NationStates Jolt Archive

US troops 'to quit Iraq by 2011'

US combat troops could leave Iraq by 2011 under the terms of a deal awaiting approval by Iraq's parliament and presidency, an Iraqi official has said.

The draft security agreement also calls for US forces to withdraw from all Iraqi urban areas by June 2009.

The 27-point agreement reportedly includes a compromise allowing US soldiers some immunity under Iraqi law.

The final date when US troops leave will depend largely on security, the BBC's Crispin Thorold in Baghdad says.

The decision will be taken by a joint committee, which could reduce or extend the amount of time US troops spend in the country.

Mohammed al-Haj Hammoud, the top Iraqi official negotiating with the US on the status of US forces in Iraq, said a deal had been agreed that envisaged all US combat troops leaving Iraq by 2011.

Some US troops could remain beyond 2011 "to train Iraqi security forces", the AFP news agency quoted him as saying.

"The combat troops will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 2009," Mr Hammoud said.

"Both the parties have agreed on this... The negotiators' job is done. Now it is up to the leaders."

Handover aim

A deal also appears to have been struck on the controversial issue of granting US troops immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Mr Hammoud said the deal allowed US troops to remain immune from prosecution on military bases and while on operation.

All other cases would be considered by a joint judicial committee.

The draft deal still needs to be approved by the Iraqi Presidential Council, and critically, by the parliament.

The deal marks the end of 10 months of difficult negotiations.

Speaking on a visit to Baghdad on Thursday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the final deal would be in line with Iraqi laws and sovereignty.

Ms Rice said the aim remained to hand over responsibility for security to Iraqi forces.

There are currently around 147,000 US troops in Iraq.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7577127.stm)

so it looks like Iraq didn't collapse and the US military has been able to perform in the difficult task of peacekeeping...the internet lied!!!?! (okay its still 3 years away)

what do you think the repercussions of this will be?

I think: Give it till 2015 nobody will remember the Iraq war and well life goes on

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm looking forward to seeing all those kids waving Coalition flags as we leave.

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm looking forward to seeing all those kids waving Coalition flags as we leave.

when in hell did they made a flag for the Coalition ??

I think: Give it till 2015 nobody will remember the Iraq war and well life goes on

by 2010 for us as we are out

isnt that a TIME TABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL?

i coulda sworn that the president considered that a recipe for disaster not long ago

isnt that a TIME TABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL?

i coulda sworn that the president considered that a recipe for disaster not long ago

That was before the GOP threatened to beat him with a golf club if he didn't do something to help McCain close the poll gap. :p

I think: Give it till 2015 nobody will remember the Iraq war and well life goes on

I will. It will always have been a mistake, it will always have been mass murder, and I will always have been right from the start that it should not have been started.

when in hell did they made a flag for the Coalition ??

The coalition does have a flag. I'd post it, but NSG doesn't accept Nazi symbols.

If it happens this way, great. Still doesn't change the fact shouldn't have gone in there in the first place.

Wait, is Obama suddenly president? :eek2:

Don't worry: If McCain is elected, he'll reverse this agreement!




Also: The US military has not been able to perform in the difficult task of peacekeeping.

If it happens this way, great. Still doesn't change the fact shouldn't have gone in there in the first place.

And it still doesn't change the fact that the people who threw "anti-American" at those who disagreed with it should be shamed for it in national television.

Or otherwise suffer a lot, I don't care how.

hmmm

so does this mean that there will be no permanent US bases in iraq after all?

awesome. We've now got a little over 2 years to start planning the party and making the banner, "Mission Accomplished: 8 years of failure" to hang over the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.

I think: Give it till 2015 nobody will remember the Iraq war and well life goes on
because no-one remembers the Vietnam War, do they?

That was before the GOP threatened to beat him with a golf club if he didn't do something to help McCain close the poll gap. :p

He already has closed the gap. Most polls show Obama's lead down to statically insignifcant, or McCain leading.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Wonderful, isn't it? :rolleyes::headbang:

He already has. Most polls show Obama's lead down to statically insignfifcant, or McCain leading.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Wonderful, isn't it? :rolleyes::headbang:

It's all right, Lt. Senile handed Obama an opportunity to fight back that Obama's already using, when he forgot how many houses he has.

hmmm

so does this mean that there will be no permanent US bases in iraq after all?

Oh there will still be bases. I think this agreement would mean that the US is off the streets of Iraqi cities.

It's all right, Lt. Senile handed Obama an opportunity when he forgot how many houses he has.

Yeah, but now Obama's post-convention bump won't mean very much, then it's the GOP's turn. The only good news is that Obama and McCain have agreed to a series od televised debates. Good move, McCain. :rolleyes: did he forget the Kennedy/Nixon debates? Obama can wipe the floor with him.


http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/as_expected_four_debates_this.html

I will. It will always have been a mistake, it will always have been mass murder, and I will always have been right from the start that it should not have been started.

and this happened when?

