Bush-Whacked by I.S.G.

POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Saturday, December 16, 2006 22:05
VIEWED: 2563
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

OLDENGLANDDRY

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 7:23 PM

Even the Neo-Cons are saying lets get out of Iraq.
Is anyone surprised?
Apart from the obvious two.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 9:06 PM

Alas, they don't say get out.

just found this quote:

Quote:

"By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."

all combat brigades not necessary for force protection... how many is that? could be 100 %.
" could be out" or not.

any besides, that's 1st quarter of 2008. because there's an election coming in Nov. 2008. and in the first quarter of 2008,during the campaing, they can say, " we're not quite up to timetable. But we'll be out RIGHT AFTER the election."

" smellin' a lot of if comin' offa this plan."

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground

That could mean anything. Anything.

Tired of being played Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, December 7, 2006 12:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground
That could mean anything. Anything.

Tired of being played Chrisisall

I'd like to offer that we should be sending more troops, not cutting and running. We saw what a decades worth of diplomacy and U.N. sanctions got us - no where. In fact, it was worse than no where, as Saddam and the U.N. were busy playing footsie under the table and subverting the very sanctions which were suppose to be imposed on Iraq and forcing Saddam to comply. That only yielded the biggest scandal in U.N. history, the Food for Oil scam.

We know what DOESN'T work. No sense in falling back and trying that all over again.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 7, 2006 12:51 AM

Time to face facts, there's a civil war brewing over there (and we brought the pot); it's going to happen, do you really want our troops in the middle of that?
I don't.
Sounds cold, but either we use 100% of our resources dividing up the country (yeah, like that would work in the long run), or we let 'em do what they're gonna without our peeps there as extra cannon fodder.

Time to say, "Sorry, we failed in finishing it; we got rid of Saddam for ya and helped set up some kind of government, at least, best of luck."

What would be your preferred precise handling of the sit, AU? And none of this vague 'stay the course' rhetoric, please. Be specific- you may learn me something here, who knows.

Open to NEW ideas Chrisisall

GEEZER

Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:11 AM

To actually read the Iraq Study Group report, try here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_12_06_iraq_study_group_r
eport.pdf

Then discuss.

Edited to add:

I would hope that people reading this document would take it as a whole, rather than clipping sound-bites out of context to support their POV. I would bet, however, that this won't be the case.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I would hope that people reading this document would take it as a whole, rather than clipping sound-bites out of context to support their POV. I would bet, however, that this won't be the case.

Well, thanks for providing the link, Geez, I am absorbing it with fascination. It seems all-encompasing at a flash-read (a longer time to read it slowly will come in a few days), and I am genuinely surprised at it's (seeming) lack of partisan viewpoint. It seems to get at all that's wrong over there, but also seems to say that we are there to stay, permanently, if we are to make things right. Implementing all of the recommendations would make Iraq practically our sister-country, but then a permanent American ally in the ME in addition to Israel would be highly desireable by the PNAC, so I don't, at first glance, know exactly how to take it. My knee-jerk instinct says it's official, therefore suspect. But I admire how it slams what is wrong so directly.

Thanks again, I'll be back (not in the Terminator way) when I can discuss this more intelligently.

Silly silly British Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Thursday, December 7, 2006 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'd like to offer that we should be sending more troops, not cutting and running...

"cutting and running"??? Are you kidding? Serious foreign policy requires a little more consideration than silly sound bites. I know these little loaded quips are the hallmark of the Bush administration, but they're insulting and tiresome. They basically assume that US voters are too stupid to comprehend anything more complicated than a three word phrase. They're also cynically chosen to evoke macho emotional responses, essentially insinuating that anything other than pigheaded force is cowardly.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, December 7, 2006 7:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Edited to add:

I would hope that people reading this document would take it as a whole, rather than clipping sound-bites out of context to support their POV. I would bet, however, that this won't be the case.

"Ar you talkin' to ME?"
'Cuz in fact, I got the quote from a conservative editorial page. I can't certify that it came from the report. But The language sounds right, and is consistent with what the ISG has leaked for the last 2 weeks.

Do you, in fact, dispute the accuracy of the quote?
And in fact, if the quote is accurate, sound bite or not, doesn't it provide a short blunt summary of what the ISG reccommends?

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, December 7, 2006 7:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'd like to offer that we should be sending more troops, not cutting and running.

If GWB et al actually believe that this is the great clash of civilizations that they were blathering about a while back, or that this is as big a threat to freedom and Western civilization , not to mention the USA,as Hitler, we should declare a formal state of War, institute a draft, send not 140,000 men or even 1 or 2 million, but every 19 year old in the nation over there, then apply overwhelming force, commit every national resource, increase taxes to pay for it, and make everybody in the nation sacrifice to win it, much like we did in WW II. Maybe we should ask the Board of Directors of HAlliburton to voluntarily serve for $ 1.00 a year, as many executives did during WW II.

But they don't mean it, and they ain't serious. SO, yeah, we oughtta cut and run. We've already spent too much-- another life, another dollar wasted, is too high a price.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE