PDA

View Full Version : Iraq Govt. plan calls for U.S. withdrawl timetable


mlyonsd
06-24-2006, 08:44 PM
June 24, 2006 - A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.

Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they're also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday. The provisions will spark sharp debate in Iraq—but the fiercest opposition is likely to come from Washington, which has opposed any talk of timetables, or of amnesty for insurgents who have attacked American soldiers.

But in Iraq, even a senior military official in the U.S.-led coalition said Friday that the coalition might consider a timetable under certain circumstances. And the official was careful to point out that a distinction needs to be made between terrorists and the resistance.

NEWSWEEK has obtained a draft copy of the national reconciliation plan, and verified its contents with two Iraqi officials involved in the reconciliation process who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the plan's contents. Prime Minister Maliki will present the document to the National Assembly when it convenes on Sunday, and it's expected to be debated over the coming week. Maliki has made reconciliation and control of party militias the main emphasis of his new government. This plan follows a series of secret negotiations over the past two months between seven insurgent groups, President Jalal Talabani and officials of the U.S. embassy. The insurgent groups involved are Sunnis but do not include foreign jihadis like al Qaeda and other terrorist factions who deliberately target civilians; those groups have always denounced any negotiations.

The distinction between insurgents and terrorists is one of the key principles in the document, and is in response to Sunni politicians' demands that the "national resistance" should not be punished for what they see as legitimate self-defense in attacks against a foreign occupying power. Principle No. 19 calls for "Recognizing the legitimacy of the national resistance and differentiating or separating it from terrorism" while "encouraging the national resistance to enroll in the political process and recognizing the necessity of the participation of the national resistance in the national reconciliation dialogue."

The plan also calls for a withdrawal timetable for coalition forces from Iraq, but it doesn't specify an actual date—one of the Sunnis' key demands. It calls for "the necessity of agreeing on a timetable under conditions that take into account the formation of Iraqi armed forces so as to guarantee Iraq's security," and asks that a U.N. Security Council decree confirm the timetable. Mahmoud Othman, a National Assembly member who is close to President Talabani, said that no one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable. The problem is specifying a date, which the United States has rejected as playing into the insurgents' hands. But Othman didn't rule out that reconciliation negotiations called for in the plan might well lead to setting a date. "That will be a problem between the Iraqi government and the other side [the insurgents], and we will see how it goes. It's not very clear yet."

The senior coalition military official, who agreed to discuss this subject with NEWSWEEK and The Times of London on the condition of anonymity, notably did not outright rule out the idea of a date. "One of the advantages of a timetable—all of a sudden there is a date which is a much more explicit thing than an abstract condition," he said. "That's the sort of assurance that [the Sunnis] are looking for."

"Does that mean the subject of a date is up for negotiation?" he was asked. "I think that if men of goodwill sit down together and exchange ideas, which might be defined either by a timetable or by ... sets of conditions, there must be a capacity to find common ground," the official said.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, in a recent interview with NEWSWEEK referred to a "conditions-driven roadmap" rather than a timetable. Officially, the U.S. position is that coalition troops would leave as soon as Iraqi government officials say they're able to handle their own security, which leaves some room for diplomatic wiggle if the Iraqis declare their own intended timetable.

Equally contentious from the U.S. point of view is the idea of granting amnesty to insurgents who have attacked and killed American soldiers. That is almost taken as a given by Iraqi negotiators, however. The draft plan calls for the release of all security detainees being held without charges in the country, estimated at as many as 14,000, going far beyond Maliki's announcement two weeks ago that he would be releasing 2,500 such detainees. In addition, the draft plan suggests forming a committee to decide on release of those convicted of crimes already. In both cases, those convicted of common crimes or of terrorism would be exempted from the amnesty.

The devil will likely be in the details. Everyone agrees for instance that a bomb set off in a mosque is terrorism. But if a roadside bomb is set off targeting soldiers, but killing innocent bystanders—is that resistance, or terrorism? "A lot will depend on the exact wording," says Othman.

Maliki's reconciliation plan will undoubtedly be the subject of protracted discussions, and not everyone in the Iraqi government is pleased with it. The document also calls for bringing militias and "death squads" under control—a provision which the powerful Shia party, SCIRI, is not happy with, because it effectively equates militias with the insurgents. Maliki is also Shia but from the Dawa party. And Sunnis, for their part, are reluctant to renounce the insurgency when they are still threatened by Shia militias, and by Shia-dominated police. "The Sunnis have only one card to play, the insurgency," says the senior coalition official. "They don't have enough population and they're not sitting on any of the resources. Therefore their political identity is almost entirely defined by the insurgency."

Breaking that Shia/Sunni impasse won't be easy. But as the U.S. ambassador says, "Every war must come to an end," and few on any side in Iraq any longer believe they can kill their way to peace. The only alternative is to try to talk their way there.

Story..... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/)

recxjake
06-24-2006, 08:51 PM
good, they want us out, we will go..... but it will be there fault if all hell breaks out

Logical
06-24-2006, 09:02 PM
I am starting to like this Iraqi government after all. Telling us to get our ass out is a great sign. I hope this is the way it really ends up.