The coalition does have a flag. I'd post it, but NSG doesn't accept Nazi symbols.

oh right your just trolling

Also: The US military has not been able to perform in the difficult task of peacekeeping.

well they haven't done so bad for an army with absolutely no idea what its doing :p

because no-one remembers the Vietnam War, do they?

the US lost Vietnam

well they haven't done so bad for an army with absolutely no idea what its doing :p

Excellent point! :tongue:

well they haven't done so bad for an army with absolutely no idea what its doing :p

We've started to figure it out. Americans just don't have the cultural aptitude for peacekeeping. The oft-stated example in the 90s was seeing American troops in Kosovo driving around in full combat gear with rifles sticking out of every window while the British and French were sitting at the local cafés having tea with the locals.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7577127.stm)

so it looks like Iraq didn't collapse and the US military has been able to perform in the difficult task of peacekeeping...the internet lied!!!?! (okay its still 3 years away)

what do you think the repercussions of this will be?

I think: Give it till 2015 nobody will remember the Iraq war and well life goes on

The first one will be that Obama will have to accept the Iraqi timeline and won't be able to impose his own timeline.

History will read that Bush got the task done and brought home the troops with this agreement.

The primary, and near-term effect will be that this issue is essentially removed from the election table - because most Americans will rapidly get to thinking, "they're already on their way home, so let's go back to the mall".

well they haven't done so bad for an army with absolutely no idea what its doing :p


plus,the gas inpingement system that they use in M16s and M4s is shit!it jams more.they should change it for example for the system used im the G36

because no-one remembers the Vietnam War, do they?

No-one remembers the lessons it taught, that's for sure.

isnt that a TIME TABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL?

i coulda sworn that the president considered that a recipe for disaster not long ago

The President said it was a recipe for disaster and it is but it is also the desire of the legally elected government of Iraq. We always said we would leave if asked and here you go.

YAY! Victory!!!!!11!!


oh, wait, we still killed hundreds of thousands of people, ruined our international standing, and completely trashed what was left of our reputation in the middle east. Yet, since we succeeded in bringing democracy to Iraq, we must have won, right?

I will. It will always have been a mistake, it will always have been mass murder, and I will always have been right from the start that it should not have been started.

And we will remember the ridiculous nature of this claim. We desposed a brutal dictator, allowed the Iraqis a chance to establish a popular government, and set the foundation for a bright future that is fully in the hands of the Iraqis themselves. When all is said and done 25 million human beings, 50 million if you include Afghanistan, now have a shot at a brighter future because of America and Bush.

All in all, it was a hard won success. One wonders if you can admit being wrong in the face of such an accomplishment.

Rolling squid;13946279']YAY! Victory!!!!!11!!


oh, wait, we still killed hundreds of thousands of people


Actually that's the fault of the Iraqi's not being able to get along with each other due to religious differences and such.

@The Smiling Frogs:

-see my above post. We ruined our international reputation, and did a fair bit of damage to our economy to boot.

Actually that's the fault of the Iraqi's not being able to get along with each other due to religious differences and such.

sort of. Saddam wasn't the best person human rights wise, but he kept the various religious factions from the kind of out and out violence after he was deposed. We also provided al-qaeda with a huge pool of people to recruit from.

We've started to figure it out. Americans just don't have the cultural aptitude for peacekeeping. The oft-stated example in the 90s was seeing American troops in Kosovo driving around in full combat gear with rifles sticking out of every window while the British and French were sitting at the local cafés having tea with the locals.

or more recently when British took to taking patrols in Iraq on bicycles (not at all because we can't afford to drive our Warriors >.>)

most Americans will rapidly get to thinking, "they're already on their way home, so let's go back to the mall".

you mean Bush is also going to stop a recession?! *faints*

plus,the gas inpingement system that they use in M16s and M4s is shit!it jams more.they should change it for example for the system used im the G36

well it is a rather old rifle though if anything American forces should have less firepower if you please

Rolling squid;13946291']did a fair bit of damage to our economy to boot.

how?

how?

The estimated total cost to our economy is about $3 trillion, almost one third of our national debt.

you mean Bush is also going to stop a recession?! *faints*


Thats like Obama would fix our recession.

Rolling squid;13946423']The estimated total cost to our economy is about $3 trillion, almost one third of our national debt.

so what your saying is in American debt caused by increased military spending?

not at all to do with the economy

Yes! Finally out!

Yes! Finally out!

lets hope the US remembers to shake its time table all about

so what your saying is in American debt caused by increased military spending?

not at all to do with the economy

no, what that figure means is that in money spend on rebuilding Iraq, replacing destroyed equipment, supplies, treating the wounded, training our guys, training Iraq forces, hiring contractors, ect, totals to about three trillion dollars.

i agree with heikoku 2. it surprises me that u could even think that people will forget it, considering everything that heikoku mentioned.

Rolling squid;13946291']@The Smiling Frogs:

-see my above post. We ruined our international reputation, and did a fair bit of damage to our economy to boot.

Ah yes, I forgot the absolute love fest that the world had for the US before the Iraq War. This only works if your memory is limited to the time after Bush was inaugurated.

sort of. Saddam wasn't the best person human rights wise, but he kept the various religious factions from the kind of out and out violence after he was deposed. We also provided al-qaeda with a huge pool of people to recruit from.

Seems like the religious thing is under control. Besides, its okay to horribly oppress people to keep their religious disputes under control. We shouldn't allow them to try and work them out, as they have with our help, but keep them under thumb. As for AQ, were they having a hard time recruiting before 9-11?

