame

They will blame Bush

How original

 

[ErikViking]

This is what you described as a good point: "The Shi'ite -dominated Iraqi government will have to reach a settlement with the Sunnis and Kurds on their own terms, not the terms dictated to them by the US. Without the US spoiling they will be able to sort things out." Tell me Eric, what methods would they be using to sort things out? Roving murder squads? Suicide bombings? Sniper fire? Genocide? Without US presence there would be zero security and all out sectarian war. The situation would devolve into regional war with the Saudis and others backing the Sunnis, and Iran supporting the Shia.

The good thing about the point is this:

If US draw the conditions up for an agreement there will be a permanent problem. We see this now and on various places. WWII was a result of wrong parties doing the negotiatons. The map of Africa, Balkan and so on.
I don't advocate an American pull-out, but the business of forming stable agreements can't be overlooked.

So while American troops are required for security American interests would rather be left out.

 

[red states rule]

Dems new slogan for 08:

"America Loses - We Win"

 

[onedomino]

The good thing about the point is this:

If US draw the conditions up for an agreement there will be a permanent problem. We see this now and on various places. WWII was a result of wrong parties doing the negotiatons. The map of Africa, Balkan and so on.
I don't advocate an American pull-out, but the business of forming stable agreements can't be overlooked.

So while American troops are required for security American interests would rather be left out.

The venue for political reconciliation is the Iraqi Parliament. America did not write the Iraqi constitution. Americans were not among the 12 million Iraqis that voted to enact the constitution. What American interests are you talking about? The 30,000 dead and injured combat troops? The $500 billion we have spent?

 

[red states rule]

REID'S BLOODY HANDS

April 24, 2007 -- Fresh from his declaration that "this war [in Iraq] is lost," Senate Demo cratic leader Harry Reid is moving quickly to hasten America's unilateral surrender.

And to cast the Middle East into murderous chaos.

Reid yesterday promised that the Democratic-controlled Congress will within days pass legislation requiring U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq over the six months starting Oct. 1.

Never mind that such legislation:

* Likely wouldn't pass either house of Congress . . .

* . . . and, even if it did pass, certainly wouldn't survive a veto.

So the point must be not to make policy, but to send a message: That Harry Reid's Democratic Party is against war in the Middle East, maybe?

Or that war in the Middle East is OK - so long as no Americans are fighting?

Or, maybe it's all about politics?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242007/postopinion/editorials/reids_bloody_hands_editorials_.htm

 

[red states rule]

You've not thought this through have you?

1. Oh fuck what about the Iraqis - well look at that, the occupiers leave and things settle down to what passes for normal. And that spinning meat grinder finally stops.

2. The Shi'ite -dominated Iraqi government will have to reach a settlement with the Sunnis and Kurds on their own terms, not the terms dictated to them by the US. Without the US spoiling they will be able to sort things out.

3. Your delusions about Syria and Iran have unbalanced you. They aren't maniacs, far from it. They're quite capable of running their countries (I mightn't like the way they do it but so what, I don't like the way Bush is running the US either, but why should I care?) and they too will come to an accommodation with Iraq. The Iranians are Shi'ites so they'll get on well with al-Maliki and the Syrians have a secular Baathist administration so creating a theocracy anywhere is not on their agenda.

4. Me and Harry will get a backbone if you promise to get a brain.

If the US backs out of Iraq now, it'd be like the US just backing out of WWII after the Normandy invasion.

OTOH, France may have been better off under German servitude.

 

[maineman]

If the US backs out of Iraq now, it'd be like the US just backing out of WWII after the Normandy invasion.

OTOH, France may have been better off under German servitude.

your analogy is ridiculous. If the US leaves Iraq now, it would similar to Great Britain leaving Palestine in 1948.

 

[Diuretic]

If the US backs out of Iraq now, it'd be like the US just backing out of WWII after the Normandy invasion.

OTOH, France may have been better off under German servitude.

