PDA

View Full Version : Iraqi PM Offers Incentives for Rebuilding Help; U.S. Reportedly Plans Troop Drawdown


mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 09:36 AM
Sunday , June 25, 2006
Associated Press


BAGHDAD, Iraq — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday offered an olive branch to insurgents who join in rebuilding Iraq and said lawmakers should set a timeline for the Iraqi military and police to take control of security throughout the country.

There was no mention of any timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

U.S. officials, however, said Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, had given U.S. President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld a plan for drawing down the American presence by two combat brigades by late summer or early autumn.

The New York Times said the officials indicated the drawdown could involve the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division, which currently oversees a swath of west Baghdad, and the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division, which oversees troublesome Diyala and Salahuddin provinces.

Click here to read the New York Times story.

According to the report, those brigades would not be replaced numerically. It was expected, however, that their duties would be assumed by U.S. forces from elsewhere in the country. The Times report Sunday said the Casey plan envisioned cutting U.S. forces from 14 combat brigades now in the country to 5 or 6 by the end of next year.

Military officials in Baghdad would not comment on the report.

CountryWatch: Iraq

In violence on Sunday, six people were killed after a parcel blew up in a main market in Baghdad and two more died when a bomb went off in a minibus in the east of the capital, police said. At least 22 people were wounded.

A former military officer, meanwhile, was gunned down outside his home in Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, according to police Col. Abdul-Karim Ahmed.

In Taji, 12 miles north of Baghdad, 16 workers were kidnapped as they moved furniture into the Technology Research Center. At least 80 people were kidnapped in the same region last week, about 50 of whom have since been freed by police or released by the kidnappers.

On the rebuilding front, Al-Maliki's 24-point national reconciliation plan would also include an amnesty for insurgents and opposition figures who have not been involved in terrorist activities. Al-Maliki declared however, that insurgent killers would not escape justice regardless of whether their victims had been coalition forces or Iraqis.
"The launch of this national reconciliation initiative should not be read as a reward for the killers and criminals or acceptance of their actions. No, one thousand times no. There can be no agreement with them unless they face the justice," he said.
The new Iraqi leader, in power just more than a month, said he was realistic about the difficult road that lay ahead.

"We realize that there is a legion of those who have tread the path of evil [who] ... will continue with their criminal acts," he said.

But he held out an offer of peace to those who would renounce violence, while threatening retribution and punishment to those who would not.

"To those who want to rebuild our country, we present an olive branch... . And to those who insist on killing and terrorism, we present a fist with the power of law to protect our country and people," told lawmakers, who applauded his speech.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad congratulated the government on the initiative and urged Iraqi leaders to move quickly.

"The leaders of Iraq's various communities should truly be leaders to their people, and begin to take responsibility for bringing sectarian violence to an end," he said. "I urge the insurgents to lay down their arms and join the democratic process initiated by their fellow Iraqis."

The plan also won the endorsement of the senior Sunni political figure in parliament.
"In the name of Iraqi Accordance Front, I support and agree with this initiative and call upon all Iraqis to support it because it will be the first step toward security, stability and the building new Iraq," said Adnan al-Dulaimi, Accordance Front leader. The organization represents the three key Sunni political parties in parliament.

The Iraqi parliament was to debate the plan, which is believed to face considerable opposition among hard-liners on both sides of the Sunni-Shiite divide, in sessions this week.

In the south of Iraq, the first of Japan's force of 600 soldiers being withdrawn from Iraq crossed the border into Kuwait, according to Associated Press reporters and the Japanese Defense Agency

The Japanese withdrawal of its total force of soldiers conducting a humanitarian and reconstruction mission began with the departure of about 15 vehicles transporting trucks, bulldozers and equipment from the provincial capital of Samawah early Sunday morning for the 210 mile journey south to Kuwait.

As the Japanese ended their mission in Iraq, al-Maliki's reconciliation plan said there should be a timeline established for Iraqi forces to take over all security duties in the country. It did not, however, include specifics on the withdrawal of American and British forces.

The plan also seeks compensation for former detainees "and those who were killed by Iraqi and American forces" and said their time spent in prison would be considered as part of their mandatory military service.

Al-Maliki also said he wanted a general pardon for thousands of prisoners who are determined not to have committed "crimes and clear terrorist actions."
Hundreds of prisoners have been pardoned and release in recent months in what is seen as a bid by the Shiite-dominated government to appease Sunni Arab anger over allegations of random detentions and maltreatment.

The proposal also would set rules of engagement for military offensives, requiring military leaders to take into consideration and special conditions that might argue against an attack.

That was seen as a bid to alleviate Sunni anger over the alleged killing of innocent civilians and bystanders by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The reconciliation plan also would call for a reconsideration of policies against supporters of former President Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party.

