Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf

[pocketfullofshells]

This could be true but I'm not naive enough to think I know for sure one way or the other. With the recent developments, I think the Iranians are looking for alternatives to being attacked... Sure they can hurt us economically, but they Iranians would certainly face greater hardships - like all the other "paper tiger" dictatorships before them.



The US Military, The Iraqi Military, The Iraqi Pairlement and PM ALL want timetables based on - Conditions on the Ground.

Democrats - Set any old arbitrary date, 16 mo for Obama: Who gives a crap about "conditions on the ground"?

Since I'm quite sure you haven't watched the PM or the Pairlement of Iraq commenting on this outside of soundbites and cherry picked quotes; Iraq does want us gone and they do want a timetable (This much Democrats their their constituents) BUT Iraq is projecting to be able to take care of its internal security by 2012 and external security by 2031. <--Democrats don't mentions these pesky little facts about withdrawal and timetables in relation to what Iraq is actually asking for.

Now for the simpltonvillian who use phrases like "McSame", I'll break this down even farther:

Timetable:

Iraqi's ideal timeframe for US withdrawal: 4 years (as discussed with all persons involved)
Democrats plan for Withdrawal: 16 months. (discussed with nobody from either side and a competely arbitrary number thats not even logistically possible according to our military)

How many times has Obama said that his plan was a plan that could be changed if needed given situation on the ground? he never said 16 months no matter what. And when ever he does talk about that fact, you and others bash him for "flip floping"

And yes oddly Iran does not want a war, but they also know we don't, and that we can't afford to fight one as well. But goes to show they are not he insane irrationals so many try to make them out to be. Fact is they are doing exactly what Obama talked about, what I talked about now, but when we said it we where weak on Iran.



On a side Note, still waiting for LIb to show his plans for Iran.....and waiting....and waiting...

 

[GenSeneca]

Fact is they are doing exactly what Obama talked about, what I talked about now, but when we said it we where weak on Iran.

Ugh... You keep repeating yourself, I'll keep repeating myself:

WE HAVE NEVER STOPPED "TALKING" TO THEM. Its only NOW that they are talking back..... Its not like Bush heard Obama say "We should talk to Iran" and thought... "You know what? We have NEVER tried doing that! Brilliant!

Obama said he would meet unconditionally with Iran, then changed his mind and said "of course" we would have preconditions.

You also FAIL to recognize that actually SAYING 16 months BEFORE you even visit Iraq, its leaders and "talk to" OUR MILITARY is horribly irresponsible and ONLY done to pander to the Anti-War left.

So people will end up voting for him because they remember he once said "16 months" but once in office - He keeps troops there JUST AS LONG AS MCCAIN HAS PROPOSED, and gets to write it off as "Conditions on the ground".

Thats kinda like me quoting you a price on a home so you use me as the builder... But once I get the contract, the price miraculously quadruples and I use the excuse that "I hadn't seen the area" and didn't bother checking on the price of materials, before quoting you the original price.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Ugh... You keep repeating yourself, I'll keep repeating myself:

WE HAVE NEVER STOPPED "TALKING" TO THEM. Its only NOW that they are talking back..... Its not like Bush heard Obama say "We should talk to Iran" and thought... "You know what? We have NEVER tried doing that! Brilliant!

Obama said he would meet unconditionally with Iran, then changed his mind and said "of course" we would have preconditions.

You also FAIL to recognize that actually SAYING 16 months BEFORE you even visit Iraq, its leaders and "talk to" OUR MILITARY is horribly irresponsible and ONLY done to pander to the Anti-War left.

So people will end up voting for him because they remember he once said "16 months" but once in office - He keeps troops there JUST AS LONG AS MCCAIN HAS PROPOSED, and gets to write it off as "Conditions on the ground".

Thats kinda like me quoting you a price on a home so you use me as the builder... But once I get the contract, the price miraculously quadruples and I use the excuse that "I hadn't seen the area" and didn't bother checking on the price of materials, before quoting you the original price.

there are always some Preconditions, but guess what you negotiate those even. And I don't know but I call when to 2 sides talk, with the idea of agreement ...its called negotiation...and that was called Appeasement before. And the issue is not just talking, but you have to have real talks and bring in higher ranking people, as Bush is now doing.

and the Time frame set up was stated as a realistic goal for the time frame needed for a safe withdrawl of troops out of combat but was also set to be changed if saftey or events forced it to be changed...but the idea of a real time table also shows Iraq its realy time to step up and take the horns.Facts have always been that we where not wanted there, and we did not want to be there....the idea of actuly planing to leave should have been set up when we went in, not now. Bush made this whole thing up on the fly it seems and planned nothing.

McCain still talks about bases still there, and gives Americans and Iraqis no idea when US troops may be out, giving Both sides reason to belive that he has no real plan set to do it.

 

[Libsmasher]

The US Military, The Iraqi Military, The Iraqi Pairlement and PM ALL want timetables based on - Conditions on the Ground.

Democrats - Set any old arbitrary date, 16 mo for Obama: Who gives a crap about "conditions on the ground"?

Uh, you're trying to tutor a tree stump - give up. Imagine if someone set a "deadline" for WWII. Deadlines can ONLY be set by losers - those who concede defeat and run away.

 

[GenSeneca]

What is our "exit strategy" for Afghanistan? What Timetable are we following there?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Uh, you're trying to tutor a tree stump - give up. Imagine if someone set a "deadline" for WWII. Deadlines can ONLY be set by losers - those who concede defeat and run away.

imagine if you where smart enough to know WWII and Iraq are not the same type of war.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What is our "exit strategy" for Afghanistan? What Timetable are we following there?

the ones that says have have not won yet, and need more troops...not the one that Saddam is dead, there where not WMD, and they have a Goverment elected in place....what more do we need to do in Iraq?

 

[GenSeneca]

the ones that says have have not won yet, and need more troops...not the one that Saddam is dead, there where not WMD, and they have a Goverment elected in place....what more do we need to do in Iraq?

Its really sad you have to ask that last question... Maybe Libsmasher is right and I'm wasting my time.

More Good News from Iraq

More good news is coming out of Iraq. The AP recently reported that U.S. forces, in cooperation with Iraqi authorities, have just completed a top secret operation that involved shipping 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake out of Iraq.

The stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, which is a seed material for higher-grade uranium enrichment, was shipped out of Iraq aboard U.S. cargo planes, transferred to ships on islands in the Indian Ocean, and then shipped to Canada, where it will be used by a Canadian firm to make nuclear power.

The operation was an important step in ridding Iraq of the last vestiges of Saddam Hussein’s one-time nuclear program and it removed the uranium from the possibility of falling into the hands of insurgents or smugglers crossing into Iran.

This story comes along with news from the British newspaper the Sunday Times that Al Qaeda in Iraq, once estimated to be made up of as many as 12,000 terrorists, has been decimated and the current operation in the northern city of Mosul is aimed at ridding the country of the last of 1,000 Al Qaeda fighters.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to note this good news on the House floor last week (click here for video of the floor speech) because it certainly hasn’t received much attention in the mainstream press.

Posted by Rep. Joe Pitts (07-18-2008, 09:37 AM) filed under Defense-Homeland Security, International Relations

 

[Libsmasher]

imagine if you where smart enough to know WWII and Iraq are not the same type of war.

Conceive of having enough brain power to realize that the unpredictability of the end of ANY war, if one's intention is victory, is COMPLETELY independent of what "type" of war is being fought. I know it's difficult for you, but strain REALLLLL hard, and maybe you'll grasp it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its really sad you have to ask that last question... Maybe Libsmasher is right and I'm wasting my time.

Thats nice, but does that mean we need to have all of our troops there? no. WE cant be there forever holding there hand.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Conceive of having enough brain power to realize that the unpredictability of the end of ANY war, if one's intention is victory, is COMPLETELY independent of what "type" of war is being fought. I know it's difficult for you, but strain REALLLLL hard, and maybe you'll grasp it.

umm I do, thats why I have never called for a hard pull out, but rather a flexable one that lets us deal with things that come up. I also supported the Surge as I felt it was the only way to make things secure enough for us to actuly pull out.

and still waiting....whats your plan for Iran again?

 

[GenSeneca]

Thats nice, but does that mean we need to have all of our troops there? no. WE cant be there forever holding there hand.

Why do you say such things? Nowhere did I say we needed to be there forever holding their hand... Your question was "What do we have left to do in Iraq?"

