Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

So now you guys want us to jump all over them for their work schedule? I am sure that would go over well around the world. For people who complain about how bad a job Bush has done internationally to suggest that we have any right to pass judgement on how their government schedules vacations shows a complete lack of reason. Doing things like that would be overtly empirical to me. We should not be in the business of running their country. That is what we are trying to get out of. I thought it was what you guys wanted too. More than anybody.

By the way, I do agree they should not be taking sucuh vacations but I certainly don't see how the Whitehouse is supposed to call them out on it without it looking like America butting in again. Disappointed? Yes. But that's it.

Well, since we, the American Taxpayers are footing the bill for this -- to the tune of $12 billion a month -- I think Congress has every right to DEMAND answers on progress in Iraq, and to question the wisdom of taking a month-long vacation while their nation is in peril.

Congress is the body of government most directly answerable to the people, and it's the people's money we're talking about here. You're damn right I have a problem with the Iraqi government slacking off when it's my money being used to fund this bullshit exercise.

[FRPLG]

I have a problem with it too but one argument I keep hearing from lots of people(not you) is that Bush has destroyed our standing around the world with his ham handed foreign relations and diplomacy. When the same people come back and say that the Whitehouse needs to be something about this situation they are directly contradicting themselves on this point. People can't say "Don't interfer around the world and cost us respect" and then in the next senetence say "president bush should be outraged over this, and not a peep from the white house". It's actions like those peeps from the Whitehouse that supposedly has cost us such standing in the world. Again, I am not saying I agree with that stance. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of it.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I have a problem with it too but one argument I keep hearing from lots of people(not you) is that Bush has destroyed our standing around the world with his ham handed foreign relations and diplomacy. When the same people come back and say that the Whitehouse needs to be something about this situation they are directly contradicting themselves on this point. People can't say "Don't interfer around the world and cost us respect" and then in the next senetence say "president bush should be outraged over this, and not a peep from the white house". It's actions like those peeps from the Whitehouse that supposedly has cost us such standing in the world. Again, I am not saying I agree with that stance. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of it.

you cant have your cake and eat it, too. either you go into Iraq, with a strong plan, both entry and exit, or you don't go in at all. once you are there, you try to accomplish your goals, as quickly as possible. and then turn over their country to them. to say we should let them take a vacation, in the middle of a civil war, is insane. how would Americans have felt if on sept 12, 2001, congress took a 3 week vacation. and i like how beems said it, if we are footing the bill, we have the right to question every move thats made. bush has already destroyed the united states good stranding around the world, so why worry about stepping on some more toes?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

you cant have your cake and eat it, too. either you go into Iraq, with a strong plan, both entry and exit, or you don't go in at all. once you are there, you try to accomplish your goals, as quickly as possible. and then turn over their country to them. to say we should let them take a vacation, in the middle of a civil war, is insane. how would Americans have felt if on sept 12, 2001, congress took a 3 week vacation. and i like how beems said it, if we are footing the bill, we have the right to question every move thats made. bush has already destroyed the united states good stranding around the world, so why worry about stepping on some more toes?

Let them?

This is what I am talking about. First off I agree that they should not be doing this. But, as you have stated in the past, you believe Bush and the administration have hurt us politically around the world with our foreign policy. Presummably a lot of that idea centers around the whole imperialist description that so many throw around. To then assert that we should MAKE another sovreign country's government not take a vacation is adovating, no demanding, that he do something undeniably imperialistic. I am simply pointing out that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Please correct me if I have mischaracterized your position. It is not my intention. For the record I think Bush ought to call Malaki up and ream his ass for letting this happen but then again I don't bash Bush on a regular basis for his imeprialistic foreign policy that has hurt us so badly.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Let them?

This is what I am talking about. First off I agree that they should not be doing this. But, as you have stated in the past, you believe Bush and the administration have hurt us politically around the world with our foreign policy. Presummably a lot of that idea centers around the whole imperialist description that so many throw around. To then assert that we should MAKE another sovreign country's government not take a vacation is adovating, no demanding, that he do something undeniably imperialistic. I am simply pointing out that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Please correct me if I have mischaracterized your position. It is not my intention. For the record I think Bush ought to call Malaki up and ream his ass for letting this happen but then again I don't bash Bush on a regular basis for his imeprialistic foreign policy that has hurt us so badly.

I am one who has criticized not just this administration, but the interventionist foreign policies of presidents long past regardless of their party affiliation.

The complaint people have about Iraqi government officials taking a month-long vacation isn't rooted in some sort of twisted desire for the United States to dictate how much time off another country may give its officials.

The outcry you're hearing is the outrage people have over the so-called Iraqi "leaders" kicking back for some R & R while our troops are risking life and limb doing the real dirty work. If they feel the situation in their country is such that they can chill for a month on vacation, then our soldiers and marines should be able to do the same thing.

The hypocrisy you speak of lies with the Bush administration who is telling us on the one hand that it's perfectly fine for Iraqi government officials to leave their duties for 30 days to rest up, but on the other hand the situation is in such a delicate state that we don't dare pull our troops out or else the whole country will collapse.

That's the real inconsistency you should be concerned with.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I am one who has criticized not just this administration, but the interventionist foreign policies of presidents long past regardless of their party affiliation.

The complaint people have about Iraqi government officials taking a month-long vacation isn't rooted in some sort of twisted desire for the United States to dictate how much time off another country may give its officials.

The outcry you're hearing is the outrage people have over the so-called Iraqi "leaders" kicking back for some R & R while our troops are risking life and limb doing the real dirty work. If they feel the situation in their country is such that they can chill for a month on vacation, then our soldiers and marines should be able to do the same thing.

The hypocrisy you speak of lies with the Bush administration who is telling us on the one hand that it's perfectly fine for Iraqi government officials to leave their duties for 30 days to rest up, but on the other hand the situation is in such a delicate state that we don't dare pull our troops out or else the whole country will collapse.

That's the real inconsistency you should be concerned with.

Geez would you read what I said. I agree with you. I am simply pointing out there saying we should do something to make them not take such a vactions is exactly the kinds of things that people berate Bush for everywhere else. That to me is hypocrisy.

Again, I agree with you.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

you cant have your cake and eat it, too.

I've heard this my whole life, but doesn't it apply only to the very last piece of cake?

Update: All of this talk about cake has got me hungry.

[firstdown]

If you ask anyone in any type of leadership in the military they will tell you that setting a time table is only telling your enemy what you are doing. When someone comes out and says we have to set a time table they either are looking for votes or have no clue as what goes on durn battle. I also get a kick of the people who complain that we have no exit strategy like if we did we would announce it to the world. That would be a great idea.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If you ask anyone in any type of leadership in the military they will tell you that setting a time table is only telling your enemy what you are doing. When someone comes out and says we have to set a time table they either are looking for votes or have no clue as what goes on durn battle. I also get a kick of the people who complain that we have no exit strategy like if we did we would announce it to the world. That would be a great idea.

But this operation is not an ordinary military exercise. It's not like broadcasting to the Nazis when you plan to move from the Ardennes Forest to Berlin.

If everything is fantastic, the surge is working, and everything's coming up roses like the pro-war crowd is frantically trying to tell us, then there should be no problem setting a date for withdrawal because the Iraqi government should be able to smoothly assume control, and provide adequate security once we leave.

The neo-cons tell us that the media is painting an inaccurate picture of the war, that they "never tell us the good news" from Iraq. But if things are going so well, why will Iraq collapse into an Apocalyptic nightmare the moment we're gone?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If you ask anyone in any type of leadership in the military they will tell you that setting a time table is only telling your enemy what you are doing. When someone comes out and says we have to set a time table they either are looking for votes or have no clue as what goes on durn battle. I also get a kick of the people who complain that we have no exit strategy like if we did we would announce it to the world. That would be a great idea.

Psst, it's no secret that the US would eventually go home. Also, when we start heading home it won't take a genius to deduce we're leaving. We're not going to sneak out of Iraq. Finally, we have done it in the past (Nixon and Vietnam).

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Psst, it's no secret that the US would eventually go home. Also, when we start heading home it won't take a genius to deduce we're going leaving. We're not going sneak out of Iraq. Finally, we have done it in the past (Nixon and Vietnam).

Yeah, I don't get the whole "don't announce the timeline" thing either. To be frank, it really baffles me. Exactly how are going to get all those troops and civilians out without anyone noticing?

Besides, we're going to set a timeline one day, right?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Psst, it's no secret that the US would eventually go home. Also, when we start heading home it won't take a genius to deduce we're leaving. We're not going sneak out of Iraq. Finally, we have done it in the past (Nixon and Vietnam).

Yea and how many people got slaughtered after we left. I'm not saying that its is this big seceret that we will leave but you never show your hand for the other to sit back and wait for it to happen.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Yea and how many people got slaughtered after we left. I'm not saying that its is this big seceret that we will leave but you never show your hand for the other to sit back and wait for it to happen.

Show our hand? We don't have many hands left to play. It's a well known fact that the troops are weary and many are now on their second tour and some being extended.

The only hand we have left is to leave. We know it, the Iraquis know it and all the other terrorists know it. I don't think by the U.S. not setting a time table will mitiage the potential violence that will ensue.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I absolutely agree with dmek, saden, and beems about the Iraqi Parliment. They should be working day and night to resolve their differences. We have the right to make such demands as we are pretty much facilitating their very existence. Finally, there is really no comparison to our Congress. If we were in the midst of a civil war or insurgency and our Congress wanted to take that long off, I'd be more than annoyed.

[FRPLG]

I think the thought is more along the lines of not setting a date before we reach a point where we can leave. What happens if we say we're leaving in May '08? The insurgents could lay back and wait until we're gone and then unleash holy hell. If we wait until the situation is firmly under control then we can then say we're leaving in 3 months or whatever.