The plan said a dialogue should be opened with all organizations willing to participate in the political process "except Al Qaeda" and hard-line supporters of Saddam.

Shortly after taking office May 20, al-Maliki vowed to take over security issues from American and other foreign troops in all of Iraq's 18 provinces within 18 months.

The Bush administration has repeatedly said that U.S. troops will stay in Iraq until Iraqi security forces can defend the country against a lethal insurgency that rose up after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.

Casey said earlier this week that he expected reductions in U.S. forces this year but did not agree with congressional efforts to put a timetable on the effort.

"I don't like it, I feel it would limit my flexibility" and give the enemy a schedule to focus on, he said.

Story... (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200874,00.html)

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 09:45 AM
No timeline for coalition troop withdrawl. They do want to set a timetable for Iraqi forces to take over security of the country though.

No amnesty for the killers.

banyon
06-25-2006, 09:58 AM
Maybe it's just me, but does anybody understand who gets this amnesty:

Al-Maliki also said he wanted a general pardon for thousands of prisoners who are determined not to have committed "crimes and clear terrorist actions."

So, you didn't commit a crime or clear terrorist action.

Does that mean that they are offering amnesty to the innocent? If so, that 's sure swell of them.

JBucc
06-25-2006, 10:37 AM
Maybe it's just me, but does anybody understand who gets this amnesty:



So, you didn't commit a crime or clear terrorist action.

Does that mean that they are offering amnesty to the innocent? If so, that 's sure swell of them.I think that means people who fought but didn't use terrorist tactics.

Adept Havelock
06-25-2006, 10:54 AM
No timeline for coalition troop withdrawl.

:hmmm:
While I'm still a bit skeptical till I find another source on this, I guess it depends on what your definition of the word "Timeline" is...
From General Casey's briefing:

The United States has 14 combat brigades in Iraq, plus many other support troops. Under the plan, the United States would shrink this force to 12 combat brigades in September. This would be done by not replacing 2 brigades that are scheduled to be withdrawn.

A combat brigade would be kept on alert in Kuwait or elsewhere in case American commanders needed to augment their forces to deal with a crisis. Another brigade would be kept on a lesser state of alert elsewhere in the world, but still prepared to deploy quickly. As a result of these arrangements, the plan to bring the combat force down to 12 active brigades in Iraq is being called 12-1-1.

Further reductions might be made by the end of the year. By December, the number of American combat brigades in Iraq would be 10 to 12. As with the September reduction, a brigade would be kept on alert and another brigade would be ready to deploy.

According to the projections in General Casey's briefing, the number of combat brigades would shrink to seven to eight by June 2007 and finally to five to six by December 2007.

At the same time, the number of bases in Iraq would decline as American forces consolidated. By the end of the year the number of bases would shrink to 57 from the current 69. By June 2007, there would be 30 bases, and by December 2007 there would be only 11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?ei=5094&en=6477656e4067993d&hp=&ex=1151208000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

It would appear we have moved from the talking point "we can't provide the enemy with specific dates or a timeline", to "It's no big deal if we can provide the enemy with specific dates....." ;)

This, a mere two weeks after the endless bleating of "cut and run" aimed at a very similar proposal from the other side of the aisle.

Adept Havelock
06-25-2006, 10:57 AM
Maybe it's just me, but does anybody understand who gets this amnesty:



So, you didn't commit a crime or clear terrorist action.

Does that mean that they are offering amnesty to the innocent? If so, that 's sure swell of them.


ROFL

"A man is sentenced to Gulag. When he arrives in the camp, his paperwork doesn't come with him. The NKVD officer responsible for the intake demands "What is your term, and what did you do to be put inside?". The man replies "15 years, and I did nothing". The NKVD man roars "Of course you did, the penalty for doing nothing is only 10 years!".

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 11:06 AM
Maybe it's just me, but does anybody understand who gets this amnesty:



So, you didn't commit a crime or clear terrorist action.

Does that mean that they are offering amnesty to the innocent? If so, that 's sure swell of them.

I think it would be fair to say we'll have to wait for clarification on what they mean by amnesty and who receives it.

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 11:09 AM
:hmmm:
While I'm still a bit skeptical till I find another source on this, I guess it depends on what your definition of the word "Timeline" is...
From General Casey's briefing:

The United States has 14 combat brigades in Iraq, plus many other support troops. Under the plan, the United States would shrink this force to 12 combat brigades in September. This would be done by not replacing 2 brigades that are scheduled to be withdrawn.

A combat brigade would be kept on alert in Kuwait or elsewhere in case American commanders needed to augment their forces to deal with a crisis. Another brigade would be kept on a lesser state of alert elsewhere in the world, but still prepared to deploy quickly. As a result of these arrangements, the plan to bring the combat force down to 12 active brigades in Iraq is being called 12-1-1.

