Brainfade Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 2kFrFIFizkU But, Senator, your website says: * In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors; * In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008. Bringing Our Troops Home Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. Got to give the dude credit, though. Even when flip-flopping, he's articulate.
Lurker Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 ^^ I would much rather go with Obama on this one. Yes American troops need to get the eff out of Iraq. They should not have been there in the first place. And they can not just keep making the statements like "Okay maybe coming in was a mistake, but now we are here". What kind of stupid logic is that?? You make a mistake so better rectify it rather than continuing to make the same mistake. On the other hand you have the John Jackar$e McCain who is of the opinion that "USA Army staying in Iraq is no big deal, after all we have Army in South Korea, Japan etc etc". Buggers like him the whole world is their ghulam. How can one be so idiotic really? Then again most Republicans are just that anyway.
Brainfade Posted June 12, 2008 Author Posted June 12, 2008 ^^ I would much rather go with Obama on this one. Yes American troops need to get the eff out of Iraq. They should not have been there in the first place. And they can not just keep making the statements like "Okay maybe coming in was a mistake, but now we are here". What kind of stupid logic is that?? You make a mistake so better rectify it rather than continuing to make the same mistake. On the other hand you have the John Jackar McCain who is of the opinion that "USA Army staying in Iraq is no big deal, after all we have Army in South Korea, Japan etc etc". Buggers like him the whole world is their ghulam. How can one be so idiotic really? Then again most Republicans are just that anyway. Which Obama? The one in the interview (no artificial deadline; I never said we need to get the troops out ... ) or the one on the website (withdraw by March 08)? FWIW, I agree with you - the US does not need to have troops in there. But, is he committed to getting them out? At least Johnny Mac is upfront.
Lurker Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 FWIW, I agree with you - the US does not need to have troops in there. But, is he committed to getting them out? At least Johnny Mac is upfront. Fair enough. Which Obama? The one in the interview (no artificial deadline) or the one on the website (withdraw by March 08)? I will go by his website, where he clearly states that he shall pull out the troops. I say that because he has said it on more than one occassion, specially during debates. And I am of the opinion that he will make the same argument once he comes to one on one debate with McCain. As for this interview yes it does look like he is flip flopping but it is a 10 second or less clip and so I am not sure if I should change my opinion based on such a small evidence.
triam Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 I do not know if pulling the troops is a fair move from the US. For better or worse saddam had some semblance of governance in iraq, if the US who created this mess( which was the biggest mistake), I think should have some obligation in fixing the current scenario. On the other hand I have no idea what a workable solution will be for Iraq
varun Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 At least Johnny Mac is upfront. McCain and upfront ? Give me a break. He's the biggest flip-flopper of them all. Look at where he stood on issues in the 2000 elections and where he is now.. Here's a nice vid (albeit a couple of months old) of what he stands for [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk]McCain[/ame]
gs Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Jeez man! Politicians are sleaze balls, be it in India or America.
CC1981 Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 What kind of stupid logic is that?? You make a mistake so better rectify it rather than continuing to make the same mistake. Sorry Lurks, i don't think that flies. This is not like stealing a loaf of bread, where putting back the loaf and saying 'look, i am sorry, i was wrong but now its all good' works. America went into Iraq under false proclamations. It bolloxed up over that. It needs to find the people who made the decision to go into Iraq based on faulty evidence ( which is putting it mildly) and undertake criminal proceedings against them. But America should NOT pull out of Iraq now. They've removed Saddam and royally *****ed over the Iraqi government. Sure, you can argue that Saddam was a despot and a brutal one at that, but he had a functional government. Now, there is none and its militants jockeying for power in Iraq. Iran has designs on Iraq too ( and i don't really blame them- what is Iraq today had been part of Iran since 500 BC till 1800 AD or so when the Safavid empire finally lost control of mesopotamia to the Ottoman Turks). If America leaves now, situation in Iraq would get dire. Not only would you have the world's most fertile breeding ground of terrorism ( and trust me, it takes some doing to supplant Pakistan-Afghanistan in that regard), there could easily be a middle eastern war with the Shia-Sunni divide pulling Iran into a showdown with a coalition of Sunni regimes ( Saudi + Syria). Dont underestimate the Saudis, they certainly have enough of a military to challenge Iran ( they already have over 200 F-16s and are in the process of recieving deliveries for the Eurofighter- which categorically outclasses Iranian air force). And if you think oil prices are bad right now, just wait till there is a middle-eastern war over Iraq....that'd pretty much make oil the modern day equivalent of silk, with only the super-rich affording it. And America leaving won't reduce the number of casualties- the areas that are American patrolled and sees the regular suicide bombings today would see open warfare between different clans/factions along Shia-sunni divide. Not to mention, a war in the middle east would most certainly pull Israel into the fray, which means America is compelled to return with far bigger troops and far bigger job to do ( win a war AND keep policing the area). So i don't see what good is accomplished by America withdrawing from Iraq now, as it doesn't solve the past errors and only throws up even worse alternatives for the future.
