ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
I don't think you can say for certain what is going to happen next in Iran. Mosul, Sadr City and Basra's headlines are quite different than 6 months ago. The Iraqi people seem to be taking a different course. An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain.
Really, Thomas? Why is it "for certain"? Have you been appointed some sort of military and political seer or something? Thomas the Seer?

Please post your evidence as to why it is certain. In that evidence, you should post proof that if we withdraw in 16 or 18 or whatever months, the Iraqi's will devolve into a worse situation than they are in now. You should also post proof that the timeline would not induce them to get their act together, especially since they sure seem to want some sort of timeline for us to get out anyway. You know, like how when a teacher sets a timeline for a test, it gets kids to study and prepare for said test. Well, the ones who want to pass the test, anyway.

You should also post proof that the Bush/McCain way will eventually (10 years, 20 years, 50 years, who knows) work to our satisfaction. Our satisfaction, of course, is apparently not an Iraq that can take care of itself, but an Iraq that can do that plus allow us to build bases and use those bases as launching pads for incursions into other areas of the middle east.

And while you are at it, post your proof that all the troops we have tied up in Iraq for all those years won't affect our ability to respond elsewhere if we need to on short notice.

So go ahead, Thomas. Post your proof of the "certainty" of these things. We'll all be waiting on pins and needles for your proof.

Oh, one more thing. No one has ever proposed an "unconditional" pullout in sixteen months that I am aware of. Certainly not Obama. Please present your proof of that as well.

Hold on there Kemo Sabe, before you blow a fuse.

If you're going to drink Obama's kool aid, at least know what you are drinking. Here's a direct quote from his own website:

redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010.

Now drink shug-a-lug, drink, drink, drink, drink....

Even the Iraqi government doesn't want us out for AT LEAST FIVES YEARS. Read the news, (and your own guys website) dimwit before you open your idiotic mouth.

Now let's see what else I can predict? You're going to wet yourself from all that kool aid you're drinking.

Be a good ex mormon church leader and and let the spirit move you.........someplace else preferably!

utocoman wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
I don't think you can say for certain what is going to happen next in Iran. Mosul, Sadr City and Basra's headlines are quite different than 6 months ago. The Iraqi people seem to be taking a different course. An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain.
Really, Thomas? Why is it "for certain"? Have you been appointed some sort of military and political seer or something? Thomas the Seer?

Please post your evidence as to why it is certain. In that evidence, you should post proof that if we withdraw in 16 or 18 or whatever months, the Iraqi's will devolve into a worse situation than they are in now. You should also post proof that the timeline would not induce them to get their act together, especially since they sure seem to want some sort of timeline for us to get out anyway. You know, like how when a teacher sets a timeline for a test, it gets kids to study and prepare for said test. Well, the ones who want to pass the test, anyway.

You should also post proof that the Bush/McCain way will eventually (10 years, 20 years, 50 years, who knows) work to our satisfaction. Our satisfaction, of course, is apparently not an Iraq that can take care of itself, but an Iraq that can do that plus allow us to build bases and use those bases as launching pads for incursions into other areas of the middle east.

And while you are at it, post your proof that all the troops we have tied up in Iraq for all those years won't affect our ability to respond elsewhere if we need to on short notice.

So go ahead, Thomas. Post your proof of the "certainty" of these things. We'll all be waiting on pins and needles for your proof.

Oh, one more thing. No one has ever proposed an "unconditional" pullout in sixteen months that I am aware of. Certainly not Obama. Please present your proof of that as well.

Hold on there Kemo Sabe, before you blow a fuse.

If you're going to drink Obama's kool aid, at least know what you are drinking. Here's a direct quote from his own website:

redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010.

Now drink shug-a-lug, drink, drink, drink, drink....

Even the Iraqi government doesn't want us out for AT LEAST FIVES YEARS. Read the news, (and your own guys website) dimwit before you open your idiotic mouth.

Now let's see what else I can predict? You're going to wet yourself from all that kool aid you're drinking.

Be a good ex mormon church leader and and let the spirit move you.........someplace else preferably!

Now let me see! Ahh yes, it's coming in loud and clear. You two remind me of:

Obamas plan to get out of Bush's wars.....

My Plan for Iraq
By BARACK OBAMA

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Read it and smile Tommy boy! Unless of course you are enjoying the slaughter of our troops and Iraqi and Afganistan innocents?

utocoman wrote:
Obamas plan to get out of Bush's wars.....

My Plan for Iraq
By BARACK OBAMA

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Read it and smile Tommy boy! Unless of course you are enjoying the slaughter of our troops and Iraqi and Afganistan innocents?

It is nice fluff, but there really isn't much to it, unless I'm missing something. Sure, it sounds good, and I'm all aboard provided he can make it work. I do have some misgivings though.

1) No permanent bases in Iraq. Obama has stated several times, and again here, that he has no interest in maintaining permanent bases in Iraq. My question then is this, where will he deploy our forces from inside the Middle East? There aren't a lot of countries that will allow the US to do this. I don't care if we do it from Iraq or not, as long as we don't pull our troops back and then find we can't deploy them when and where we need to because of logistical snafu.

2) Along the same thread above, he talks about not having a permanent base but talks of "a residual force in Iraq". How will they be supported, resupplied, protected, etc. I'm under the impression that would require some kind of base, but not according to Obama. Someone who knows more please educate me.

3) Leaving any forces in Iraq that are not combat effective. Leaving a residual force in Iraq is scary. Ask anyone that has ever experienced being an "adviser". You are sorely outnumbered if the crap hits the fan. I think our "residual force" will be staring into the face of a very hostile host country. How can they maintain combat effectiveness under that condition? What type of residual force is this? How strong? What function does it serve? Will Iraq even allow this hit squad to operate in its territories once the occupation has ceased? Who will provide for this force's overall security?

4) A phased withdrawl. I'm not outright opposed to this prospect, but I think it needs to be carefully considered going into it. The moment you start pulling our soldiers from Iraq either their needs to be 1) less need for their presence or 2) someone to take their place. This means that either the violence must phase out as well, or Iraqis must step up. But what if they don't? Once you start pulling soldiers you run the risk of overburdening the ones left behind. You pull too fast but leave too many behind and you have a lot of combat ineffective troops sitting on their hands in the safe zone, unequipped to move outside of the safe zones and under-supplied and under-reinforced should they move and come under attack.

I don't have the answer to these questions, of course, but I think they do need to be addressed.

I will say that I think what happens in Iraq is going to happen regardless of who is elected at this point. Pressure from Iraq and its neighbors, political pressure from other countries and from the very people at home are going to push the government hard to get us out. An indefinite stay, like people think they will get from McCain is unlikely to happen. That is just my opinion.

utocoman wrote:
Obamas plan to get out of Bush's wars.....

My Plan for Iraq
By BARACK OBAMA

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Read it and smile Tommy boy! Unless of course you are enjoying the slaughter of our troops and Iraqi and Afganistan innocents?

Why don't you get it directly from the horse's mouth, so-to-speak, Mutt. Or are you Jeff? You're both alike, it's hard to tell you apart.

obama.com

redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010

Unconditional surrender, that's what your clown is going to do Mutt err Jeff.

And what he's going to do about Iran is a real treat. He's going to put on a Jimmie Carter/Mr Rogers sweater and have a chitchat. Just gives you goose bumps, doesn't it Mutt?

Secretary Rice has more spheroids than your guy ever will.