The answer is: Finish the job. (the sooner the better)

You also said: "There were no WMD"

...And then glossed right over the fact we just extricated 550 tons of Yellow Cake Uranium out of Iraq. No, its wasn't weapons grade material but still not the kind of thing you want laying around the country for people like Sadr to get his hands on.

 

[PLC1]

Welcome PLC, I am very glad you asked that Q...

There has to be something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, namely: Iran backing down. They cannot of course do this publicly because they want to save face.. but so do we... So this sounds like there is finally a two way conversation going on between the two sides.
ca
We wouldn't change policy if they didn't relent, they wouldn't relent until we changed policy, the old diplomatic Catch 22. With Isreal's capability in the region and the international pressure mounting on Iran, things were coming to a climax.

What happened was anti-climatic. The world now knows that many, possibly even all, the Iranian Missile tests, were 100% faked. They look pretty damn silly right now, like Baghdad Bob did when he stood in front of the cameras swearing on his eyes that the American Invaders were being slaughtered and Iraq was winning the War.

So caught in this bold face lie, the Iranians have probably softened their stance and opened up communication under the condition we not admit they approached us.

Thats my opinion and it changes as the facts change, not as the political winds blow. Thanks PLC, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

It is amazing just how important "saving face" is in the arena of international diplomacy, isn't it?

I don't know whether the missile photos were faked or not. There is some evidence that they were.

The one sure thing is that the public doesn't know, and probably never will know, all of the facts about Iran, its missiles, the Bush administration's change of heart, the role Israel is playing, or anything else about the whole drama. It is quite likely, however, that the whole thing is engineered to make someone look good.

If Iran can rattle sabers and appear powerful, then it increases the status of their nutjob pres. If Bush appears to make them back down, then it increases his status, and the likelihood of a Republican victory in November. If Iran appears more powerful and bellicose than it is, then that adds to the "we have to stay in Iraq indefinitely" argument, and lends credence to the Iran as an evil bogyman stance. As long as we are talking tough, leaping and hooting at the tribe on the opposite side of the ravine, then there is no actual fighting going on, and no one is getting hurt, but the leaders are seen as protecting our turf and our side. Hooting and leaping as a strategy to gain status goes back a long way, and has a history of increasing the power and status of leaders.

 

[Libsmasher]

Why do you say such things? Nowhere did I say we needed to be there forever holding their hand... Your question was "What do we have left to do in Iraq?"

The answer is: Finish the job. (the sooner the better)

You also said: "There were no WMD"

...And then glossed right over the fact we just extricated 550 tons of Yellow Cake Uranium out of Iraq. No, its wasn't weapons grade material but still not the kind of thing you want laying around the country for people like Sadr to get his hands on.

I generally agree with you, but the "holding their hand" phraseology is slightly disturbing. The US wants make sure the new iraqi democracy is stabilized enough to stand on its own for the good of the iraqi people. But there are OTHER reasons: to keep it from falling under the control of the Iranian theocracy to form a powerful new Mega-Iran which controls a huge percentage of world oil reserves, to keep it from becoming a new islamofascist base of operations, and to provide a successful model of democracy for the people trapped in the medieval backward states of the middle east.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Why do you say such things? Nowhere did I say we needed to be there forever holding their hand... Your question was "What do we have left to do in Iraq?"

The answer is: Finish the job. (the sooner the better)

You also said: "There were no WMD"

...And then glossed right over the fact we just extricated 550 tons of Yellow Cake Uranium out of Iraq. No, its wasn't weapons grade material but still not the kind of thing you want laying around the country for people like Sadr to get his hands on.

yellow cake is not a WMD, and We knew they had it, and no its not weopons grade...so no I am note worried about keeping 150,000 troops in Iraq for 10 years over it. They want us out ASAP, have stated it clearly. And the US Population has as well. If we wish to keep limited troops there to help with things fine, but its time to start the major pull out. Or is your idea we keep 150,000 in Iraq until the day its the most peaceful safe nation on earth? The Brunt of what we can do is over, the longer we stay past that point, the closer we get to reversing what he have got as more and more they turn against the Iraq government as nothing but a US Pawn, or that it cant function on its own. Sunni factions have Rejoined the Government, the military more and more is confident and able to do its job on its own with limited US help. 16 months, plus the time till the Election..and the any extra time given if needs arise that are not expect, should be more then ample dime to meet our goals. The Surge worked and the Sunni Turned on Al Qaeda.