I will say it is possible since I’m assuming that Al-Maliki speaks a foreign language that the word he used may be closer to horizens than timetables. However if you take all the Obama stuff he said with it into account it’s still pretty clear he supports the Obama plan.
So our national hero tends to shade the truth a bit?
In other words, you’ve arrived at your opinion and DAMN the evidence!
Umm no, it’s just basic logic dude.
Except that you’re committing a logical fallacy…
So, out of curiosity, what would this attempt look like and why hasn’t it been made yet?
Which one would that be? I guess technically there’s no falsification on US troops preventing a regional war breaking out, but the other half is just wrong. As you say yourself Maliki has been helping shooting Sunnis.
For the former question, I’m not sure, I’m not a diplomat. For the latter: it’s the Bush administration.
Like I explained before Jason, just because there are still automotive fatalities that doesn’t mean that the steps taken to prevent them are useless.
The invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq have not been measures against conflict in the long term. This is because the occupation, while it persists, cannot produce a legitimate Iraqi government.
Characterizing the occupation as a seatbelt or airbag is just a restatement of the same blind boosterism that lies behind the “turning the corner” metaphor – the idea that the war is making a special kind of progress which only the virtuous can see and appreciate. That the occupation is sewing the Emperor’s new clothes.
But the war’s not the seatbelt. The war is the crash.
I’m sure that made sense to you, but it really has nothing to do with the argument. Your sophistry is admirable.
What is your argument, though? You just simply stated that the Sunnis and Shi’ites will start killing each other en mass if we leave, but is there any evidence to support that view?
Now you’re calling the occupation’s long-term future irrelevant. When deciding to stay the course, why is it that the course being stayed doesn’t matter?
This needn’t be bad news for McCain. “Some arabs want Obama to win. They think he’ll cut and run.” You see so many things FOXified, you learn to do it yourself without trying.
I think it’s a safe assumption that if they’re killing each other with American forces separating them, then it’s likely to intensify once Americans leave, especially when you consider that the regional powers (Saudi Arabia and Iran) are divided by the same religious conflict and are already supporting their co-religionists in Iraq.
Maybe you should read the thread again. I already said that long-term occupation is not beneficial. I just happen to believe that a political solution should be attempted first.
Note that I’m not saying that troop withdrawal deadlines are bad. I just think it’s worth considering them deeply, as more than just a campaign promise, if your opponent’s pawn in Iraq is saying “yes, things will be better if you withdraw!”
And why hasn’t it been in the last decade? How long is it supposed to take, how many do-overs do we get?
Note that I’m not saying that troop withdrawal deadlines are bad. I just think it’s worth considering them deeply, as more than just a campaign promise, if your opponent’s pawn in Iraq is saying “yes, things will be better if you withdraw!”
So, if Obama makes a speech and discusses his strategy in detail, and then the other guy, who should be agreeing with you, actually agrees with you, for whatever reason, it’s now bad because he agrees with you?
I think it’s well-established that the Bush administration is utterly incompetent and ideologically committed to strategies that aren’t effective. I’d like to see someone else try before we give up completely.
So, if Obama makes a speech and discusses his strategy in detail, and then the other guy, who should be agreeing with you, actually agrees with you, for whatever reason, it’s now bad because he agrees with you?
No, but if you’re an Obama supporter you probably don’t want to trumpet the Iranian puppet’s agreement with your strategy as “see, Obama is right!”
A supposed connection to Iran doesn’t make him wro-- ohhhh.
Ok. Sunnis and Shiite have butchered each other in the streets for a few years now. What’s your evidence that the presence of the US troops has prevented this, and by how much? It’s not a “safe assumption” that things will/would be worse if they’re not there; you might want to present some evidence and make an argument.
I also like how Maliki, our hand-picked puppet, is now an Iranian double agent or something.
That’s not a very nice thing to insinuate about the Bush administration…