Timetable for Iraq?

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Although I agree we need to get the hell out of Iraq, I've never heard a timetable ever being put out in the open so the insurgents can know exactly when we leave. It's insane. What do you think?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 29, 2007 08:26 pm
Although I agree we need to get the hell out of Iraq, I've never heard a timetable ever being put out in the open so the insurgents can know exactly when we leave. It's insane. What do you think?
I wasn't sure anyone could do a worse job of managing the war effort than Bush.

Then Congress got involved.

[colonelguppy]

who cares, it's not like it makes any difference if they know when were going to leave or not, the countries going to hell regardless. all this does is make the affair less open ended and gives us some assurance that we are going to leave.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, now that Larry, Moe, and Curly have deliberated... the issue is resolved.

I will say though I agree that we should set the time table and start withdrawing; in this war, things are only going to get worse, before things get worse.

[Louis Pio]

But then were would poor Halliburton and the likes find the same ammount of delicious profits to be made?
The new oil deals that were recently signed would disappear if not guarded. But of course Bush put himself in quite a jam, a larger and larger part of his former friends in big business would like him removed since Iraq is a mess and the lucrative contracts have predominantly gone to his own clique.
Ohh well his friends made money while it lasted and he will certainly go down in history, however not in the way he would have liked too.

[Louis Pio]

Yeah it's probably gonna end up in the typical US style, fuck things up and then run away when the utopian and delirious expetance to what would be the outcome doesn't come true

[Pilar]

Of course there should be a timetable for withdrawl.

It is not about OUR enemies knowing what's up. It's about IRAQ knowing what's up. We won't be there. They will.

We can't be there forever.

In my opinion the veto will be overridden. Maybe not on this bill, but in a future one. And each passing month is a nail in the Republican's coffin for 2008. Not only the presidential election, but the Senate as well.

This is all leading to:

Hillary Clinton as president, AND, a Senate that's over 60 members Democrats. That with a Democratily controlled House of Reps will put the Republicans in shitsville for some time.

[TC]

Originally posted by A SCANNER [email protected] 29, 2007 08:26 pm
Although I agree we need to get the hell out of Iraq, I've never heard a timetable ever being put out in the open so the insurgents can know exactly when we leave. It's insane. What do you think?
I think its totally irrelevant.

Time is on the insurgents side, they live there, they know that they'll be there in five or ten years and the Americans will not.

the issue of a 'timetable' is purely political maneuvering for domestic politics and domestic media consumption, it has no strategic consequences. America is losing ground and will lose the war, whether it loses it in one year or loses it in three years is simply an issue of how much money will be spent and how many people will die before the result is the same.

[Pilar]

Whether America "loses the war" will simply depend on whether a Islamo-facsist regime will exist three years after it withdraws. If it has instead a democracy, America will have "won the war", or the principles of America's stated purpose will have prevailed.

[inquisitive_socialist]

what exactly is an "islamo-fascist" regime?

the timetable concept was developed in order to show americans that we have a plan for leaving Iraq, and to show Iraqis that they must be able to step into our void (however fucked up it may be) afterwards. and its fairly obvious that the war itself has been lost. no war that is won involves talks of when we leave, or how soon that must happen. the iraqi resistance, like all resistance movments probably, has the great luxury of simply waiting for the american public to tire of seeing its sons and daughters come home emotionally and physically scarred. they have need for a timetable we set. if we set one, then they simply can wait until then to step in. and its unlikely any sort of semi fascist regime (other than the already present one) would be in place had the US not gotten involved in the first place. military involvement by any nation in another nations business seems to force an authoritarian state in order to see someones goals achieved. we dont win or lose, and neither do they.

[Pilar]

Islamo-facsict, from my point of view, is where any law must be processed through the religious leadership, which only recognizes its repressive religios views as doctrine.

If you ever wonder why the Iranian president makes absurd statements, it is because of the religious influence, of not entire direction, of his office.

There are other examples.



no war that is won involves talks of when we leave, or how soon that must happen

Try Japan: a surrender, followed by a stipulated 7 year period of U.S. approval of Diet policies.

[inquisitive_socialist]

isnt that just a theocracy? im sure a more knowledgable historian could point out a number of christian theocratic states, and these states dont view they're religious views as repressive because its the religion of the state and thus they see no problem in holding these views. and japan surrendered. no US representative said we must quit fighting japan or we might never stop. in fact, truman had conducted studies as to the feasability of a US invasion of japan proper. they surrendered and we won, your taking what i see as the US standpoint in Iraq, as what the US standpoint in Japan was. if you can't see the difference in these situations, im astonished. in the mid to late 1940's we had a decisive upper hand in the conflict and had jsut demonstrated our ability to crush the nation of japan completely if they did not surrender. the japanese did what they felt they must in order to protect their people and way of life. in iraq there is no upper hand, only the immediate area around US troops that they can control. also, we have no means of decisively crushing iraqi resistance. thirdly, there is no representative body for the iraqi insurgents that we can negotiate with. only the puppet government we created, and the extremist leaders who claim to represent the people.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:40 pm
Whether America "loses the war" will simply depend on whether a Islamo-facsist regime will exist three years after it withdraws. If it has instead a democracy, America will have "won the war", or the principles of America's stated purpose will have prevailed.
so basically we'll lose.