Nightwish
06-24-2006, 09:03 PM
I can see why this would be a major nightmare for BushCo.

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and things stabilize, then the Dems can say, "See, we were right all along. We didn't need to keep our soldiers in harms way for Iraq to become stable."

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket, BushCo will get blamed for pulling out too early, but they won't be able to turn the blame on the Dems, because the pullout was due to Iraqi demands, not pressure from the Democrats.

If we don't honor their demand for our withdrawal, all BushCo's talk about democracy and self-determination will be worthless.

Wouldn't you just love to be Bush when that demand becomes official?

Logical
06-24-2006, 09:06 PM
I can see why this would be a major nightmare for BushCo.

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and things stabilize, then the Dems can say, "See, we were right all along. We didn't need to keep our soldiers in harms way for Iraq to become stable."

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket, BushCo will get blamed for pulling out too early, but they won't be able to turn the blame on the Dems, because the pullout was due to Iraqi demands, not pressure from the Democrats.

If we don't honor their demand for our withdrawal, all BushCo's talk about democracy and self-determination will be worthless.

Wouldn't you just love to be Bush when that demand becomes official?:thumb:

jAZ
06-24-2006, 09:20 PM
I have to say that this almost looks like the Iraqi's want to help the Dems by themselves proposing what the Dems have been pushing... and making the Republcans look stupid in the process.

Fits pretty well with Bin Laden coming out of hiding the week before the election in order to help get Bush re-elected.

Hydrae
06-24-2006, 09:54 PM
Compensation for victims of coalition military operations

You knew this was coming and it pisses me off almost as much as us going in in the first place did. We spent Billions of dollars getting rid of the bad man running the country and then rebuilding it to probably better than it was when we went in and now they want MORE money for reperations? I will gladly give them reperations right after they compensate us for the expenses we incurred freeing them from the tyrant they couldn't/wouldn't depose themselves! :cuss:

Loki
06-25-2006, 12:50 AM
the new iraq gov't is a United States puppet organization !!!

:rolleyes:

the Talking Can
06-25-2006, 06:22 AM
timetables are for cat killers who hate america and want jesus to die...again...just ask patteeu...he has an honest, non-inflammatory take on the subject...

memyselfI
06-25-2006, 06:38 AM
Uh-oh, the Iraqi gov. wants amnesty for terrorists, er, insurgents? We know many CONS think the entire insurgency is comprised of terrorists and there is no actual insurgency (see Mr. Kotter) and here we have their government proposing these people go free.

Along the same line of insurgents in Iraq=terrorists, does that mean the NEW Iraqi government is now safe guarding terrorists? :hmmm:

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 08:39 AM
Newsweek once again got the story screwed up. I should have known better than posting something they reported on.

Nightwish
06-25-2006, 09:01 AM
Newsweek once again got the story screwed up. I should have known better than posting something they reported on.
Then what's the real story?

banyon
06-25-2006, 09:04 AM
Then what's the real story?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142752

Nightwish
06-25-2006, 11:47 AM
Newsweek once again got the story screwed up. I should have known better than posting something they reported on.
I'm not sure they did get it wrong. It may be the AP story in the other thread that got it wrong. This article contains an awful lot of detail, including quoted text from the proposal, concerning the issue of US troop withdrawals, for something that, according to the AP article in the other thread, makes "no mention of any timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in Iraq."

From the article in this thread:

"The plan also calls for a withdrawal timetable for coalition forces from Iraq, but it doesn't specify an actual date—one of the Sunnis' key demands. It calls for "the necessity of agreeing on a timetable under conditions that take into account the formation of Iraqi armed forces so as to guarantee Iraq's security," and asks that a U.N. Security Council decree confirm the timetable. Mahmoud Othman, a National Assembly member who is close to President Talabani, said that no one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable. The problem is specifying a date, which the United States has rejected as playing into the insurgents' hands. But Othman didn't rule out that reconciliation negotiations called for in the plan might well lead to setting a date. "That will be a problem between the Iraqi government and the other side [the insurgents], and we will see how it goes. It's not very clear yet."

memyselfI
06-27-2006, 07:09 AM
Repost for Kotter.

Uh-oh, the Iraqi gov. wants amnesty for terrorists, er, insurgents? We know many CONS think the entire insurgency is comprised of terrorists and there is no actual insurgency (see Mr. Kotter) and here we have their government proposing these people go free.

Along the same line of insurgents in Iraq=terrorists, does that mean the NEW Iraqi government is now safe guarding terrorists? :hmmm:

ct
06-27-2006, 08:12 AM
I can see why this would be a major nightmare for BushCo.

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and things stabilize, then the Dems can say, "See, we were right all along. We didn't need to keep our soldiers in harms way for Iraq to become stable."

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket, BushCo will get blamed for pulling out too early, but they won't be able to turn the blame on the Dems, because the pullout was due to Iraqi demands, not pressure from the Democrats.

If we don't honor their demand for our withdrawal, all BushCo's talk about democracy and self-determination will be worthless.

Wouldn't you just love to be Bush when that demand becomes official?

BS

I am starting to like this Iraqi government after all. Telling us to get our ass out is a great sign. I hope this is the way it really ends up.

This is exactly the self-gov't BushCo are trying to support! Iraqi gov't postures, we negotiate, eventually we pull out and they sink or swim on thier own, and call for help when they get in trouble. That's the best case scenario.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 08:52 AM
BS

Care to try a more substantive reply? Something that suggests a little more thought behind it than, "I don't like it, so it musn't be so!"

ct
06-27-2006, 08:59 AM
Care to try a more substantive reply? Something that suggests a little more thought behind it than, "I don't like it, so it musn't be so!"

Not really, you've neatly covered all bases into a certain to lose scenario, so why bother? You're right and wrong, and so am I.

oldandslow
06-27-2006, 09:12 AM
Not really, you've neatly covered all bases into a certain to lose scenario, so why bother? You're right and wrong, and so am I.

Nightwish...

Classic neo-con debate style. They must have learned it from the great orator at the top of the ticket.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 09:42 AM
Not really, you've neatly covered all bases into a certain to lose scenario, so why bother? You're right and wrong, and so am I.Much of the nation, indeed, much of the world, sees the GOP as the guilty party for the quagmire in Iraq. Anything goes wrong with it, the GOP is the first to get blamed. Of course, they then turn around and try to blame it all on the Dems and the Libs, claiming that the problems in Iraq are due to the voices of dissent and the criticism from the liberal media. That's the way of the GOP, though - blame everyone else for the GOP's problems.

There is a good reason why the GOP is fighting so hard against a timetable for troop withdrawals, and it isn't out of concern for the stability of Iraq, at least not in the way they'd like you to believe. It is because the GOP's credibility with regard to this war hinges on there being a stable outcome to the war. If troops are removed before the GOP thinks they are ready, and things fall apart, then they will inevitably try to blame it on the Democrats, saying that pressure from the Dems was responsible for a premature withdrawal. But if the withdrawal is not due to pressure from the Dems, but instead due to the demands of the Iraqi government, then the GOP can't use its favorite scapegoat, and instead is left facing a mirror.

If troops are withdrawn early, at the demand of the Iraqi government, there are all kinds of ways the Dems can play it to their advantage, whether the outcome is good or bad, but not so for the GOP. And they know it, which is why they're fighting so hard against it.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 10:56 AM
I can see why this would be a major nightmare for BushCo.

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and things stabilize, then the Dems can say, "See, we were right all along. We didn't need to keep our soldiers in harms way for Iraq to become stable."

First of all, there is no demand. Second, if we did withdraw and the situation stabilized, it wouldn't prove the dems were right because they've been calling for it for a long time and there is no reason to think we could have withdrawn 6 months ago to the same effect. They might try to make that claim, but it would be an attempt at presenting a political illusion. To the contrary, it would prove that the administration's stated plan to stay until we were no longer needed or desired was the right one all along.

Wouldn't you just love to be Bush when that demand becomes official?

It won't.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 11:54 AM
First of all, there is no demand.There's not a demand for a specific date of withdrawal, but if the text quoted from the proposal is accurate, there is definitely a demand for a timetable, which the administration is fighting very hard to avoid.I hope it won't.Fixed your post for you.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 11:57 AM
Second, if we did withdraw and the situation stabilized, it wouldn't prove the dems were right because they've been calling for it for a long time and there is no reason to think we could have withdrawn 6 months ago to the same effect. They might try to make that claim, but it would be an attempt at presenting a political illusion. To the contrary, it would prove that the administration's stated plan to stay until we were no longer needed or desired was the right one all along.
Isn't it a little early for you to be going into damage control mode?

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 12:13 PM
Isn't it a little early for you to be going into damage control mode?

:spock: See’n as how you’re try’n to call “oopsy, wouldn’t you hate to be teh Debil right now, tee hee” over what he's stated he wanted all along, a stable democracy in Iraq capable of handling their own security, I’d say the same thing to you. :shrug:

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 12:15 PM
:spock: See’n as how you’re try’n to call “oopsy, wouldn’t you hate to be teh Debil right now, tee hee” over what he's stated he wanted all along, a stable democracy in Iraq capable of handling their own security, I’d say the same thing to you. :shrug:
Nobody is talking about a stable government in Iraq capable of handling their own security. We're talking about a fledgling government in Iraq, which may or may not be stable when we withdraw, insisting on handling their security. Please try to keep up.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 12:18 PM
Nobody is talking about a stable government in Iraq capable of handling their own security. We're talking about a fledgling government in Iraq, which may or may not be stable when we withdraw, insisting on handling their security. Please try to keep up.

OH, my bad. Since your so “up” on it, why don’t you quote this “insistence”?

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 12:30 PM
OH, my bad. Since your so “up” on it, why don’t you quote this “insistence”?
Go back to the beginning of this conversation, which is pretty nearly the beginning of this thread, and read through the entire thing. I've always given you credit for being pretty intelligent, so I know you're capable of recognizing an "if-then" statement when you see one.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 12:40 PM
Go back to the beginning of this conversation, which is pretty nearly the beginning of this thread, and read through the entire thing. I've always given you credit for being pretty intelligent, so I know you're capable of recognizing an "if-then" statement when you see one.

Right, that’s kinda why I posted this.

:spock: See’n as how you’re try’n to call “oopsy, wouldn’t you hate to be teh Debil right now, tee hee” over what he's stated he wanted all along, a stable democracy in Iraq capable of handling their own security, I’d say the same thing to you. :shrug:

Then you apparently didn’t like get’n called out and claimed I wasn’t “keep’n up”.

Nobody is talking about a stable government in Iraq capable of handling their own security. We're talking about a fledgling government in Iraq, which may or may not be stable when we withdraw, insisting on handling their security. Please try to keep up.

And now you’re try’n to belittle my ability to recognize what I’m address’n.? :shake:
I guess I gave you too much credit for be’n able to discuss a topic without resort’n to snide little insults. :shrug:

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 12:44 PM
Right, that’s kinda why I posted this.
Except that my "if-then" was actually based on the contents of the article in the OP, and the suggestion, from the text quoted from the Iraqis' proposal, calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. Yours, on the other hand, was out of the blue and completely unrelated to anything in the thread.

Then you apparently didn’t like get’n called out and claimed I wasn’t “keep’n up”.
You didn't call me out on anything. You tried to move the goalposts then claim the playing field was unchanged.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 12:56 PM
Except that my "if-then" was actually based on the contents of the article in the OP, and the suggestion, from the text quoted from the Iraqis' proposal, calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. Yours, on the other hand, was out of the blue and completely unrelated to anything in the thread.

Right, your’s was rhetoric based on what you’d like to see happen.
I haven’t even made an “if-then” statement.

You didn't call me out on anything. You tried to move the goalposts then claim the playing field was unchanged.

“Moved the goalposts”? :LOL: All I’ve done is point out the way your act’n. That’s it. ROFL

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 01:04 PM
Right, your’s was rhetoric based on what you’d like to see happen.
Mine wasn't based on rhetoric. It was based on an actual quoted portion of the alleged text of the Iraqis' proposal. The rest was analysis of how that would affect the GOP. Do you disagree with the analysis based on the actual quoted text? So far, you only disagreed with the analysis based on a presupposition of what the conditions in Iraq would actually be when they do officially demand a timetable be laid out, which, if the article is correct, is not far away.

I haven’t even made an “if-then” statement.
No, you offered a presupposition based on what you'd like to see happen.
“Moved the goalposts”? :LOL: All I’ve done is point out the way your act’n. That’s it. ROFL
Nope, you moved the goalposts. Neither my analysis nor the quoted text in the OP presupposed either the stability of the Iraqi government or the ability of the Iraqis to handle their own security. You alone introduced those presuppositions. In fact, my analysis included both a stable Iraq and an unstable Iraq, since both are equally possible outcomes of a US troop withdrawal within the next year or two.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 01:20 PM
No, you offered a presupposition based on what you'd like to see happen.

You mean like this?

I can see why this would be a major nightmare for BushCo.

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and things stabilize, then the Dems can say, "See, we were right all along. We didn't need to keep our soldiers in harms way for Iraq to become stable."

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket, BushCo will get blamed for pulling out too early, but they won't be able to turn the blame on the Dems, because the pullout was due to Iraqi demands, not pressure from the Democrats.

If we don't honor their demand for our withdrawal, all BushCo's talk about democracy and self-determination will be worthless.

Wouldn't you just love to be Bush when that demand becomes official?

All I’ve done is point’n laugh at your desperate spin.
Now that “desperate spin” has turned on me. :shake: Damn dude, are you really this invested in your rhetoric?

patteeu
06-27-2006, 01:45 PM
There's not a demand for a specific date of withdrawal, but if the text quoted from the proposal is accurate, there is definitely a demand for a timetable, which the administration is fighting very hard to avoid.

The administration has been articulating a date nonspecific timetable for quite some time now. You've heard it. As the Iraqi's stand up, we'll stand down. Without a date attached, it's not the kind of timetable that would make the US uncomfortable as you (and others) have been suggesting. And at some point, timetables with dates will even be acceptable to the Bush administration (or their ideological heirs). But I have faith that when that time comes, even if it happens a decade from now, you'll be arguing the old "see, we were right all along" line. Good luck with that.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 01:46 PM
You mean like this?
Three if-then statements, all based on actual quoted text alleged to be from the actual Iraqi proposal. What part of actual quoted text are you not getting? I'm not presupposing, the text was quoted ... Q-U-O-T-E-D ... in the article!

All I’ve done is point’n laugh at your desperate spin.
Now that “desperate spin” has turned on me. :shake: Damn dude, are you really this invested in your rhetoric?
Again, it was QUOTED. The rest was my personal analysis using if-then statements. Do you really not understand the concept of an if-then statement?

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 01:48 PM
The administration has been articulating a date nonspecific timetable for quite some time now.
That's not a timetable, that's rhetoric. That's empty words to feed the hungry.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:00 PM
Three if-then statements, all based on actual quoted text alleged to be from the actual Iraqi proposal. What part of actual quoted text are you not getting? I'm not presupposing, the text was quoted ... Q-U-O-T-E-D ... in the article!


Again, it was QUOTED. The rest was my personal analysis using if-then statements. Do you really not understand the concept of an if-then statement?

Maybe you just don't understand RadarChief's criticism (which I think is right on the mark, BTW)?

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:01 PM
That's not a timetable, that's rhetoric. That's empty words to feed the hungry.

So is what the Iraqi's are "demanding." I see you're gobbling it up though.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:02 PM
Maybe you just don't understand RadarChief's criticism (which I think is right on the mark, BTW)?
Maybe I don't, since he had to move the goalposts to make it. His criticism is based on a presupposition that isn't inherent in the article or the original argument. If he wants to criticize my analysis, he needs to do it on the same playing field from which it was made.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:04 PM
So is what the Iraqi's are "demanding." I see you're gobbling it up though.The Iraqis are asking for something more specific than what they've been given. They don't set a date in their proposal, but they're asking for something more than meaningless words. They aren't asking for an exact date, but they're asking for more meaningful criteria than BushCo has been willing to provide so far. Basically, they're trying to put the squeeze on and start dictating things on their terms, not ours.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:15 PM
Maybe I don't, since he had to move the goalposts to make it. His criticism is based on a presupposition that isn't inherent in the article or the original argument. If he wants to criticize my analysis, he needs to do it on the same playing field from which it was made.

You gave your analysis. I disagreed with it and gave you mine. You called it premature damage control. RadarChief said he could say the same about your original analysis. What's the difference between what he did and what you did (other than the fact that he probably wouldn't have done it if you hadn't taken that approach first)?

I don't see the "moving the goalposts" point you are trying to make either.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:18 PM
The Iraqis are asking for something more specific than what they've been given. They don't set a date in their proposal, but they're asking for something more than meaningless words. They aren't asking for an exact date, but they're asking for more meaningful criteria than BushCo has been willing to provide so far. Basically, they're trying to put the squeeze on and start dictating things on their terms, not ours.

I think it's more about Iraqi politics than about the Iraqi's wanting to show the US who's boss. I bet we don't see a timetable with real specifics anytime soon. We may well get a timetable, but it will be based on things that aren't easily objectively measured from the outside. You'll feel sated and rub your tummy, but it will be just as meaningless from an objective perspective as what we've been hearing all along.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:23 PM
You gave your analysis. I disagreed with it and gave you mine. You called it premature damage control. RadarChief said he could say the same about your original analysis. What's the difference between what he did and what you did (other than the fact that he probably wouldn't have done it if you hadn't taken that approach first)?For one thing, "damage control" is a spin that people go into to minimize the damage done to their side by whatever is occurring. If the Iraqis demand a timetable for early withdrawal, and further demand the withdrawal of US troops earlier than BushCo had intended, it isn't my side of the issue that stands to take damage. It's your side. The mess in Iraq is a liability to the pro-Iraq-war crowd, not to the anti-Iraq-war crowd.I don't see the "moving the goalposts" point you are trying to make either.My analysis is based on the idea that we can't currently foresee whether or not Iraq will be stable and fully capable of policing itself at the time that they demand our withdrawal, should they demand it. His criticism of my analysis is predicated on the presupposition that Iraq's government will be stable and fully capable of policing itself at that time. That presupposition was not inherent in either my analysis, nor in the quoted text upon which I based my "if-then" statements. He introduced that presupposition in order to make his criticism, and tried to make my analysis conform to it. That's called moving the goalposts. It's also a strawman, of sorts.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 02:32 PM
I don't see the "moving the goalposts" point you are trying to make either.

I didn’t. That’s a “strawman”.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:34 PM
I didn’t. That’s a “strawman”.
No, your criticism was a strawman. You added a presupposition to my argument that was never there. That's a strawman. And it's moving the goalposts.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:35 PM
For one thing, "damage control" is a spin that people go into to minimize the damage done to their side by whatever is occurring. If the Iraqis demand a timetable for early withdrawal, and further demand the withdrawal of US troops earlier than BushCo had intended, it isn't my side of the issue that stands to take damage. It's your side. The mess in Iraq is a liability to the pro-Iraq-war crowd, not to the anti-Iraq-war crowd.

How do you know any withdrawal would be earlier than BushCo intended? What's the BushCo timetable? The answer, of course, is that you don't know.

As I said, your analysis is just as much damage control as anything I suggested. If we withdraw and the Iraqis become a stand-alone, stable government, it will validate the Bush approach not invalidate it. No doubt, the dems and their dancing spin puppets (like yourself) will try to claim that Bush was forced into a premature withdrawal against his wishes, but what basis would you have for making such a claim when Bush is the one deciding to withdraw at the request of the Iraqis as he's always claimed he'd do?

There isn't any difference between your analysis and my analysis in terms of whether or not it could be considered spin. RadarChief recognizes this, but apparently you don't. I think we've found the source of the misunderstanding now.

