Spare a thought for McCain...

That is an excellent point. I don't believe we do any harm in discussing our opinions here, but we should be modest in our projected "knowledge". There are men and women who are incredibly more intelligent than any of us on these matters, and have devoted their lives into working on behalf of the US government in international relations, and unfortunately they still are unable to completely understand the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics. In a region that holds much importance to US interests, we sure have fallen down.

 

I agree. The US dissolved the glue, in the form of a brutal dictator, that held the country of Iraq together. And unfortunately the US holds the responsiblity of securing the nation to a level that they are able to maintain their own security. This is in interest of not only the US goverment, but also the stability of the region. This transition, while I don't believe should have a "written" timetable, should be the focus of coalition forces. I personally believe that all things considered, including a massive failure in strategy in the onset of the war, the coaltion has made quite a bit of progress in the transformation of the Iraq political environment. That said, I was never in belief that this was going to be an easy process.

 

I agree with Paul Slansky McCain owes all of the American people an apology.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky-/yes-apology-necessary_b_136364.html

His concession speech was noble, but it was too little too late. I am still trying to convince some of my baptist conservative friends that Obama is not a Muslim sleeper mole that is going to cut all their throats while they sleep and rob their life savings. Shit Bush and company has already robbed them of most of what they were counting on for retirement.

And think about it on top of Palin his campaign added in Sam/Joe Skinhead/the plumber with his claims that Obama was an anti-semite. This was not "straight talk" this was outright malicious manipulation of the concern American's feel for the welfare of their country and the world. For candidates that were supposed to be the most experienced and qualified...I would ask at what?

 

wacky, it's creepy to agree with you.

I guess I should stress that victory is not guaranteed, and we should tamp down expectations. The goal of a spreading democracy by force was foolish in the first place. Equally foolish is the obsession with "victory". We need to figure out the best case scenario we can achieve given the territory and our resources, and work toward that goal.

As far as the gains we've made, I can't explain why, but I don't feel good about it. Something doesn't add up. Could just be pessimism, but I think something doesn't feel right. Too easy.

 

Wacky is reasonable, I've agreed more than a few times with Wacky.

I grew really weary of the cries for victory and the fight rallies of McCain/Palin and earlier those of Bush/Cheney...they just haven't proven productive. Life isn't a football game. And I didn't think this country's goal should ever have been to spread democracy through force. If we spread it, it should be through example. And until we close Guantanamo we aren't setting a very good example.

 

Not to be taken out of context, but I believe that the Bush Administration was too focused on reasons why they should invade, rather than reasons why they shouldn't.

Tehran. They have been quietly manipulating the situation in Iraq since 2004, in both the violence and the peace.

Iran has us on slow boil.

 

Iran was happy with Iraq the way it was with Sadaam contained and restricted.

We collapsed that area's status quo. It's in Iran's interest for that area to be stable. I've never bought the Bush Administration crap about Iranian influence with the insurgence, like I never bought the WMD or Twin Tower involvement of Iraq. Or the bombing of Lebanon. That's something Bush and Condi have to answer for before their maker.

I disagree that Iran has us on slow boil. I think it's Israel, with possibly Saudi influence that has us on slow boil.

The Saudis don't want the oil in Iraq flooding out on the market without the PSAs being signed by multinational corporations holding the reigns and buying into Opec manipulation of the petroleum market.

Israel wants us there in order to back them up and protect their zionistic goals in the area.

 

The United States is currently the world's policeman, and it has no business trying to do that. The U.S. should pull out and let the locals get on with their internal power struggles. No doubt dictators will rise to the surface again. So what? Saudi Arabia, which the rest of the world does business with, isn't exactly a democracy. Hopefully Iraq will split up into autonomous regions such as Kurdistan that will function well based on local ethnic and religious beliefs (Kurd vs Tikrit, Sunni vs Shia, and so forth). What they don't need is U.S. troops telling them what to do.