Your analogy fails RSR because it's not relevant. Weren't you taught that if you reason from analogy the analogy had better be identical. The difference is that if the US had backed out of WWII after the Normandy invasion the war would have continued anyway. They were called "the Allies" for a reason. As well as that it's been revealed by historians that the Normandy invasion was intended to create the push to liberate France and then to defeat the Germans in the continuing war.

I know you can't use the Allied occupation of Germany as your analogy because if you did use it then you would have to acknowledge the proof of my assertions. The Allied occupation of Germany was a spectacular success.

 

[Superlative]

Your analogy fails RSR because it's not relevant. Weren't you taught that if you reason from analogy the analogy had better be identical. The difference is that if the US had backed out of WWII after the Normandy invasion the war would have continued anyway. They were called "the Allies" for a reason. As well as that it's been revealed by historians that the Normandy invasion was intended to create the push to liberate France and then to defeat the Germans in the continuing war.

I know you can't use the Allied occupation of Germany as your analogy because if you did use it then you would have to acknowledge the proof of my assertions. The Allied occupation of Germany was a spectacular success.

Dont expect even the slightest bit of reasonable information or arguement to be produced or defended with anything in his own words.

When ever he posts, we should just call him a NeoCon and a Liar.

Cause all I ever read from his posts are

"Blah Blah Libs, Blah terrorists win blah Dems, blah surrender, blah Crazy, blah treasonous, blah you cant handle the truth we give you blah anti american blah blah blah."

 

[Diuretic]

He does seem to have a comprehension problem.

 

[Superlative]

He does seem to have a comprehension problem.

To say the least.

 

[ErikViking]

The venue for political reconciliation is the Iraqi Parliament. America did not write the Iraqi constitution. Americans were not among the 12 million Iraqis that voted to enact the constitution. What American interests are you talking about? The 30,000 dead and injured combat troops? The $500 billion we have spent?

I cant tell if America has any special intrests in upcoming discussions. if not, good. It would be unfortunate if Iraq would have to enter treatys they cannot live up to pr defend once America has withdrawn.

 

[red states rule]

Your analogy fails RSR because it's not relevant. Weren't you taught that if you reason from analogy the analogy had better be identical. The difference is that if the US had backed out of WWII after the Normandy invasion the war would have continued anyway. They were called "the Allies" for a reason. As well as that it's been revealed by historians that the Normandy invasion was intended to create the push to liberate France and then to defeat the Germans in the continuing war.

I know you can't use the Allied occupation of Germany as your analogy because if you did use it then you would have to acknowledge the proof of my assertions. The Allied occupation of Germany was a spectacular success.

If the US pulls out of Iraq - the terrorists will not stop their war on Amercia

They will come here to kill us

For some reason. appeaser libs think if the US leaves Iraq - terrorists will stop hating America

 

[red states rule]

Dont expect even the slightest bit of reasonable information or arguement to be produced or defended with anything in his own words.

When ever he posts, we should just call him a NeoCon and a Liar.

Cause all I ever read from his posts are

"Blah Blah Libs, Blah terrorists win blah Dems, blah surrender, blah Crazy, blah treasonous, blah you cant handle the truth we give you blah anti american blah blah blah."

I understand how libs hate to called libs, how they hate to see what they say and do in print, and how they hate to be held accountable for their actions

 

[Diuretic]

If the US pulls out of Iraq - the terrorists will not stop their war on Amercia

They will come here to kill us

For some reason. appeaser libs think if the US leaves Iraq - terrorists will stop hating America

They'll come to the US to kill you? They've already called. Did they come back? No. Why? Think carefully because your response is going to be watched closely.

RSR you throw the term "appeaser" around a lot. Let me use another one. Scared. Yes, scared, frightened, pissing pants, chickenshit, lily-livered and just plain fucking stupid. Those who swallow the propaganda bullshit from the Five Deferments Cheney, AWOL Bush and the Chickenhawk Chorus Administration. If the terrorists were going to come back and do it again, why, oh why haven't they already done so?