Further reductions might be made by the end of the year. By December, the number of American combat brigades in Iraq would be 10 to 12. As with the September reduction, a brigade would be kept on alert and another brigade would be ready to deploy.

According to the projections in General Casey's briefing, the number of combat brigades would shrink to seven to eight by June 2007 and finally to five to six by December 2007.

At the same time, the number of bases in Iraq would decline as American forces consolidated. By the end of the year the number of bases would shrink to 57 from the current 69. By June 2007, there would be 30 bases, and by December 2007 there would be only 11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?ei=5094&en=6477656e4067993d&hp=&ex=1151208000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

It would appear we have moved from the talking point "we can't provide the enemy with specific dates or a timeline", to "It's no big deal if we can provide the enemy with specific dates....." ;)

This, a mere two weeks after the endless bleating of "cut and run" aimed at a very similar proposal from the other side of the aisle.

What I meant was the Iraqi's are not setting a timeline for withdrawl which is what was reported by Newsweek.

As far as Casey planning for troop withdrawls I would say they go more hand in hand with Iraqi forces stepping up and taking over security then a political argument going on in the Senate.

Adept Havelock
06-25-2006, 11:19 AM
What I meant was the Iraqi's are not setting a timeline for withdrawl which is what was reported by Newsweek
Starting DB level backpedal skills, there. :p

As far as Casey planning for troop withdrawls I would say they go more hand in hand with Iraqi forces stepping up and taking over security then a political argument going on in the Senate.
Well, of course you would. Otherwise, it would involve admitting that the whole "cut and run" blather of the last couple weeks over a very similar plan, and the continued whining of the WH about "we can't set a date" had no real substance behind it, and was just partisanship. :D

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 11:26 AM
Good! I am very pleased with the notion of bringing our soldiers home (be that stateside or foreign base redeployment). I am also very pleased that this is at the behest of the Iraqi government, and not dictated by a small subset of congress. :D

Mr. Laz
06-25-2006, 11:30 AM
not dictated by a small subset of congress. :D :rolleyes:





as for incentive ....... how about free oil until they have repaid the 900 billion dollars we've spent on their shit hole country.

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 11:35 AM
as for incentive ....... how about free oil until they have repaid the 900 billion dollars we've spent on their shit hole country.

Not a bad idea at all. Seriously.

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 12:03 PM
Starting DB level backpedal skills, there. :p

No back peddling, in post #2 I used the word "they" which was intended to mean the Iraqi's, not us. Although I'm sure I could run down the field chasing the guy that burned me just as well as our DB's.

Well, of course you would. Otherwise, it would involve admitting that the whole "cut and run" blather of the last couple weeks over a very similar plan, and the continued whining of the WH about "we can't set a date" had no real substance behind it, and was just partisanship. :D

I've stated before the democrat's position argued in the Senate this week was their attempt to come up with a unified postion on Iraq that was different than Bush and might sell to the American public during an election year.

The moonbats have claimed all along that Bush has no plan for Iraq when it has always been clear that was false political rhetoric.

The plan has always been to perform security while the government was put in place and security forces trained. We're now getting to the point our patience might pay off in that the Iraqi's want to set a timeline for them to take responsibility for the security. It's already happening in southern Iraq.

Casey planning for withdrawls goes hand in hand with the Iraqi's themselves setting a security timeline, I'm surprised you don't recognize that.

In any case it's good news and I'm pleased for America's sake no matter who gets the political points.

Mr. Laz
06-25-2006, 12:20 PM
Not a bad idea at all for a dirty stinkin' commie liberal. Seriously.

fixed your post for ya :D

banyon
06-25-2006, 12:51 PM
I think that means people who fought but didn't use terrorist tactics.

I don't think so. Surely firing on troops or Iraqi police are crimes under the U.S./Iraqi authorities that have been in place.

I can't think of where someone would "fight" but it wouldn't be called a crime.

banyon
06-25-2006, 12:55 PM
The moonbats have claimed all along that Bush has no plan for Iraq when it has always been clear that was false political rhetoric.

The plan has always been to perform security while the government was put in place and security forces trained. We're now getting to the point our patience might pay off in that the Iraqi's want to set a timeline for them to take responsibility for the security. It's already happening in southern Iraq.

I agreed with most of your post except for this part. The plan definitely hasn't "always been" to retrain Iraqi security.

1. It wasn't originally because there was not going to be an insurgency.

2. It wasn't until this year that W went out on his campaign rhetoric stops with his "Plan for Victory" replete with logo and all.

3. It still isn't the plan since there is no indication that our base installations will be anything other than permanent.

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 01:15 PM
I agreed with most of your post except for this part. The plan definitely hasn't "always been" to retrain Iraqi security.

1. It wasn't originally because there was not going to be an insurgency.

2. It wasn't until this year that W went out on his campaign rhetoric stops with his "Plan for Victory" replete with logo and all.

3. It still isn't the plan since there is no indication that our base installations will be anything other than permanent.

1. MASSIVE planning blunder. Following Bremer's recommendations of disbanding the Iraqi army and sending the soldiers home w/ no money, no jobs, but WITH AKs & RPGs was braindead. Not having contingency plans in place to fill the power vaccuum, for handling looting and general security, and for securing ordinance stockpiles = dismal planning failure(s). It is, in great part, these failures which have led to the problems we are rectifying now. I think it is sad that the IRAQI Defense Minister had to be the one to come up with a viable plan for securing Baghdad.

Personally, I would have instituted Martial Law, kept the Iraqi army intact, and deployed them as local security forces under the command of coallition forces. "Major combat operations" would not have ceased until a full sweep of population centers was complete. This means combined arms assault and sweep of each major population center (e.g. Mosul, Fallujah, Basra, Baghdad, Sammara, et al). There would be no "catch and release", period.

2. Political pressure is to be thanked for that. It's still just lip service. That's all it takes to make the left happy (as happy as they can be, pack of miserable bastards all).

3. They should be in place until their debts are repaid and the region is secure.

Adept Havelock
06-25-2006, 02:08 PM
1. MASSIVE planning blunder. Following Bremer's recommendations of disbanding the Iraqi army and sending the soldiers home w/ no money, no jobs, but WITH AKs & RPGs was braindead. Not having contingency plans in place to fill the power vaccuum, for handling looting and general security, and for securing ordinance stockpiles = dismal planning failure(s). It is, in great part, these failures which have led to the problems we are rectifying now. I think it is sad that the IRAQI Defense Minister had to be the one to come up with a viable plan for securing Baghdad.

Personally, I would have instituted Martial Law, kept the Iraqi army intact, and deployed them as local security forces under the command of coallition forces. "Major combat operations" would not have ceased until a full sweep of population centers was complete. This means combined arms assault and sweep of each major population center (e.g. Mosul, Fallujah, Basra, Baghdad, Sammara, et al). There would be no "catch and release", period.

Yet it seems almost certain you would dismiss any calls for or pressure for accountability on this debacle as simple partisanship, Nu? I've certainly not seen many calls for accountability on this subject from that side of the legislature.

BTW- Bremer was only executing the policy he had been ordered to, i.e. De-Baathification.

2. Political pressure is to be thanked for that. It's still just lip service. That's all it takes to make the left happy (as happy as they can be, pack of miserable bastards all).

And you are OK with this absence of a policy and simple lip service from the administration on the subject? You certainly don't seem to be criticizing it.
3. They should be in place until their debts are repaid and the region is secure.
There's realistic thinking.
:rolleyes:
In other words- never.
Exactly how many years out of the last oh, say, 3,000 can that region be called "secure" and "Stable?"

So we should occupy a nation until it's debts are paid? When exactly do we present a bill to Iraq for services rendered? Do they get a credit for the elements of their infrastructure which the Coalition destroyed?

After WW2, the US had the Marshall Plan to aid in the reconstruction of Europe, and to limit growth opportunities for Communism.

During the War on Terror, some supporters seem to feel nations should have to reimburse the US for liberation (as point 3 above would seemingly argue), in essence reducing the proud US military to the status of mere mercs. :Poke:

After all, Reparations were so successful when the concept was tested back in 1919...

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 02:23 PM
Yet It seems you would dismiss any calls for or pressure for accountability on this debacle as simple partisanship, Nu? I've certainly not seen many calls for accountability from that side of the legislature.

What do you have in mind? That's the rub - the administration has ADMITTED mistakes were made. So what do you want? Impeachment? Centure? Because the invasion didn't go perfectly? The fact is mistakes <i>were</i> made. To expect no mistakes = unrealistic and naive at best.

And you are OK with this absence and lip service?

Absolutely. The cynic in me knows it's nothing more than a PR campaign intended to position the administration and the republican senators and congressmen for the upcoming elections. Schumer made the same accusation today.

Exactly how many years out of the last 3,000 can that region be called "secure" and "Stable?"
So we should occupy a nation until it's debts are paid? When exactly do we present a bill to Iraq for services rendered? Do they get a credit for the elements of their infrastructure which the Coalition destroyed?

Not going to argue semantics... that's a leftist circle-jerk tactic. Fact is we went into Iraq for a specific purpose. Following the "you break it, you bought it" mentality, we have to stay until Iraq can secure itself. Past that timeframe, we are deployed until the debt is considered repaid... by both our government and theirs. Do not make the mistake of discounting the HUGE service provided to the nation of Iraq; and certainly do not insult our military by calling them a mercenary force.

Adept Havelock
06-25-2006, 02:52 PM
What do you have in mind? That's the rub - the administration has ADMITTED mistakes were made. So what do you want? Impeachment? Centure? Because the invasion didn't go perfectly? The fact is mistakes <i>were</i> made. To expect no mistakes = unrealistic and naive at best.

In the business world where you are held accountable, when you screw up at that level you are reprimanded or demoted at least, and quite likely fired. This administration has only given out "Your doing a heckuva job, Brownie" statements for all involved. Sure they admit to the ocassional mistake "in general", but has anyone even had a hand slapped over these blunders? Have any of the architects of that clusterf**k been held accountable? Nope. The difference between you and me appears to be that I would be just as outraged if it was a Democratic administration responsible for these blunders. As it was "your team" on watch, you seem perfectly willing to sweep it under the rug. Of course, judging from your previous posts, I see little reason to expect anything else. :shrug:

Absolutely. The cynic in me knows it's nothing more than a PR campaign intended to position the administration and the republican senators and congressmen for the upcoming elections. Schumer made the same accusation today.

Nice to know that you have no problem with the Administration not having a long term policy vis-a-vie the insurgency untill domestic political concerns drove it to adopt one (which was Banyon's orig. point). That speaks volumes.

Not going to argue semantics... that's a leftist circle-jerk tactic. Fact is we went into Iraq for a specific purpose. Following the "you break it, you bought it" mentality, we have to stay until Iraq can secure itself. Past that timeframe, we are deployed until the debt is considered repaid... by both our government and theirs. Do not make the mistake of discounting the HUGE service provided to the nation of Iraq; and certainly do not insult our military by calling them a mercenary force.

What semantics? You said we should stay until their debts are paid and the region is secure.
I pointed out that the latter is a naive expectation, at best, considering Millenia of history.
I also pointed out that talking about Iraq owing us a "debt" that should be paid is historically foolish.

As for your allegation, most all of the posters here LW and RW know I certainly wouldn't insult the military, nor those who serve it (unless they proved themselves unworthy of wearing the uniform). As you were the one arguing that these nations owed us a debt (and from your choice of words, you were clearly alluding to a monetary debt) for liberation, it's you who are arguing for treating the armed services as Condottieri.

If you're naive enough to believe that either political wing had a monopoly on semantic "circle-jerks"... ROFL ROFL

Who'd of thought it possible? We've got a slightly more literate version of wreckxjake and MurkVulgar... ;)

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 03:47 PM
In the business world where you are held accountable, when you screw up at that level you are reprimanded or demoted at least, and quite likely fired. This administration has only given out "Your doing a heckuva job, Brownie" statements for all involved. Sure they admit to the ocassional mistake "in general", but has anyone even had a hand slapped over these blunders? Have any of the architechts of that clusterf**k been held accountable? Nope.

Again with the generalities. Who should receive what? If you're saying giving Bremer a freaking medal for his "great work" was ludicrous, I must say I agree 100%. If you're suggesting removal of other individuals within the administration, I ask you specify whom and what "punishment" they should receive.

I must say however, you appear to be leaning strongly in the "impeachment/centure" direction, which I think is not only unjustified, but insane.

The difference between you and me appears to be that I would be just as outraged if it was a Democratic administration responsible for these blunders. As it was "your team" on watch, you seem perfectly willing to sweep it under the rug. Of course, judging from your previous posts, I see little reason to expect anything else.

Utter horseshit. Like the typical leftist you try to play a partisan card. Wipe the sand out of your vagina and get back on topic.

Nice to know that you have no problem with the Administration not having a long term policy vis-a-vie the insurgency untill domestic political concerns drove it to adopt one (which was Banyon's orig. point). That speaks volumes.

You are so clueless. You think the administration has no plan at all? Seriously? You really are delusional. The "plan" all along has been to ursurp the Hussein/Ba'athist regime, implementation of a government of/for the people, and a stabilization force in the region. This has been apparent since DAY ONE. <a href="http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2335895#post2335895">As I've said before</a>, you leftists are guilty of thinking tactically, rather than strategically. The greater strategy has been in place for a long time. Hell, the leftist leadership itself has accused "neocons" of having been planning this strategy for <i>decades</i>. And now that it is being implemented, you guys play ignorance. Nuh uh, not going to buy that line of BS.

What semantics? You said we should stay until their debts are paid and the region is secure.
I pointed out that the latter is a naive expectation, at best, considering Millenia of history.
I also pointed out that talking about Iraq owing us a "debt" that should be paid is historically foolish.

Yes, semantics. You want me to play the "define 'debt'" game. Like I said, that's up to our respective governments. If, at the end of redeployment, we are in agreement that there is no debt to be repaid, so be it. Personally, I liked Laz's idea of $900billion in free crude. A combination of military presence for a decade or two + significantly discounted crude would also be appropriate IMO.

As for your allegation, most all of the posters here LW and RW know I certainly wouldn't insult the military, nor those who serve it (unless they proved themselves unworthy of wearing the uniform). As you were the one arguing that these nations owed us a debt (and from your choice of words, you were clearly alluding to a monetary debt) for liberation, it's you who are arguing for treating the armed services as Condottieri.

You were walking the line with that statement; thus I made the point.

If you're naive enough to believe that either political wing had a monopoly on semantic "circle-jerks"...

Never said one side had the monopoly - simply pointed out it is the primary tool of the left. I think it's thanks to Bill "define 'is'" Clinton. Perhaps that's just when I started to notice one side using it A LOT more than the other.

Who'd of thought it possible? We've got a slightly more literate version of wreckxjake and MurkVulgar

1) Much more literate
2) F*ck you. :p

Adept Havelock
06-25-2006, 04:07 PM
Again with the generalities. Who should receive what? If you're saying giving Bremer a freaking medal for his "great work" was ludicrous, I must say I agree 100%. If you're suggesting removal of other individuals within the administration, I ask you specify whom and what "punishment" they should receive.

I must say however, you appear to be leaning strongly in the "impeachment/centure" direction, which I think is not only unjustified, but insane.

If that's your perception, it's quite incorrect. Specifics, fine. How about a public censure and or termination or employment of the leading civilian members of the DOD in this debacle. It would seem to me that post-conflict planning or the profound lack thereof would fall on those shoulders. Specifically, Rumsfeld and some of his senior advisors. Furthermore, similar actions for those in the senior military leadership who didn't sufficently plan ahead.


Utter horseshit. Like the typical leftist you try to play a partisan card. Wipe the sand out of your vagina and get back on topic.
Leftist? BTW- Nice psychic powers you display in knowing what specifically would or would not outrage me. Where can I buy a set of powers like that?
Incidentally, charges about me pointing out partisanship from someone who's every other post is full of "leftist this, democrat that"... ROFL ROFL


You are so clueless....

I didn't argue that point, Banyon did. As you suggested, get the sand out of your mangina because I called you on the carpet about your response to it. It's not my fault you posted before you thought it through.

Yes, semantics. You want me to play the "define 'debt'" game. Like I said, that's up to our respective governments. If, at the end of redeployment, we are in agreement that there is no debt to be repaid, so be it. Personally, I liked Laz's idea of $900billion in free crude. A combination of military presence for a decade or two + significantly discounted crude would also be appropriate IMO.

Semantics? "Define Debt" game?

I stick to this one:

debt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dt)
n.

1. Something owed, such as money, goods, or services.
2.
1. An obligation or liability to pay or render something to someone else.
2. The condition of owing: a young family always in debt.
3. An offense requiring forgiveness or reparation; a trespass.


[Middle English dette, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *dbita, pl. of Latin dbitum, debt, neuter past participle of dbre, to owe. See ghabh- in Indo-European Roots.]

I like Laz's notion, as long as the burden isn't so great we end up with a rerun of Weimar Germany, as I alluded to previously.


You were walking the line with that statement; thus I made the point.


You were saying we were "owed" something due to the actions of our troops. Thus, I called that line of thinking what it is. :shrug:


Never said one side had the monopoly - simply pointed out it is the primary tool of the left. I think it's thanks to Bill "define 'is'" Clinton. Perhaps that's just when I started to notice one side using it A LOT more than the other.

Perhaps you "notice" a preponderance because it's human nature to overlook the faults of those whom you agree with, Nu?


1) Much more literate
2) F*ck you. :p

1) Perhaps. Same tired rhetoric, just with better grammar and spelling. Like a rightwing version of jAZ. ROFL
2) Geh Kak afen yam, and have a lovely evening. :p

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 04:37 PM
If that's your perception, it's quite incorrect. Specifics, fine. How about a public censure and or termination or employment of the leading civilian members of the DOD in this debacle. It would seem to me that post-conflict planning or the profound lack thereof would fall on those shoulders. Specifically, Rumsfeld and some of his senior advisors. Furthermore, similar actions for those in the senior military leadership who didn't sufficently plan ahead.

Ahh, verbose (shocking), but you finally get to your point: fire Rummy! Didn't he offer to resign?

Rumsfeld has a big target on him. He is stubborn and knows what he wants. Those attributes are rare in the beltway, and therefore draw a lot of criticism. I am impressed with his ability to deal with it. I also admire his vision: retooling the military; converting from a large-scale, massive engagement force to a quicker, lighter, more adaptable force. If you have spent any time at all in government or the military, you know what a HUGE undertaking that really is. Government is all about beuraucracy. It moves v e r y s l o w l y and it takes a l o o o o n n n g g time to get anything done. The results of his vision have been nothing short of spectacular. FFS, Afghanistan is a war fought almost exclusively with SF. That's incredible.

Leftist? BTW- Nice psychic powers you display in knowing what specifically would or would not outrage me. Where can I buy a set of powers like that?
Incidentally, charges about me pointing out partisanship from someone who's every other post is full of "leftist this, democrat that"... ROFL ROFL

Well, when they're the people I am addressing, what do you suggest? Left-center political spectrum plotted individuals? LCPSPIs? Sorry if you're offended... call them like I see them. Youi, of course, would see me as "right-wing", as I'm disagreeing with you. That's typical of liberals. ;)

I didn't argue that point, Banyon did. As you suggested, get the sand out of your mangina because I called you on the carpet about your response to it.

:spock: Banyon typed that into your post? Come on, sack up and admit to what you say. You tried to claim I wouldn't be as "supportive" if a democratice administration were in place and behaving in the same matter and I responded "utter horseshit". And I stand by that. Unlike you (obviously), it's not about party... it is about action. If Clinton were POTUS after 9/11 and had taken the same steps the Bush admin has taken, I would have the same reponse: mistakes have been made, but that is to be expected. I certainly wouldn't be frothing at the mouth, screaming for censure, impeachment, and heads to roll. It's not justified. Giving out medals <i>also</i> unjustified. (of course, Clinton would have pulled the troops after 18 soldiers were killed *BAZZZZING!* see: Somalia and "cut & run")

Semantics? "Define Debt" game?

I stick to this one:

debt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dt)
n.

LOL, like I said, arguing semantics = favorite leftist tool.

I like Laz's notion, as long as the burden isn't so great we end up with a rerun of Weimar Germany, as I alluded to previously.

I do not advocating breaking the Iraqi state. Again, for the third time (pay attention here) it is up to the respective (Iraqi and US) governments to agree on the terms.

You were saying we were "owed" something due to the actions of our troops. Thus, I called that line of thinking what it is.

No, not just the troops. There's the distinction. The troops were the method by which the strategy was implemented. The troops serve the nation. The nation is lead by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The <i>nation</i> dictated the course, the troops implemented and executed the plan of action. You inferred that means the troops are merely mercenaries. I checked your tone on that one. Now you're trying to infer it once more. Again, watch it. That's slippery slope you do not wish to assault.

Perhaps you "notice" a preponderance because it's human nature to overlook the faults of those whom you agree with, Nu?

Example? Again, I notice it regularly here... by the same tired names... and they're all on the left. Hmmmmmmmmmm. BTW, wtf is "Nu"?

1) Perhaps, perhaps. Same tired rhetoric, just with better organization and spelling. Kind of like a rightwing version of jAZ. ROFL
2) Geh Kak afen yam. :p

1) lol, wrong again. Unlike jAZ I can ADMIT WHEN I AM WRONG. That's a BIG distinction. ;)

2) Huh? Same language as "Nu"? Speak English or die. :evil:

banyon
06-25-2006, 04:40 PM
If we adopted the "you broke it you bought it" Colin Powell Pottery Barn principle in Vietnam would we still be there?

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 04:51 PM
If we adopted the "you broke it you bought it" Colin Powell Pottery Barn principle in Vietnam would we still be there?

Oh boy, here we go with the Viet Nam comparisons. ROFL

banyon
06-25-2006, 05:00 PM
Oh boy, here we go with the Viet Nam comparisons. ROFL

It's hypothetical. I guess you are no fan of inductive reasoning though.

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 05:03 PM
It's hypothetical. I guess you are no fan of inductive reasoning though.

Not really. Weak inductive reasoning is prevalent; especially in that particular comparasion.

banyon
06-25-2006, 05:15 PM
Not really. Weak inductive reasoning is prevailent; especially in that particular comparasion.

Ok weak inductive reasoning then is "prevailent".

The point is that if you have foreign policy prinicples, they should be able to apply to more than one scenario or they really aren't principles at all.

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 05:22 PM
Ok weak inductive reasoning then is "prevailent".

The point is that if you have foreign policy prinicples, they should be able to apply to more than one scenario or they really aren't principles at all.

Logical reasoning dictates as much.

The issue I have with the comparison as it is a cheap political tool to stir emotion. To compare Iraq to Viet Nam one must employ "weak" inductive reasoning; which has too many holes and is far too often incorrect.