My analysis is based on the idea that we can't currently foresee whether or not Iraq will be stable and fully capable of policing itself at the time that they demand our withdrawal, should they demand it. His criticism of my analysis is predicated on the presupposition that Iraq's government will be stable and fully capable of policing itself at that time. That presupposition was not inherent in either my analysis, nor in the quoted text upon which I based my "if-then" statements. He introduced that presupposition in order to make his criticism, and tried to make my analysis conform to it. That's called moving the goalposts. It's also a strawman, of sorts.

Again, you're wrong. His response was to a strand of the thread that involved only the "if Iraq becomes stable" part of your analysis (and my response to it). Maybe you're the one who needs to try a little harder to "keep up."

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:36 PM
I didn’t.

I know. I doubt that Nightwish will ever admit it though.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:39 PM
How do you know any withdrawal would be earlier than BushCo intended? What's the BushCo timetable? The answer, of course, is that you don't know.My analysis was hypothetical. The criteria was that the withdrawal occurs before BushCo wanted it to. My analysis doesn't apply to a situation in which the withdrawal occurs according to BushCo's intentions. Not sure how you missed that. As I said, your analysis is just as much damage control as anything I suggested.You still don't understand what damage control means, do you? To be in damage control mode, you first have to be on the side that stands to take damage if the introduced hypothetical situation happens. I'm not. You are. Get it?
Again, you're wrong. His response was to a strand of the thread that involved only the "if Iraq becomes stable" part of your analysis (and my response to it). Maybe you're the one who needs to try a little harder to "keep up."Well, if he intended only to address that one strand, then he wasn't very clear about it. And if that's the case, he's simply wrong, as were you.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 02:42 PM
This is what started this particular line of conversation.

Isn't it a little early for you to be going into damage control mode?

Which is exactly what you’re do’n. Try’n to spin every possible outcome, as you see it, as a win for “your side” and a loss for the opposition.
That you refuse to see that is kinda crack’n me up.

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 02:44 PM
No, your criticism was a strawman. You added a presupposition to my argument that was never there. That's a strawman. And it's moving the goalposts.

Which I’m sure is the justification you’ll continue to use to completely dismiss what I pointed out to you. :thumb:

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:49 PM
Which is exactly what you’re do’n. Try’n to spin every possible outcome, as you see it, as a win for “your side” and a loss for the opposition.That's not "damage control." Do I need to get you both a dictionary?
That you refuse to see that is kinda crack’n me up.I don't refuse to see it. I never denied. What you're refusing to see is that it was my hypothetical. I set the goalposts in the first place. You tried to counter my take, in those specific circumstances which haven't occurred, by trying to change the playing field. You want to play my game, you'll play it by my rules. End of story. You want to play by your rules, you're gonna have to start a new game. It's a hypothetical situation. Is this getting clearer for you yet?

Radar Chief
06-27-2006, 03:15 PM
That's not "damage control."

Right, that’s why you’re not get all upset over it. ROFL

You want to play my game, you'll play it by my rules. End of story. You want to play by your rules, you're gonna have to start a new game.

Though, this does explain why you so desperately need to “win” here. :hmmm:

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 04:07 PM
Tell you what, let's rewind a bit, since we've been talking past each other for the last several posts. Let's go back to my original hypothetical, and I'll even repost the quoted portion of the text so we'll have a basis to start from. I'll repost my three hypothetical points, and you can tell whether or not you agree with them, if those circumstances come to pass.

Here was the alleged text from the actual Iraqi proposal:

"The plan also calls for a withdrawal timetable for coalition forces from Iraq, but it doesn't specify an actual date—one of the Sunnis' key demands. It calls for "the necessity of agreeing on a timetable under conditions that take into account the formation of Iraqi armed forces so as to guarantee Iraq's security," and asks that a U.N. Security Council decree confirm the timetable. Mahmoud Othman, a National Assembly member who is close to President Talabani, said that no one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable."

Okay, from that we have the idea that Iraqis definitely want a timetable for withdrawal of US troops, something the US has been very reluctant to commit to. If they put this "national reconciliation plan" into effect, they are going to expect the US to stop fidgeting about setting a timetable, and put the pressure on the US to come to the table with it. That's something Bush definitely does not want to come to pass, at least not right now. And once they get their timetable, they're going to expect the US to comply with it, something Bush really doesn't want to do. Now that much isn't really hypothetical, that's just common sense. The hypothetical part comes from the fact that we don't know yet if or when the Iraqis are going to make this plan official, and if or when the US is going to abide by their wishes. That said, here are my three strands of analysis:

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and things stabilize, then the Dems can say, "See, we were right all along. We didn't need to keep our soldiers in harms way for Iraq to become stable." Patteu, of course, countered that this could not be seen as a liability for the GOP, because a stable Iraqi government capable of policing its own nation is what they wanted all along. Well, that's true, but it doesn't contradict what I said about the Dems still being able to play it to their advantage and point to the stability, even with a premature withdrawal, as an indication that our extended presence there, with all the extra lives lost, wasn't necessary to achieve stability in Iraq, because they're already capable of it.

