Saying that Iraq was nowhere near being prepared to enact it's own security, the director of the US occupation of Iraq today stated that the US will maintain forces in the region indefinitely, irrespective of the June 30th turnover date. Not that this is going to surprise anyone, now, but it seems that we are there for the long haul. Was just reported on CNN, will post link as it becomes available.
MacBeth, you confused the transfer of power date with the withdrawal date of US forces. Turnover has always referred to governing power. This is an easy mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. It's ok, most people make mistakes from time to time. We'll overlook this one. How long did we stay in Germany after WWII? Oh yeah, WE'RE STILL THERE. Why are you liberals in such a rush these days? Seems like you weren't in a rush to keep Saddam in power. My my how things change when it is politically convenient.... sigh ....next.....
A) I didn't confuse it. "Irrespective" was Bremer's word, not mine. Perhaps you should take it up with that 'liberal'. B) If you want a strict definition of turning over power, it included military autonomy. C) The comparisons to post WWII show your limited graps of the concepts at hand. Yes, there were US forces involved, and yes, we did occupy a country, but that's where the similarities end. SImple mindedness is what lead to our post war plan, so it's not surprising that it continues. We didn't pretend to stay in Germany for their own good, but because they were a nation which had declared war on us and attacked us. We maintained a presence there for Cold War reasons. D) Weren't in a rush to keep Saddam in power!?!? I'll overlook the idiocy of this choice in phraseaology, and concentrate on your meaning: That I am criticizing us out of political convenience. Well, that would be a valid argument were it not for these telling facts: 1) Unlike some ( *cough T_J cough*) I do not start my position with party affiliation and interpret the facts thereafter, as evidenced by the fact that I SUPPORTED BUSH IN THE LAST ELECRION. It was my perspective on his actions which caused my position, not the reverse. 2) I was against the invasion to begin with, so here, exactly, is my reversal? Does that mean I loved Saddam? No...but this invasion wasn't about that, at least not till all the other facts your side cited fell by the wayside of actuality. I am the one who has remained consistent, T_J, not you. Nobody has reversed form more than those who have continually shifted their version of events in order to support this war. 3) We created the political vaccum that will exist in Iraq when we leave. That vacuum might be filled with civil war, theocratic regimes, etc. That is our fault. The fact that there is such a void is directly related to the incredibly faith based nature of our post war plan ( They will love us, democracy will reign), and the specious jstification of our invasion and alienation of allies. As such, the consequences of leaving will, yes, rest at our doorstep...but so will the consequences of staying. You think that is opportunistic, but you forget: WE MADE THIS MESS, so the fact that it's gotten to the point that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't doesn't alter the fact that we made this happen, it didn't happen to us.
MacBeth, I can certainly understand your frustration and embarrassment for making an error -- and you did make an error. You know it, I know it. Yeah it looks bad, but you know what? The sun will come up tomorrow. Look, your interpretation of the June 30 day was apparently a full withdrawal of US troops day. Clearly, that is just not something that is in our best interest. We are not going to just cut and run and surrender to the Iraqi insurgents, as many liberals would like to see us do. Those actions would have very serious consequences and would destroy our military's credibility. Judging by the tone of your post, this sounds like your desire (to cut and run). Power will transfer, troops will stay in place to maintain order. Nothing has changed. We didn't cut and run in Germany did we? Of course not. We maintained a presence. Maintaining a presence in Iraq in many ways parallels *why* we maintained a presence in Germany -- to secure the region. As part of The War on Terror, it is a fantastic strategic foothold to have a shop set up in Iraq and Afghanistan. With your alleged knowledge of military history, you should be able to grasp this concept. If you were willing, that is. Sadly, partisan politics has blinded you. MacBeth, you took a little time off, and it just looks like you are rusty. I suggest you drop down to triple-A (Hangout) and try to reaquire your focus. ...yawn..... next.....