It's equivalent to those shouting "quagmire!" and "no blood for oil" and "Bush lied, people died!" and "no WMDs!" and all the other basless rhetoric. It is there to serve a poilitcal purpose; screw reality, screw the facts, and screw the poor sons of bitches out there actually fighting for us. I find it revolting.

banyon
06-25-2006, 05:26 PM
Logical reasoning dictates as much.

The issue I have with the comparison as it is a cheap political tool to stir emotion. To compare Iraq to Viet Nam one must employ "weak" inductive reasoning; which has too many holes and is far too often incorrect.

It's equivalent to those shouting "quagmire!" and "no blood for oil" and "Bush lied, people died!" and "no WMDs!" and all the other basless rhetoric. It is there to serve a poilitcal purpose; screw reality, screw the facts, and screw the poor sons of bitches out there actually fighting for us. I find it revolting.


So...would you agree that the Pottery Barn principle has its limits?

That is maybe if we broke it and it was a 20$ vase, then we should pay for it, but maybe if we stumble over an entire rack of fine china worth about $2000, we should run that heck out of the mall?

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 05:30 PM
So...would you agree that the Pottery Barn principle has its limits?

That is maybe if we broke it and it was a 20$ vase, then we should pay for it, but maybe if we stumble over an entire rack of fine china worth about $2000, we should run that heck out of the mall?

EVERY principle has its limits (strong inductive reasoning here :p).

The drawdown is inevitible. I actually agree with Senator Levin: today he stated he thinks the Bush administration will begin troop redeployments soon, then use them for politcal gain in the upcoming election. Cynical? Very. But on the mark IMO.

memyselfI
06-26-2006, 08:00 AM
3. They should be in place until their debts are repaid and the region is secure.

This is the type of incredible lack of understanding of history and culture in the region that poo-pooed the idea of an insurgency. The region has not been secure in CENTURIES and yet the US is supposed to stay until it becomes secure even though our continued meddling/presence has exacerbated insecurities within the region????

patteeu
06-26-2006, 11:47 AM
Well, of course you would. Otherwise, it would involve admitting that the whole "cut and run" blather of the last couple weeks over a very similar plan, and the continued whining of the WH about "we can't set a date" had no real substance behind it, and was just partisanship. :D

There is a world of difference between setting a timetable in response to events or contingent upon them and setting a timetable in hopes driving events. I'm sure you realize this even if you aren't posting like you do.

patteeu
06-26-2006, 11:57 AM
Tangential point: I don't have a problem with an amnesty for those who have attacked Americans. The goal should be a successful peace, not revenge for those who have done us wrong.

the Talking Can
06-26-2006, 11:59 AM
Well, of course you would. Otherwise, it would involve admitting that the whole "cut and run" blather of the last couple weeks over a very similar plan, and the continued whining of the WH about "we can't set a date" had no real substance behind it, and was just partisanship. :D

bingo

now Republicans will start taking credit for the Democrats position...tune in and watch Patteeu unveil his new slander..."anyone who doesn't want to pull troops put hates America"

newspeak baby, newspeak...

go bowe
06-26-2006, 12:03 PM
There is a world of difference between setting a timetable in response to events or contingent upon them and setting a timetable in hopes driving events. . .quite right...

and there's an argument to be made for doing either based on that fact...

a contingent timetable correlates with the realities on the ground and does not give the enemy a date certain to "win"...

a timetable to drive events has worked very well in the political arena/forming of the new democratic government from scratch, and may work to force the iraqis to "stand up" faster...

in general, i prefer the contingent plan in the case of iraq...

go bowe
06-26-2006, 12:06 PM
Tangential point: I don't have a problem with an amnesty for those who have attacked Americans. The goal should be a successful peace, not revenge for those who have done us wrong.in sourth africa, they even granted amnesty to policemen who admitted to torturing and murding large numbers of black africans during apartheid...

patteeu
06-26-2006, 12:48 PM
bingo

now Republicans will start taking credit for the Democrats position...tune in and watch Patteeu unveil his new slander..."anyone who doesn't want to pull troops put hates America"

newspeak baby, newspeak...

recxjake was on top of this one a while ago when he pointed out that the democrat position was moving closer and closer to what the stated position of the Bush administration had been all along: that we would begin to withdraw when the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces permitted us to do so. And it was a long time ago when I pointed out that if Murtha continued to demand troop withdrawals that he would sooner or later get what he wanted and would probably try to claim victory. I guess you are anticipating the same thing but trying to lay down some pre-emptive spin.

patteeu
06-26-2006, 12:49 PM
quite right...

and there's an argument to be made for doing either based on that fact...

a contingent timetable correlates with the realities on the ground and does not give the enemy a date certain to "win"...

a timetable to drive events has worked very well in the political arena/forming of the new democratic government from scratch, and may work to force the iraqis to "stand up" faster...

in general, i prefer the contingent plan in the case of iraq...

Agreed on all points.