My Way or . .

[CaptnKirk]

We'll just quit and go home

How is this not a complete GOP surrender of principal?

If the entire dysfunctional Government of Iraq doesn't capitulate to what Bush wants, we will unequivally pull out and leave.

Maybe that's what they really want, and our aledged 'Leadership' might be spiteful enough to cut of their noses to despite their faces.

Never underestimate the stupidity of our Conservative, Right aligned Government.


Oh, by the way . . don't give any dates, lest you tip your hand, and they will know when you're quittin.

yeah, right.

 

[techs]

Frak! You beat me to it.
I was going to ask what Bush would do on Jan.1 if there was no agreement with Iraq.
If he really picks up and goes home the Republican party is screwed. And his legacy will go from arguably one of the worst Presidents, to clearly the worst.
I guess right about now Bush is thinkin' "Bein' President is hard, real hard"

I suspect there will be some interim agreement. Barring that, the Iraqi government will ask the US to help defend its borders.

No way in H*LL will Dick Cheney let US troops leave the 2nd largest deposit of oil in the world behind.

 

[TheSlamma]

I hope they don't comply with us and we keep our word. That 11 billion a month would look really nice being applied as principal payments to our credit card bills Bush created.

 

[Engineer]

Doesn't the UN resolution allowing us to legally be there run out on December 31? If we don't come to some sort of agreement, do we not have to leave or be there illegally?

(serious question).

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Doesn't the UN resolution allowing us to legally be there run out on December 31? If we don't come to some sort of agreement, do we not have to leave or be there illegally?

(serious question).

Yeah, that was my understanding, that's why I said Jan. 1.
However, the UN resolution is not the only way we could "legally" keep troops there. It is not illegal under international law to send troops to a country that requests them to help preserve their democracy(iirc).
What the UN resolution does is give political cover to the many countries that have been coerced into helping the US in Iraq. Without it, there would be no more Coalition of the Coerced.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why is this a surprise? Hell, Bush held our troops hostage when congress wanted to impose constraints in the budget, so it's no surprise he'll hold the Iraqis themselves hostage, either...

While I have little doubt he'd have kept troops in Iraq if all they had were stone knives and bearskins, I figure he's bluffing this time, because he'd have kept troops in Iraq no matter what... Iraqi political constraints are different than those in the US, so I figure the Iraqis will call him on it...

Likely as not, they may just tell him not to let the door hit him in the ass on his way out...

Oh, and according to CSG, the timetable isn't really a timetable, at all, not the least bit like anything Obama ever proposed, huh-uhh...

 

[Lemon law]

Its fairly obvious that Iraq will wait until after the election of 11/4 to decide what to do, and then hold private talks with the President elect. GWB may not like it, but its the way the cookie is likely to crumble.

There is almost certain to be a UN extension before 12/31, but it will not be based on what GWB wants.

 

[irishScott]

Bush is an incompetent shit. I still prefer him over Kerry, but hell I'll take Obama over Bush. I seriously hope he's bluffing here, but given his track record...

I'm just curious, even if the UN deadline does come around and we violate it, what exactly will anyone do about it? We'd be bad off politically (understatement), but there wouldn't be much the world could do about it. Military intervention would border on laughable unless, say, half of Europe came against us. Economic sanctions would generally do more harm to the country declaring the sanctions than to us, even with our economy going to shit.

 

[Lemon law]

The President elect is likely to be running a shadow State department between Nov 5/08 until 1/20/2009. And poor ole Condi Rice is going to finally be placed in the same position she put Colin Powell in.

If there is any justice in the world, Obama will put Colin Powell in charge of the castration of Condi. As for Dick Cheny, long odds, he will flee and fly to Dubai on or before 1/20/2009.

As for GWB, what is left of the GOP will keep him policed.

 

[heyheybooboo]

In other good news ...

Extended war tours likely to continue

The Army's use of involuntary extensions of combat duty will likely continue through 2009 despite pledges earlier this year by top military officials to reduce reliance on the policy known as stop loss.

In September, 12,204 soldiers were affected by stop loss, a policy that forces them to remain in the Army after their service commitment has expired. The same number likely will be affected each month through 2009, Army Lt. Col. Mike Moose said last week.

Stop loss strains troops and their families, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged in May. Gates and the Army say the policy is needed to maintain the cohesion of units heading to battle.....

The number of soldiers affected by stop loss peaked in 2005 at 15,758. Gates ordered stop loss to be minimized in January 2007. It fell to 8,540 in May 2007 but rose to about 12,000 in March and has stayed near that level. The troop buildup in Iraq and extension of Army tours from 12 to 15 months last year resulted in more stop-loss orders.

The five combat brigades associated with the escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq returned this summer, and combat tours were reduced to 12 months on Aug. 1. But 151,000 troops remain in Iraq ? 25,000 more than before the buildup began in early 2007.

In Afghanistan, there are 32,000 U.S. troops, and commanders there are seeking four more brigades. A brigade has about 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

If demand for U.S. combat troops stays constant through 2009, Moose said, the number of soldiers affected by stop loss will remain at about 12,000. "Stop loss is a function of how many units are preparing to deploy," he said. "We only use stop loss when we have to."

Stop loss can keep a soldier in the Army if his or her unit deploys within 90 days of the end of their commitment. In August, 55% of those affected were privates through specialists, and 45% were non-commissioned officers, Moose said.

About 1% of active duty, National Guard and reservists are affected. More than 140,000 soldiers have had tours extended by stop loss since January 2002.

 

[Jhhnn]

I suspect that Bush will get stuffed by the Iraqis, and that they'll unilaterally grant an extension of US military presence, the status quo, for some relatively short period of time (several months) so as not to sour their relationship with an incoming Administration...

Absolutely nothing will happen until after the election, bet on that.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
We'll just quit and go home

How is this not a complete GOP surrender of principal?

If the entire dysfunctional Government of Iraq doesn't capitulate to what Bush wants, we will unequivally pull out and leave.

Maybe that's what they really want, and our aledged 'Leadership' might be spiteful enough to cut of their noses to despite their faces.

Never underestimate the stupidity of our Conservative, Right aligned Government.


Oh, by the way . . don't give any dates, lest you tip your hand, and they will know when you're quittin.

yeah, right.

Please, don't act so silly. This has all been noted here soo many times it ain't funny.

The UN madate for our presence (and that of other countries) expires 12/31. The UN has already ruled that they won't extend it unless Iraq requests it. The Iraqi Parliment has ruled that Maliki cannot request it without their permission.

I.e., it's up to the Iraqi's; and so far they cannot reach an agreement among themselves on any agreement with they want (with the coalition forces).

The Iraqi's are busy *gaming* each other, we've just stated the obvious - i.e. we'll have to leave without an agreement.

Fern

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Maybe we could just declare victory and leave Iraq, then watch as the Iraqies tear themselves apart.

 

[Lemon law]

While Fern is partially correct in stating " The Iraqi's are busy *gaming* each other, we've just stated the obvious - i.e. we'll have to leave without an agreement."

I believe the Iraqis will readily agree to a vague agreement that does not involve gaming each other. Bush wants to impose a specific non negotiable agreement that would require the Iraqi parliament
to game each other, and that is the whole point in this thread, GWB is not going to get his way. And what remains of the GOP will point that out to GWB after Nov 5.

I suppose GWB could institute a leave Iraq policy after Nov 5, but it would be a world wide disaster scorched earth policy that would probably land GWB in the Hague.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I don't think there is any 'gaming' going on.

Dubs wants unfettered rights to kill for American troops. Iraq says NO.