As has been mentioned before, there are no so called "liberals" who want to "cut and run." You can talk up your ficticious "liberal" all you want, but the fact remains that EVERYONE knows we are going to keep troops in Iraq for quite some time. I just wish our "leaders" would have been honest with us from the start and told us up front what we were in for. Except that Germany started WWII and WE started this war. We maintained a presence in Germany and Japan because we prohibited them from building up any military at all and as such they needed outside protection. Add that to the fact that we had worldwide support for said occupation and your "parallels" have gotten all perpendicular. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terror and if you cannot see that it is because you are a shill. Even other conservatives can see that as evidenced by my sig.
You mean everyone except MacBeth? He was still in the dark as of yesterday. There are quite a few liberals that want to cut and run. Nader is moulding his entire campaign around cutting and running and surrendering to al-Sadr. Many liberals are siding with him! A strategic foothold in the Middle East, a hotbed of terror, is vital to winning The War on Terror. This is pretty basic, andymoon. Come on, now. I shouldn't have to explain *everything* to you. Shaping Iraq into a democracy will have very broad and positive implications in the War on Terror. Educating Iraqis and educating Muslims in that region will only lead to a more stable environment. It will take time and courage.
keep repeating this, maybe someone will start believe it too bad our involvement in Iraq has nothing to to with 9/11 and is only adding fuel to the America-hating fever in the Middle East Us having a foothold in the Middle East is one of the major reasons 9/11 happened; our pressence in Saudi Arabia.
Now you are claiming that Nader represents the "liberals" in America? If Nader truly believes that then he is wrong, but the ACTUAL opponent of GWB (you know, the Democratic nominee) and the VAST majority of liberals (and indies like me, too) know that we cannot "cut and run." Using that argument to paint your so called "liberals" clearly shows your bias and inability to use facts, preferring to toe the line of your leash holders. How does it feel to be a puppet on a string, anyway? This is where we agree. Afghanistan, had we chosen to actually go in and rebuild it (after we caught OBL) would have been a perfect place to build a democracy and show the entire Middle East what can be accomplished when the entire world is on your side. Instead, we abandoned the country just like we did after the USSR left in the 80s. We have f***ed them TWICE now after promising both times to rebuild the country after we were done waging war there. We chose to go after Iraq, an invasion that we did not have worldwide support for, even though we had to put the hunt for OBL on the back burner EVEN THOUGH HE IS THE ONE WHO THE WAR ON TERROR WAS SUPPOSED TO CATCH OR KILL!!! You don't have the capacity to explain anything to me. You are quite obviously a lapdog of the right who is incapable of seeing or dealing with facts, choosing instead to perpetuate lies, exaggerations, and half-truths. It will also take a leader that does not lie to the American people about his motivations for war, when he started planning the war, or how long the war is going to last. We need a leader with integrity, courage, and honor, three qualities which our current president has proved that he is absolutely devoid of.
Funny thing is that GWB has made the same mistake. Maybe the mind of GWB can not grasp such an easy concept. The rush here is of course by that crazy liberal GWB to do whatever it takes to get re-elected.
T_J... I tried answering this before, but will now do so in term you'lll understand... Me no say date was pull out, me quote Bremer, who say we stay indefinit...er...long time, long long time in Iraq. Point not about date as Bremer said, but that we officially say we stay long, long time. You hear good now?
MacBeth, this is nothing new. Why then did you post a new thread about it? You goofed, plain and simple. Your track-covering attempts are truly laughable. You implied in your original post that this is some sort of policy reversal, and you tied that reversal to the June 30 deadline. The June 30 deadline has nothing to do with a full scale troop withdrawal from Iraq. You made a mistake, and you got called out on it. It happens. Your ego is bruised, so you turn to personal insults. Sorry for the bruising, but when you try to distort, at least be informed. GOOD DAY
You are monumentally stupid. That was an insult, MacB was trying to engage in a meaningful debate, something which you are apparently incapable of.
Try re-reading the original post, or the title, for god's sake. The point is Bremer himself says it's an indefenite period of occupation, and that is news. We have all known ( as I said, and you have seemed to need to focus on as though it slipped my mind) that the 30th was little more than a ceremonial date with no real implications on our occupation, but for Bremer to say that our troops will be there indefenitely is putting it in stone. T_J, I am usually amused by you lately, but I just got up, and this is lower than even your usual standard. Try something new...( do you ever get tired of what I sincrely hope is a one note performance, btw?)