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket, BushCo will get blamed for pulling out too early, but they won't be able to turn the blame on the Dems, because the pullout was due to Iraqi demands, not pressure from the Democrats. Do you disagree with this?

If we don't honor their demand for our withdrawal, all BushCo's talk about democracy and self-determination will be worthless. Do you disagree with this point?

mlyonsd
06-27-2006, 06:50 PM
Can I play?


If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and things stabilize, then the Dems can say, "See, we were right all along. We didn't need to keep our soldiers in harms way for Iraq to become stable."

Yes and no. Each partisan side will claim victory and the guy in the middle won't really care. He'll give his political points to the side that offers the shiniest penny. At this point though I'd think the Bush side would consider this a victory no matter who gets the credit.


If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket, BushCo will get blamed for pulling out too early, but they won't be able to turn the blame on the Dems, because the pullout was due to Iraqi demands, not pressure from the Democrats. Do you disagree with this?

Agree.
If we withdraw and it falls apart Bush will get the blame in this instance. Actually the Iraqi's are doing the democrats a favor because if Bush were to follow the dem lead now and it fell apart the argument would be easily made to the public it's because the democrats folded.


If we don't honor their demand for our withdrawal, all BushCo's talk about democracy and self-determination will be worthless. Do you disagree with this point?

Not only is this true but the administration would never follow this path. It would lead to even more insurgency.

unlurking
06-27-2006, 08:13 PM
Can I play?



Yes and no. Each partisan side will claim victory and the guy in the middle won't really care. He'll give his political points to the side that offers the shiniest penny. At this point though I'd think the Bush side would consider this a victory no matter who gets the credit.



Agree.
If we withdraw and it falls apart Bush will get the blame in this instance. Actually the Iraqi's are doing the democrats a favor because if Bush were to follow the dem lead now and it fell apart the argument would be easily made to the public it's because the democrats folded.



Not only is this true but the administration would never follow this path. It would lead to even more insurgency.
Hey, no fair!

You're playing by the rules and ruining my entertainment!! :cuss:

BTW, I agree with your points.

Logical
06-27-2006, 08:32 PM
Uh-oh, the Iraqi gov. wants amnesty for terrorists, er, insurgents? We know many CONS think the entire insurgency is comprised of terrorists and there is no actual insurgency (see Mr. Kotter) and here we have their government proposing these people go free.

Along the same line of insurgents in Iraq=terrorists, does that mean the NEW Iraqi government is now safe guarding terrorists? :hmmm:


This was by far the most interesting thought in the thread, yet no responses. :hmmm:

Rausch
06-27-2006, 08:59 PM
This was by far the most interesting thought in the thread, yet no responses. :hmmm:

Probably because no one saw it until you quoted it...

Logical
06-27-2006, 11:27 PM
Probably because no one saw it until you quoted it...Possibly so, their loss.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 07:39 AM
Tell you what, let's rewind a bit, since we've been talking past each other for the last several posts. Let's go back to my original hypothetical, and I'll even repost the quoted portion of the text so we'll have a basis to start from. I'll repost my three hypothetical points, and you can tell whether or not you agree with them, if those circumstances come to pass.

Here was the alleged text from the actual Iraqi proposal:

"The plan also calls for a withdrawal timetable for coalition forces from Iraq, but it doesn't specify an actual date—one of the Sunnis' key demands. It calls for "the necessity of agreeing on a timetable under conditions that take into account the formation of Iraqi armed forces so as to guarantee Iraq's security," and asks that a U.N. Security Council decree confirm the timetable. Mahmoud Othman, a National Assembly member who is close to President Talabani, said that no one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable."

If you were honest with yourself, you'd see that that conditions-based timetable sounds an awful lot like what the Bush administration has been saying all along. The only thing new is the call for a UN Security Council decree. As Mahmoud Othman says, no one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable. Of course, people might disagree on what the conditions ought to be but that's not a part of this article nor a part of your hypothetical analysis.

Okay, from that we have the idea that Iraqis definitely want a timetable for withdrawal of US troops, something the US has been very reluctant to commit to. If they put this "national reconciliation plan" into effect, they are going to expect the US to stop fidgeting about setting a timetable, and put the pressure on the US to come to the table with it. That's something Bush definitely does not want to come to pass, at least not right now. And once they get their timetable, they're going to expect the US to comply with it, something Bush really doesn't want to do. Now that much isn't really hypothetical, that's just common sense. The hypothetical part comes from the fact that we don't know yet if or when the Iraqis are going to make this plan official, and if or when the US is going to abide by their wishes.[/b]

I disagree with this part of the analysis even though you call it common sense. I think these baseline assumptions are where you go astray.

That said, here are my three strands of analysis:

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and things stabilize, then the Dems can say, "See, we were right all along. We didn't need to keep our soldiers in harms way for Iraq to become stable." Patteu, of course, countered that this could not be seen as a liability for the GOP, because a stable Iraqi government capable of policing its own nation is what they wanted all along. Well, that's true, but it doesn't contradict what I said about the Dems still being able to play it to their advantage and point to the stability, even with a premature withdrawal, as an indication that our extended presence there, with all the extra lives lost, wasn't necessary to achieve stability in Iraq, because they're already capable of it.