I will. It will always have been a mistake, it will always have been mass murder, and I will always have been right from the start that it should not have been started.

You know, whats sad is that as much as I HATE HATE HATE to admit it, I think the war was worth it. The west needs the oil, we'll get the oil. Saddam was a bastard and needed to die. We killed him. Iraq has a democratic government, which is always a good thing. Iraq was funding terrorists under Saddam (PLOs many incarnations which also indirectly and sometimes directly assisted Anbar al-Islam and Al-Qaeda) as well as his massive remilitarization deals with Russia (Hence why we captured/killed all those russian military personnel in the invasion, I remember wondering why the hell they were there when we found them...definitely surprised more than a few people..lol) With the reignition of the Cold War opposing Russia's interests is always a plus in my book, no matter what they may be. He was intending on re-invading Kuwait, then turning on Israel alongside Syria (where the Ba'ath Party was founded and Iraq's number one ally) and likely the Lebanese group Hezboallah. And theres no way you could convince me that you'd not see Revolutionary Guard (Iranian Elite, akin to the Republican Guard in Iraq but waaaaay more hardcore) all over that.

As much as I did, still do, and always will hate George Bush, Dick "Head" Cheney, and all their cronies, good will come from this war despite the losses (including some of my very close buddies who died over there, and the many who fought and "Never came home".) And now I resign myself to the flamefest...oh and I am prepared to defend my position so if ya wanna debate me I'm ready for it. :salute:

Ah yes, I forgot the absolute love fest that the world had for the US before the Iraq War. This only works if your memory is limited to the time after Bush was inaugurated.

9/11 created considerable sympathy and good feeling. This evaporated post-Iraq. Also, Iraq turned some countries normally seen as natural allies to the US, against it.


Seems like the religious thing is under control. Besides, its okay to horribly oppress people to keep their religious disputes under control. We shouldn't allow them to try and work them out, as they have with our help, but keep them under thumb. As for AQ, were they having a hard time recruiting before 9-11?

By "work it out" I assume you mean "build great big concrete walls between them and institutionalise religious apartheid"? Although this is a step up from complete oppression, I agree.

Ah yes, I forgot the absolute love fest that the world had for the US before the Iraq War. This only works if your memory is limited to the time after Bush was inaugurated.

I'll agree, the US wasn't well liked before the Iraq war. But we were getting sympathy and support because of 9/11, and all of that is gone. Plus, we're less well liked now than eight years ago.



Seems like the religious thing is under control. Besides, its okay to horribly oppress people to keep their religious disputes under control. We shouldn't allow them to try and work them out, as they have with our help, but keep them under thumb. As for AQ, were they having a hard time recruiting before 9-11?

AQ was having a hard time getting recruits in Iraq, as Saddam didn't particularly like them. Now, AQ-Iraq has plenty of recruits.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7577127.stm)

so it looks like Iraq didn't collapse and the US military has been able to perform in the difficult task of peacekeeping...the internet lied!!!?! (okay its still 3 years away)

what do you think the repercussions of this will be?

I think: Give it till 2015 nobody will remember the Iraq war and well life goes on

Great. I'll be in college then.

And we will remember the ridiculous nature of this claim. We desposed a brutal dictator, allowed the Iraqis a chance to establish a popular government, and set the foundation for a bright future that is fully in the hands of the Iraqis themselves. When all is said and done 25 million human beings, 50 million if you include Afghanistan, now have a shot at a brighter future because of America and Bush.

All in all, it was a hard won success. One wonders if you can admit being wrong in the face of such an accomplishment.

Show me one WMD. I can show you your 4500 dead countrymen, and half a million dead Iraqis. Can you show me ONE WMD?

You NEVER had the RIGHT to go in Iraq. The only wars worth fighting are self-defense ones. For that matter, guess what: History, your countrymen included, ALREADY KNOWS I was right. And you were wrong.

I was always right.

That line of thinking justifies the world sitting back and letting the genocide in Rwanda take place.

And we will remember the ridiculous nature of this claim. We desposed a brutal dictator, allowed the Iraqis a chance to establish a popular government, and set the foundation for a bright future that is fully in the hands of the Iraqis themselves. When all is said and done 25 million human beings, 50 million if you include Afghanistan, now have a shot at a brighter future because of America and Bush.

25 million, give or take a few hundred thousand. I guess for them the brighter future is death. Perhaps that's the kind of brighter future you're so excited by.

All in all, it was a hard won success. One wonders if you can admit being wrong in the face of such an accomplishment.

He'd have to actually be wrong before he should admit to being wrong. I'm sure he would, if hypothetically speaking you made a good argument instead of blurting out half-assed platitudes.

Should the Iraq war have happened in the fashion that it did? No. In fact, it probably should not have happened at this point in time, period.

But, if the Iraqi government can be stood up, and placed on a solid footing, then all the better. The costs, to both the Iraqi people and the US, were astronomical. Beyond question, it was wrong to invade Iraq. But, that's how it rolls in international relations. Mistakes are costly and visible.

To treat initial opposition to the war, though, as something to trumpet ("I told you so! Neener, neener, neeener!"), is absurd, and actually, more than a touch grisly.

To treat initial opposition to the war, though, as something to trumpet ("I told you so! Neener, neener, neeener!"), is absurd, and actually, more than a touch grisly.

For me it's not "Neener neener neener," it's frustration and anger. Frustration because only now, when the amount of dead is predictably large, the damage irreversible, and the trends of political whim is there anything resembling a majority opposing the war. Had the Johnny-come-latelies, who apparently were blinded by fear of terrorism, nukes and god knows what else, listened to those of us against the war from the beginning, a lot of people might not have died. It pisses me off because I don't see any indication that this entire fucking thing won't just happen again when people's attentions get distracted by the glittering generalities of the media and political machine and when a next president needs a handy foreign war.

That line of thinking justifies the world sitting back and letting the genocide in Rwanda take place.

You mean the genocide that wouldn't have taken place if colonialists of their time, just like Bush is now, hadn't created the conditions for it to happen?

To treat initial opposition to the war, though, as something to trumpet ("I told you so! Neener, neener, neeener!"), is absurd, and actually, more than a touch grisly.

It's not about that. If it were a legitimate difference in beliefs between me and those who supported it, I'd not care. If they had argued that there is evidence, etc, whatever, it would be fine. They didn't. I got called an US-hater as an attempt to shut me up. It was NOT fair game, it WAS abusive, and after all the crap I had to put up with, yes, I get to tell them I told them so. Because I got called an US-hater and anti-American by the morons that wanted to see this shit happen. They made me suffer, I want to go right back and rub this in their faces: I was right and they were wrong. The blood of their countrymen is in their hands.

You mean the genocide that wouldn't have taken place if colonialists of their time, just like Bush is now, hadn't created the conditions for it to happen?

Because people sat back and didn't stop them either? This begs the question.

Anyway - who cares WHY those conditions exist - it doesn't have anything to do with a moral imperative to prevent genocide.

You mean the genocide that wouldn't have taken place if colonialists of their time, just like Bush is now, hadn't created the conditions for it to happen?


It doesn't mean we should have sat by and watched it happen.

Same for Darfur.

It doesn't mean we should have sat by and watched it happen.

Same for Darfur.

Instead do you propose invading the country on trumped-up charges or funding and helping a LEGITIMATE revolution FROM WITHIN?

Why not both (without the trumped up bit)?

Why not both (without the trumped up bit)?

Because if you use a hammer to break a glass window, you can't use it again thinking it'll fix it.

well it is a rather old rifle though if anything American forces should have less firepower if you please

I'm sorry, but the point of a millitary is to kill the enemy. And you do that with overwhelming firepower.

Instead do you propose invading the country on trumped-up charges or funding and helping a LEGITIMATE revolution FROM WITHIN?

Define legitimate.

For me it's not "Neener neener neener," it's frustration and anger. Frustration because only now, when the amount of dead is predictably large, the damage irreversible, and the trends of political whim is there anything resembling a majority opposing the war. Had the Johnny-come-latelies, who apparently were blinded by fear of terrorism, nukes and god knows what else, listened to those of us against the war from the beginning, a lot of people might not have died. It pisses me off because I don't see any indication that this entire fucking thing won't just happen again when people's attentions get distracted by the glittering generalities of the media and political machine and when a next president needs a handy foreign war.



It's not about that. If it were a legitimate difference in beliefs between me and those who supported it, I'd not care. If they had argued that there is evidence, etc, whatever, it would be fine. They didn't. I got called an US-hater as an attempt to shut me up. It was NOT fair game, it WAS abusive, and after all the crap I had to put up with, yes, I get to tell them I told them so. Because I got called an US-hater and anti-American by the morons that wanted to see this shit happen. They made me suffer, I want to go right back and rub this in their faces: I was right and they were wrong. The blood of their countrymen is in their hands.

One of these is a legitimate concern, the other is, quite frankly, grisly and kind of sickening. Heikoku, rubbing it in peoples faces that they were wrong is both juvenile and absurd. Especially if they have changed their points of view. It alienates people who could agree with you in the future, and grows the strength of the "Fuck that arrogant ass" attitude. You are making what Trostia is concerned about all the more likely. If you alienate this broad group that has developed by embracing this attitude, you destroy the chances to prevent this sort of shit again.

More than that, I don't see what, exactly, you derive from it. I don't see how you were materially harmed by being called an "anti-American", whatever that means. I mean, seriously, are you in middle school? Is this such a crush to your social pride, to your self image, that you can't get over something that was said five years ago.

Because if you use a hammer to break a glass window, you can't use it again thinking it'll fix it.

But you need the hammer to secure the nails on the piece of wood that keep the window frame stable and the house sheltered from the elements, while you wait for someone with the replacement window to come along with the right tools.

See - I can play analogies too!

One of these is a legitimate concern, the other is, quite frankly, grisly and kind of sickening. Heikoku, rubbing it in peoples faces that they were wrong is both juvenile and absurd. Especially if they have changed their points of view. It alienates people who could agree with you in the future, and grows the strength of the "Fuck that arrogant ass" attitude. You are making what Trostia is concerned about all the more likely. If you alienate this broad group that has developed by embracing this attitude, you destroy the chances to prevent this sort of shit again.