Back to McCain, evidently he doesn't want to pull out, and Obama does, even if it takes him sixteen months. Sixteen months doesn't sound so bad until you think of the guy getting shot while patrolling.

 

dirtydog, let's just say I'm glad you didn't get elected, but instead we elected a sober man.

You can't wave your magic wand and undo the past.

 

Don't you think it is a little disingenuos when Obama says things like: "Combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months" - "depending on the situation on the ground" (I paraphrase).
When McCain has said combat troops should be out by 2013.

Obama then makes out that he wants them out and McCain does not...and portrays his position as if there is a gulf between them...when their is not really.

2013 seems a far more realistic time frame, than a hasty withdrawl by 2010, with the possibility of having to send them back in because of "situations on the ground."

Get the job done right first time Obama, rather than appeasing the electorate. Thanks.

I think most of us have said that you can't just pull troops out at the click of a finger.
I think it is much more realistic and and honest to say: "should be" rather than: "will be."

 

The troops will be pulled out when the iraqi parliament asks them to leave.

At the end of this year, the UN mandate runs out.

 

That's true.

That's not true.

A draft pact currently being negotiated sets a timeline for American troop withdrawals from Iraqi cities by June 2009 and a complete withdrawal from the country by Dec. 31, 2011, but leaves room for adjustments in the schedule depending on conditions in the country.

 

can you clarify?

is that a UN draft mandate, or an iraqi one?

Currently, as far as I know, the UN mandate is set to expire and the iraqi parliament has yet to approve anything. If that's not true i'd like to know why it is in the news.

 

Sorry, it is a "Status of Forces Agreement"

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-10-29-voa32.cfm

 

that's what I thought.

the SOFA has yet to be approved, and the UN mandate which gives us a legal basis for being in Iraq is set to expire at year's end, at which point without an SOFA we will be a foreign occupying force in violation of international law.

seems like a technicality, but actually it has consequences.

 

I was responding to :
The troops will be pulled out when the iraqi parliament asks them to leave
at the end of this year, the UN mandate runs out.

Have the Iraqi's asked them to leave at the end of his year?

 

you are confusing me. you seem to have responded to one statement with "that's true" and to the other with "not true". They are in fact "both true".

I did not mean to imply that we will be asked to leave at year's end. I did mean to imply that if an agreement is not worked out and approved by year's end, it will be a big problem for us.

I am also predicting that with obama in power the iraqi parliament will push for a quicker withdrawal, and obama is likely to comply.

 

I can see where you are coming from now.
I can see that you were not implying that.
Apologies.
I probably should have responded to this in the morning.

You may notice I joined both statements together..that was an error, based on how I read it... not an intentional misrepresentation.

 

Both Iraqi and Iranian leaders today expressed congratulations to Obama and a renewed effort to work with the United States. I can't read their minds, but their tone has already changed. Bush's cowboy foreign policy alienated us in these regions, who want respect as viable global entities.

Kudos to McCain for his gracious defeat, but his disposition on foreign relations mirrors Bush. Foreign leaders appreciate Obama's willingness to talk (such an evil word to the Bushies, a synonym for "cowardice").

They will respond in kind to Obama's respect. I do not believe he will kowtow, but he'll listen before he straps on the ass-kickers. That's a significant reversal of policy, and it will go a long way ...

The worldwide video footage I saw Tuesday night and Wednesday morning of people all around the world taking to the streets to celebrate Obama's victory has to mean something. It was moving. I've never seen the world respond this way to a U.S. election. It looked like a dictator fell. And in many ways, at least from their perspective, one did.

 

In other words, you think management of internal affairs in Iraq is worth American soldiers dying for? I am not in the American military, but I was ordered into it in 1969 when the Vietnam war was on, and I told them to shove it. Vietnam was not worth dying for, and Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia et cetera are not worth it today.

Maryjohn is glad I didn't get elected, and that makes two of us.