The dems won't win this argument. Unless the Bush administration says they don't like the specific timetable and it looks like they are being forced out, most people will give credit to the administration for achieving their stated goals. The dems will try to take credit, but it won't work.

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket, BushCo will get blamed for pulling out too early, but they won't be able to turn the blame on the Dems, because the pullout was due to Iraqi demands, not pressure from the Democrats. Do you disagree with this?

This is a no brainer. I agree with it.

If we don't honor their demand for our withdrawal, all BushCo's talk about democracy and self-determination will be worthless. Do you disagree with this point?

I can't even contemplate this happening, but if it does I'd agree with you.

Radar Chief
06-28-2006, 07:56 AM
Tell you what, let's rewind a bit, since we've been talking past each other for the last several posts. Let's go back to my original hypothetical, and I'll even repost the quoted portion of the text so we'll have a basis to start from. I'll repost my three hypothetical points, and you can tell whether or not you agree with them, if those circumstances come to pass.

Thank you Nightwish. I know from experience that when your not entrenched in be’n disagreeable that you can be a bright guy and I appreciate your take on things even if I disagree with’em.

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and things stabilize, then the Dems can say, "See, we were right all along. We didn't need to keep our soldiers in harms way for Iraq to become stable." Patteu, of course, countered that this could not be seen as a liability for the GOP, because a stable Iraqi government capable of policing its own nation is what they wanted all along. Well, that's true, but it doesn't contradict what I said about the Dems

It wasn’t meant to “contradict”, simply show the other side of the same debate. I’d expect both sides to play it pretty much as you and Pat described.

Well, that's true, but it doesn't contradict what I said about the Dems still being able to play it to their advantage and point to the stability, even with a premature withdrawal, as an indication that our extended presence there, with all the extra lives lost, wasn't necessary to achieve stability in Iraq, because they're already capable of it.

And this is what I’d expect as a “return volley” from the Dems. The Reps would probably counter that with the ole, “the time was necessary for allowing Iraqis the chance to stand up for themselves.” And the argument would probably digress to the typical name call’n from there. :shrug:

If we honor their demand for our withdrawal, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket, BushCo will get blamed for pulling out too early, but they won't be able to turn the blame on the Dems, because the pullout was due to Iraqi demands, not pressure from the Democrats. Do you disagree with this?

A little. “Won’t” isn’t necessarily in a politicians vocabulary and I’d expect the Reps in that instance to try the, “It was against our better judgment and we’d have never done it without pressure from the whiney Dems.”
Whether or not that’d resonate with the American public is what we’d find out if this theory ever became a practical application.

If we don't honor their demand for our withdrawal, all BushCo's talk about democracy and self-determination will be worthless. Do you disagree with this point?

Not at all. :thumb:

Radar Chief
06-28-2006, 07:59 AM
Probably because no one saw it until you quoted it...

That or no one’s take’n the bait.
It’s not like she’s here to discuss anything. She’s a troll and her only purpose is to irritate as many here as possible.
The quote Jim posted is a prime example.

Nightwish
06-28-2006, 09:14 AM
And this is what I’d expect as a “return volley” from the Dems. The Reps would probably counter that with the ole, “the time was necessary for allowing Iraqis the chance to stand up for themselves.” And the argument would probably digress to the typical name call’n from there. :shrug:
I do believe that both sides could and would play this particular scenario to their advantage. I don't think there would be a "loser," per se, in this scenario, as the rhetoric from both sides would cancel each other out. Neither would gain ground on the other. However, I see that as a problem for the GOP, because what the GOP needs is not only a net positive outcome in Iraq, but also one that will allow them to gain ground on the Dems. With the Dems gaining momentum, an outcome that doesn't put some ground between the two camps may be hurtful to the GOP, especially if it was their big hope for securing Congress in November, or for securing the election in '08, depending when all this takes place, if it does.

memyselfI
06-28-2006, 03:13 PM
This was by far the most interesting thought in the thread, yet no responses. :hmmm:

Thank you but I'm really only interested in ONE response. And he seems to be conveniently avoiding this thread all of a sudden. I'm sure that is just a coinky dinky. :hmmm:

I'm about ready to post a new thread asking the question so he can't miss it... :p

memyselfI
06-28-2006, 03:16 PM
That or no one’s take’n the bait.
It’s not like she’s here to discuss anything. She’s a troll and her only purpose is to irritate as many here as possible.
The quote Jim posted is a prime example.

The quote was a relevant question asked about a legitimate statement that was made by CONS who refused to acknowledge the difference between insurgents and terrorists even in the face of the Pentagon making the distinction. Mr. Kotter is one.

Radar Chief
06-28-2006, 03:31 PM
The quote was a relevant question asked about a legitimate statement that was made by CONS who refused to acknowledge the difference between insurgents and terrorists even in the face of the Pentagon making the distinction. Mr. Kotter is one.

It’s not the question but how you asked it.
I don’t know why I bother, it’s obvious from your history you’ll never understand that.