More than that, I don't see what, exactly, you derive from it. I don't see how you were materially harmed by being called an "anti-American", whatever that means. I mean, seriously, are you in middle school? Is this such a crush to your social pride, to your self image, that you can't get over something that was said five years ago.

It was an attempt to shut me up in the debate. It was an attempt to shut me up by using the worst kind of appeal to fear, rather than reason. And if they have changed their minds, then they'll accept that I was right and apologize for trying to shut me up by appealing to fear, as they did when they claimed I hated America, called me anti-American and so on.

NOBODY shuts me up.

But you need the hammer to secure the nails on the piece of wood that keep the window frame stable and the house sheltered from the elements, while you wait for someone with the replacement window to come along with the right tools.

See - I can play analogies too!

Okay, let's not use them:

You don't solve a problem with the same thought you created it with: That the White Man must come to the rescue of those Inferior Peoples.

It was an attempt to shut me up in the debate. It was an attempt to shut me up by using the worst kind of appeal to fear, rather than reason. And if they have changed their minds, then they'll accept that I was right and apologize.

NOBODY shuts me up.[/QUOTE]

It remains that five years on, most people have admitted they were wrong, that the methods used in the debate in the lead-up were wrong. Yet, you cling to their initial wrong-ness. It defines your relations with them, and it alienates you and your positions from them. It is an entirely immature attitude. You seem to want some sort of public shaming. That accomplishes nothing.

It remains that five years on, most people have admitted they were wrong, that the methods used in the debate in the lead-up were wrong. Yet, you cling to their initial wrong-ness. It defines your relations with them, and it alienates you and your positions from them. It is an entirely immature attitude. You seem to want some sort of public shaming. That accomplishes nothing.

It would accomplish my pleasure at seeing the tables turned.

At no point did I argue it was mature. I want either an apology by those who used such debate methods against me or revenge. I never HEARD (Or read, since it'd be online) any of them admitting their debate tactics were flawed, or admitting they were wrong. I want them to hand me the debate, as they should have five years ago.

NOBODY shuts me up.

It remains that five years on, most people have admitted they were wrong, that the methods used in the debate in the lead-up were wrong. Yet, you cling to their initial wrong-ness. It defines your relations with them, and it alienates you and your positions from them. It is an entirely immature attitude. You seem to want some sort of public shaming. That accomplishes nothing.

It does get something done. It increases the smug output of a few people tenfold.

the US lost Vietnam

And no-one in Britain remembers that little South American argument over those islands, began with F didn't they?

It would accomplish my pleasure at seeing the tables turned.

At no point did I argue it was mature. I want either an apology by those who used such debate methods against me or revenge. I never HEARD (Or read, since it'd be online) any of them admitting their debate tactics were flawed, or admitting they were wrong. I want them to hand me the debate, as they should have five years ago.

*Points to my last post*

It would accomplish my pleasure at seeing the tables turned.

And that is worth...

...?

Do you want some cookies? (http://tastegoblet.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/doggie-cookies.jpg) Pancakes? (http://www.glenhavenfire.org/Portals/0/images/pancakes.jpg) Porn? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porn)
At no point did I argue it was mature. I want either an apology by those who used such debate methods against me or revenge. I never HEARD (Or read, since it'd be online) any of them admitting their debate tactics were flawed, or admitting they were wrong. I want them to hand me the debate, as they should have five years ago.

You are wrong, if you want or expect people to kowtow to you in regards to old the Iraq war debate. It accomplishes nothing, it alienates people who may actually have come around to agree with you, and it makes the likelihood of future events such as Iraq more likely.

Give it up, and move on. Do something progressive. Do something productive with your debating capacities.

*Points to my last post*

You seem to be under the impression that I'm claiming reasonability to my wishes. I'm not.

And no-one in Britain remembers that little South American argument over those islands, began with F didn't they?

We came so close to losing that it isn't even funny. If only Ark Royal had still been around, those Argie pilots would hav sat at home and watched the war on TV because the Ark could carry Phantoms :hail:

You seem to be under the impression that I'm claiming reasonability to my wishes. I'm not.

Then, why, praytell, should anybody give you what you want? If your wishes are unreasonable, then no one need meet them.

And that is worth...

...?

Do you want some cookies? (http://tastegoblet.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/doggie-cookies.jpg) Pancakes? (http://www.glenhavenfire.org/Portals/0/images/pancakes.jpg) Porn? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porn)


You are wrong, if you want or expect people to kowtow to you in regards to old the Iraq war debate. It accomplishes nothing, it alienates people who may actually have come around to agree with you, and it makes the likelihood of future events such as Iraq more likely.

Give it up, and move on. Do something progressive. Do something productive with your debating capacities.

It's not about kowtowing. It's about making them feel like I did, when I, knowing I was correct and knowing my tactics were sound, was shouted down in the debates with unfounded accusations. I don't think it'll make events like Iraq more likely. It WOULD make them dislike me a bit more, but "laudari a bonis et vituperari a malis unum atque idem est".