CC1981 Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 On the other hand I have no idea what a workable solution will be for Iraq Stay in Iraq, support their government and keep training their security forces to tackle the militant menace. Sure, it won't go smoothly- due to incompetence of Iraqi soldiers, competence of the militants and widespread iraqi military collaboration with the militants. But with America standing guard there, these collaborations would be low scale, not entire battalion's worth of arms shipped to the militants and senior govt. officials openly pitching in either side of the battle lines. And sooner or later, the Iraqi forces would have enough technological superiority/training to contain the militants in such a way that the main population centers of Iraq sees the govt. will being followed. And sooner or later, a dictator would arise to take control ( those nations are way too immature and backwards to function in a democracy...you gotto be kidding me if you think the Iraqi or most arab militaries would be taking orders from a civillian when no-one is looking. Realistically, i'd say America, if it still wants to do the right thing, would be in Iraq for another 10-15 years atleast but not longer than 25 with current/slightly turned up troop/military level. And that is not undoable either. S So what is a little police action for the next 15-20 years ? Sure, it might be a bit of a drag on the economy, but it won't kill it either,unless they do something really stupid at the top level. They are still, hands down, the #1 manufacturing and service sector industries and hands down, the #1 military and economic power in the world. China or India's rise won't change that for atleast another 50 years and even then, 100 yrs later, with current 'world map' looking more or less the same, America would still be in the top 5 economies of the world. The Romans did it for far longer (over Armenia, against an extremely powerful and near-equivalent of Rome: Sassanid Persian Empire, who's predecessor, Parthian Empire, was a major thorn in the Roman side as well - for something like 400 years.) America's biggest weakness is, it is so convinced of its superiority at every level, they expect the world to just say 'yes boss, you are right, coz you are the bestest, awesome-est people ever to walk the planet'. When someone says 'frack you, make me!', America tries to, but then starts moaning when it starts losing 50-60 odd soldiers. Arrey baba, LOOK at the other side: The other side is losing 10 times more warriors and still keeping up. Just about the biggest reason America failed in Vietnam is because the Vietcong had far tougher resolve. They didn't pretend apocalypse is here coz they lost 60,000 soldiers: they thought apocalypse would be there if they lost!. ( one of the major ignored aspect of Vietnam war was the presence of Vietnamese NATIONALISM. Almost every vietnamese i've spoken to, saw the vietnam war, far bigger as 'uniting Vietnam that has been raped and divided by foreign colonial powers for hundreds of years' than ' victory of communism over evil capitalists'. One of the major evidence of that is the extremely large amount of S.Vietnamese collaborators with the North- the NORTH wanted to unite the nation and most vietnamese felt that way, the south was a puppet regime, which was quite happy being an American puppet coz it means *****load of cash and arms). America just has to chin up, tough it out and keep in Iraq because, whether we like it or not, the war with extreemist Islam and rest of civilization has well and truely begun. We've been able to prevent it from become an instant cyclone by having our hands in the pie. If we withdraw it, extremist Islam will overwhelm most Islamic nations ( wtf is their resistance to it ? how many muslims are there going around criticizing these terrorists in THEIR OWN MEDIA ? how many 'analysis' reports you read in the GULF newspapers or Irani/Pakistani newspapers, deploring the value system and action of these terrorists ?. They are sitting ducks, because there is no social criticism of militant Islam and actions taken against it in most islamic societies on any significant level). And after that happens, sooner or later, its our turn. And by our, i don't just mean India and appeal to the paranoid fundie hindus, i mean rest of society: the west, Europe, hell, everyone but perhaps the far east/south america ( due to natural barriers stopping islamism). And when that happens, we have to be pretty much certain to be ahead of these fundie Islamic gits in warfare, or else, we are pretty much, toast. We NEED to not get lax now.
Recommended Posts