Let me make an analogy. I feel like an NBA team that, in the finals, was cheated out of a championship because the other side bribed the ref: I know my tactics were sound, and I got brought down by unsound ones.

Then, why, praytell, should anybody give you what you want? If your wishes are unreasonable, then no one need meet them.

I'm not arguing they SHOULD be met either. :tongue:

What I AM saying though is, as soon as I get a new IP, I will make a visit to a certain MIRC channel.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm claiming reasonability to my wishes. I'm not.

I can't even come up with something. That statement sums you up perfectly.

I think we should respect the sovereignty of the duly elected Iraqi government and agree to their timetable if indeed conditions on the ground continue to improve at the predicted rate. However, if for whatever reason the place flares up again, I think we should stick around until the problem is sufficiently fixed.

I can't even come up with something. That statement sums you up perfectly.

Feel free to sig it, as it would improve my profile here.

I think we should respect the sovereignty of the duly elected Iraqi government and agree to their timetable if indeed conditions on the ground continue to improve at the predicted rate. However, if for whatever reason the place flares up again, I think we should stick around until the problem is sufficiently fixed.

No, you should get out, and you should get out now.

You seem to be under the impression that is a good thing. That gives the impression of you being a stuck up smug asshole. And that is not a good thing.

You seem to be under the impression that is a good thing. That gives the impression of you being a stuck up smug asshole. And that is not a good thing.

You seem to be under the impression that I am NOT a smug asshole.

Furthermore, you seem to be under the impression that I DISLIKE being seen as one.

No, you should get out, and you should get out now.

Reality is not that simple in practise, alas.

You seem to be under the impression that I am NOT a smug asshole.

Furthermore, you seem to be under the impression that I DISLIKE being seen as one.

Well um good for you?

Heikoku 2 is a gimmick poster. Has to be.

Heikoku 2 is a gimmick poster. Has to be.

That... depends on what you call a gimmick, in truth.

Well um good for you?

Yaaaay! :D

Reality is not that simple in practise, alas.

Simple as it was to get in, it's now complicated to get out?

You'd be surprised.

You'd be surprised.

At what you call a gimmick or at the other post? Because in the other post I'm being facetious.

2011 is probably a pretty reasonable date. I imagine there will still be plenty of negotiation between the US military and Iraqi officials to determine the precise nature of such a plan (I think 2009 may be a little early for a complete withdrawal from urban areas), but if they have broad government and public support for such a move it is a pretty reasonable idea.

I think the Iraqis more than anyone will know when their country is ready to be removed from the aegis of US military occupation, so we would be well advised to listen to them. Staying too long can cause exactly the same problems as leaving too quickly.

It would be possible to leave too fast, leaving the Iraqi government with no leg to stand on. Then they'd really start disliking everybody, because I don't think too many would miss Saddam, but are unlikely to appreciate total anarchy.

Coalition troops should leave right now, because America shouldn't have gone in in the first place. I am too stubborn/stupid to see that the second part of that statement has no effect on this first.

Coalition troops should leave right now, because America shouldn't have gone in in the first place. I am too stubborn/stupid to see that the second part of that statement has no effect on this first.

Chalk my case up to "stubborn", though you do make a good point. I congratulate a fairly new poster on his common sense and irony, directed at me though it may be. It shouldn't leave right now, it should leave in Obama's 16 months. The best solution, however, would be "go back in time and listen to me", really, but that's neither a here nor a there.

Coalition troops should leave right now, because America shouldn't have gone in in the first place. I am too stubborn/stupid to see that the second part of that statement has no effect on this first.

No we shouldn't have but we're there now and to say leave right this very minute is even worse than invading them.

Chalk my case up to "stubborn", though you do make a good point. I congratulate a fairly new poster on his common sense and irony, directed at me though it may be. It shouldn't leave right now, it should leave in Obama's 16 months. The best solution, however, would be "go back in time and listen to me", really, but that's neither a here nor a there.

But if you did that, you couldn't act all smug and pretend that you know everything.

No we shouldn't have but we're there now and to say leave right this very minute is even worse than invading them.

Psst! I think that statement was a (quite well-executed) jab at me. He was being facetious. I like.

But if you did that, you couldn't act all smug and pretend that you know everything.

I don't pretend to know everything.

I do claim to be right about the vast majority of the things I argue.

The best solution, however, would be "go back in time and listen to me", really, but that's neither a here nor a there.

Ya that'd be pretty cool. But all I'm saying is we should wait till the Iraqi Army and Iraq is ready to function on its own before we abandon them to everyone from al-Sadar to Turkey.

I don't pretend to know everything.

I do claim to be right about the vast majority of the things I argue.

I'm starting not to like you. You know why, even though I'm sure you have stopped reading and don't give a shit what I think?

Simple as it was to get in, it's now complicated to get out?

Yes!

I'm glad we agree.

I'm starting not to like you.

Yeah, I have that effect on people sometimes.

You know why, even though I'm sure you have stopped reading and don't give a shit what I think?

I can't claim to KNOW, but my guess would involve me being an asshole. If I'm right, do I win? :D

To be sure, I didn't stop reading. I do consider you a fairly reasonable poster, it would be a shame to miss on good input because of such a tussle.

Yeah, I have that effect on people sometimes.



I can't claim to KNOW, but my guess would involve me being an asshole. If I'm right, do I win? :D

To be sure, I didn't stop reading. I do consider you a fairly reasonable poster, it would be a shame to miss on good input because of such a tussle.

You are kinda right. But no you don't win.

I don't like you for the same reasons I don't like Bill O'Riely

You are so much like the people you hate its not funny. To speak frankly and honestly, you are a stuborn jackass on the level of Bill O'Riely. Why? Because you can never admit you're wrong. I like and respect anyone that can admit they were wrong. Also, you think you are right about almost everything.

You are kinda right. But no you don't win.

I don't like you for the same reasons I don't like Bill O'Riely

You are so much like the people you hate its not funny. To speak frankly and honestly, you are a stuborn jackass on the level of Bill O'Riely. Why? Because you can never admit you're wrong. I like and respect anyone that can admit they were wrong. Also, you think you are right about almost everything.

Oh, there are lots of things I was wrong about. For instance, I should have gone to law school. But the Iraq War, THAT I was utterly right about.

And to be sure, I don't question the patriotism of those that disagree with me.

And I don't question their intelligence to their faces either.

Actually that's the fault of the Iraqi's not being able to get along with each other due to religious differences and such.

Because if I kill all the police in your country, the ensuing crime will be the fault of the Americans for not being able to get along with each other due to economic differences and such.

Because if I kill all the police in your country, the ensuing crime will be the fault of the Americans for not being able to get along with each other due to economic differences and such.

Ippon!

No, you should get out, and you should get out now.

Yes, and we're going to listen to an uninvolved foreigner with no stake in the matter. :rolleyes:

Because people sat back and didn't stop them either? This begs the question.

Anyway - who cares WHY those conditions exist - it doesn't have anything to do with a moral imperative to prevent genocide.

You think morality has any say in international politics? *laughs derisively*

If preventing genocide was the primary objective, then we'd be in Darfur too. It's regional stability while America is dependent on foreign oil. If we were mostly self-reliant for energy, then the government probably would have pulled out years ago when things weren't going so well, considering all the selfish self-important politicians on both sides of the aisle.

And we will remember the ridiculous nature of this claim. We desposed a brutal dictator, allowed the Iraqis a chance to establish a popular government, and set the foundation for a bright future that is fully in the hands of the Iraqis themselves. When all is said and done 25 million human beings, 50 million if you include Afghanistan, now have a shot at a brighter future because of America and Bush.

All in all, it was a hard won success. One wonders if you can admit being wrong in the face of such an accomplishment.
one small point: It's not 25 million, it's 24 million. Estimates now are that around 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion (either through violence or lack of care).
But you are right. That is a grand accomplishment and one that Bush should justifiably be proud of.

Iraq would have had to be taken on eventually, it just ended up a higher priority than it should have been. That being said, history clearly shows that leaving a war improperly finished sets the stage for the next one.

Yes, and we're going to listen to an uninvolved foreigner with no stake in the matter. :rolleyes:

Ah, ad hominem. Let me guess, are you one of those that think you're doing God's work in that little adventure?

No, I signed on the dotted line and got involved personally.

No, I signed on the dotted line and got involved personally.

Oh, really, little centurion (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/centurion.htm)? Guess what!

It does NOT give you any more authority to judge it than I or anyone else have! Iraq did not have WMDs, and preemptive wars are wrong. Those facts being the truths that they are, this war is wrong. That you're in it or claim to and that I'm not from the country that perpetrated this monstrosity has no bearing in who wins this argument. The facts do. Sign whatever dotted line you want, honorable warrior, the argument is MINE.

how did my thread get on page 2?!

And no-one in Britain remembers that little South American argument over those islands, began with F didn't they?

actually you would be rather surprised

Iraq did not have WMDs, and preemptive wars are wrong.

which has had nothing to do with this thread and the fact that you continually put this forward shows you don't actually give a rats arse about this news story but rather you want coalition troops out post haste regardless of the cost

which has had nothing to do with this thread and the fact that you continually put this forward shows you don't actually give a rats arse about this news story but rather you want coalition troops out post haste regardless of the cost

Oh, I cared about "doing what's right", and even about your troops, once, in the run-up. Fat lot of good it did me, so, now, I just want to win the argument. Blame the ones that tried to shut up their opposition with accusations of "hating America".

However, I had an exchange in this very thread in which I pointed out I favor Obama's plan, so, not that "post haste".

Oh, I cared about "doing what's right", and even about your troops, once, in the run-up.

presumably in the past you had some deep physical a psychological abuse by members of the armed forces to give you such a cruel world view of people who have done (nor wish) you no harm...

oh right you got banned from a chat room a few years ago leaving you bitter and willing to do anything so you can pretend your some sort of hero

so, now, I just want to win the argument.

its just too bad that arguments are not only shaped by truths which is why even in your own mind your just looking rather silly with the tantrums

However, I had an exchange in this very thread in which I pointed out I favor Obama's plan, so, not that "post haste".

so your in favour of a plan that is not what the Iraqi government has agreed upon?

presumably in the past you had some deep physical a psychological abuse by members of the armed forces to give you such a cruel world view of people who have done (nor wish) you no harm...

oh right you got banned from a chat room a few years ago leaving you bitter and willing to do anything so you can pretend your some sort of hero



its just too bad that arguments are not only shaped by truths which is why even in your own mind your just looking rather silly with the tantrums



so your in favour of a plan that is not what the Iraqi government has agreed upon?

Pretending I'm a hero? You misunderstand me, my good man. Hero, I tried to be back then. We all know how that turned out. I just want to WIN.

Bear in mind, also, that, as a Brazilian, I don't HAVE to care about your troops. I don't care about the ones from MY country. At no point did I say I wish them harm, mind you. I didn't say I don't, either, though, so that may have contributed to our little misunderstanding here.

Pressured by Bush to prolong their stay, even if a bit? Also bearing in mind that the Iraqi PM got "misinterpreted" and let it slip out that he would accept Obama's plan?

I just want to WIN.

how sad

Bear in mind, also, that, as a Brazilian, I don't HAVE to care about your troops. I don't care about the ones in MY country.

yeah you do, they are people just like you and me which means they do not deserve for you to just disregard them

Pressured by Bush to prolong their stay, even if a bit?

so American security interest are met which is what the UN has mandated the coalition to achieve

Also bearing in mind that the Iraqi PM got "misinterpreted" and let it slip out that he would accept Obama's plan?

what the Iraqi PM says does not represent the governments official position

Had the Johnny-come-latelies, who apparently were blinded by fear of terrorism, nukes and god knows what else, listened to those of us against the war from the beginning, a lot of people might not have died.

Don't get your hopes up. These are the same people who make "Reality Television" such a reliable staple for network and cable entertainment. They also voted for Dubya twice.

how did my thread get on page 2?!

Because the Family haven't received its promised kickbacks yet.

*Cracks knuckles*

how sad



yeah you do, they are people just like you and me which means they do not deserve for you to just disregard them



so American security interest are met which is what the UN has mandated the coalition to achieve



what the Iraqi PM says does not represent the governments official position

1- Never claimed otherwise, my friend.

2- So are the insurgents. The troops are also just doing their jobs. Like the insurgents. And the troops, like the insurgents, know the risks and chose to take them. The Iraqi civilians (who are ALSO just trying to do THEIR respective jobs) Bush involved in this didn't, however. Poor them, innit? And, as I said, I did care about them at some juncture.

3- The American security interests would be met by listening to me back then, is that not so?

4- Oh, come on, don't be like that. He's an elected official, and one that got bullied by Bush into blaming the translators, who were also, just like the troops, and you and me, only doing their jobs. Mind you, as a translator myself, I find that a little bit offensive on his part, yes, but that's neither a here nor a there (is it "neither a here nor a there" or "neither here nor there" BTW?). The point remains that an elected official said he'd not mind Obama's plan.

1- Never claimed otherwise, my friend.

so your admit to having a sad little vendetta and thus any debate with you is pointless because your just trolling?

I did care about them at some juncture.

and you still should because it doesn't matter what they have signed nobody deserves to die surely?

3- The American security interests would be met by listening to me back then, is that not so?

too bad we don't have time machines but its nice to see you putting so many concrete ideas forwards rather than "ha ha you should of listened to me"

4- Oh, come on, don't be like that. He's an elected official, and one that got bullied by Bush into blaming the translators, who were also, just like the troops, and you and me, only doing their jobs.

its stunning how you have such Intel as to exactly what happened and instead choose a conspiracy over an error

Mind you, as a translator myself, I find that a little bit offensive on his part, yes, but that's neither a here nor a there (is it "neither a here nor a there" or "neither here nor there" BTW?). The point remains that an elected official said he'd not mind Obama's plan.

1) neither a here nor a there
2) which is not an official statement and thus irrelevant when it comes to representing the Iraqi government

so your admit to having a sad little vendetta and thus any debate with you is pointless because your just trolling?



and you still should because it doesn't matter what they have signed nobody deserves to die surely?



too bad we don't have time machines but its nice to see you putting so many concrete ideas forwards rather than "ha ha you should of listened to me"



its stunning how you have such Intel as to exactly what happened and instead choose a conspiracy over an error



1) neither a here nor a there
2) which is not an official statement and thus irrelevant when it comes to representing the Iraqi government

1- Oh, even assuming debates are to be measured with the debaters, I'd not go that far. There ARE, after all, issues I'm not furiously bitter about. Plus, it's somewhat hard to claim I'm trolling. I mean, being an asshole I probably am, but trolling per se?

2- I see. Should I care about the insurgents too, then? They, too, are people. And they're not even the invaders.

3- Oh, but I did: Get out on Obama's terms and don't ever pull this kind of crap again. But the "hahaha, I told you so" is part of it, yes. Do you not like it?

4- You see, we're not talking about a mistake that's easy for a translator to make, here. Plus, did he ever explain the nature of the mistake? Surely he would if it had been a mistake, no? It would reinforce his argument. Conversely, the fact that he didn't likely means he cannot.

5.1 - Thank you.

5.2 - A statement by an elected official is still quite meaningful.

I will. It will always have been a mistake, it will always have been mass murder, and I will always have been right from the start that it should not have been started.

I'm with you.