Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68

 ... 487

Next

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

JUL 08, 2008 11:19 AM

Guess the American people aren't the only ones who want us out of Iraq.

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.



And the U.S. Moron-in-Chief's response?

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable.



But I guess since Bushy-Boy has shown himself to be so in touch with reality, we should keep listening to him [/sarcasm]

How does he not get it? surreal

scylis

scylis

USA
November 2004

JUL 08, 2008 11:30 AM

coyotemike said:
Guess the American people aren't the only ones who want us out of Iraq.

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.



And the U.S. Moron-in-Chief's response?

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable.



But I guess since Bushy-Boy has shown himself to be so in touch with reality, we should keep listening to him [/sarcasm]

How does he not get it? surreal



oh, he gets it alright, he just doesn't care.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

JUL 08, 2008 11:35 AM

scylis said:


oh, he gets it alright, he just doesn't care.




More like: He gets that it'll be someone else's problem come January '09.

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Oakland, NJ
June 2003

JUL 08, 2008 11:49 AM

Yup, we're that asshole that crashes the party, fucks your cat, shits in your mom's closet and won't leave when you ask.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

JUL 08, 2008 03:47 PM

I thought we were going to "stand down" when they "stood up."

Well?

Adroitbeing

Adroitbeing

I'm lost
September 2003

JUL 08, 2008 05:04 PM

bald_eagle said:
This leaves Bush, McCain, and stockula as just about the only three people in the universe who don't think there should be a timetable.



I think you uncovered the perfect solution!

formerviking

formerviking

Denver, PA
May 2006

JUL 08, 2008 05:10 PM

Adroitbeing said:

bald_eagle said:
This leaves Bush, McCain, and stockula as just about the only three people in the universe who don't think there should be a timetable.



I think you uncovered the perfect solution!



You missed Cheney bald eagle . I'm sure he's the main asshole in the " no time table " squad .

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

JUL 08, 2008 05:13 PM

wildswan said:
More like: He gets that it'll be someone else's problem come January '09.


i actually have niggling doubts about that, given that the Bush administration is showing strong signs of gearing up for a strike on Iran. if they go ahead with such a strike, it and any follow-up operations (read that: full-scale war) will be happening right around the elections.

now, it's probable that Bush will obediently hand over the reigns of the presidency over to whoever wins the election. it'll just be a nice, last "fuck you" for the country--one more mess for the next president to clean up or exacerbate.

but... Bush is a crafty, greedy fucker. he scares me. i think there's at least a chance that he'll use any retaliation for the strike on Iran's part as an excuse to declare some kind of bullshit national emergency and suspend the election.

highly improbable. i'd bet good money against it happening.

but the idea just won't go away.

Volkov

Volkov

San Antonio, TX
OLD SKOOL

JUL 08, 2008 06:36 PM

I'd find this piece of news a bit more interesting if the Iraqis themselves were putting forth any kind of proposal outlining when they would like US troops to leave. It's like they are being portrayed as taking a hard line stance....demanding nothing in particular.


The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

So far, the United States has handed control of nine of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials.



they want a definite timetable...except that the definite timetable is contingent upon their being able to take over the security responsibility...oh...sometime in the next three to five years.

I don't dispute that Bush and Co.'s adament refusal to even discuss how a US withdrawl would take place is moronic; I just don't get what the posturing is about.

NarcissistZero

NarcissistZero

Philadelphia, PA
December 2005

JUL 08, 2008 07:38 PM

As much as I opposed the war, and currently hate it, I think saying "we will be out on this day at this time" is pretty silly. It's not a lunch date, it's a humungous troop withdrawl in a country we have led into even more turmoil than it had before.

Adroitbeing

Adroitbeing

I'm lost
September 2003

JUL 08, 2008 08:31 PM

bald_eagle said:

Volkov said:
I'd find this piece of news a bit more interesting if the Iraqis themselves were putting forth any kind of proposal outlining when they would like US troops to leave. It's like they are being portrayed as taking a hard line stance....demanding nothing in particular.


The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.

After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

So far, the United States has handed control of nine of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials.



they want a definite timetable...except that the definite timetable is contingent upon their being able to take over the security responsibility...oh...sometime in the next three to five years.

I don't dispute that Bush and Co.'s adament refusal to even discuss how a US withdrawl would take place is moronic; I just don't get what the posturing is about.


They're currently negotiating some kind of official agreement between the US & Iraq on the status of US troops. The posturing is probably partially to stake out a position for the agreement.

That said, this seems to me to have been released largely for local consumption. Despite the "they'll throw flowers at us" prediciton, the Iraqis really don't seem to like us much. That could have something to do with thousands of civilian casualties, or maybe they just don't like their country being invaded and occupied - how ungrateful.

Al Maliki seems to be learning the ropes as a politician.



I agree, and I would not overlook what appears to be a call by Al Maliki to appease popular opinion by sending a message regarding total troop withdrawal - read; no permanent US bases.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUL 08, 2008 08:46 PM

Didn't they ask for a time-table like last summer? Or is that just my imagination? I'm about 90% sure this isn't the first time I've heard this.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUL 08, 2008 08:48 PM

Adroitbeing said:
no permanent US bases.

Except for you know, the largest US Embassy complex in history and the extra large airstrip just north of Baghdad.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

JUL 09, 2008 12:42 AM

motorfirebox said:

wildswan said:
More like: He gets that it'll be someone else's problem come January '09.


i actually have niggling doubts about that, given that the Bush administration is showing strong signs of gearing up for a strike on Iran. if they go ahead with such a strike, it and any follow-up operations (read that: full-scale war) will be happening right around the elections.

now, it's probable that Bush will obediently hand over the reigns of the presidency over to whoever wins the election. it'll just be a nice, last "fuck you" for the country--one more mess for the next president to clean up or exacerbate.

but... Bush is a crafty, greedy fucker. he scares me. i think there's at least a chance that he'll use any retaliation for the strike on Iran's part as an excuse to declare some kind of bullshit national emergency and suspend the election.

highly improbable. i'd bet good money against it happening.

but the idea just won't go away.

If Bush does it alone (which the dumbfuck may), I think it's pretty safe to say he'll have to pay the piper once all the shit settles down (that is unless his actions are tied to some vast conspiracy to take over the world, as you suggest... Gulp!) However, such an action would completely disrupt the market and economies all over the world. People will be out for his hide, Americans included!

Of course, if things really go bad for him, he may try to flee to South America. (Ah, of course. It's the old Nazi strategy! It all makes sense now). Well, this Paraguay hideaway is either just that or its a brazen land grab in an attempt to monopolize an aquifer beneath the arid region of the country... In fact, It kind of reminds me of something Daniel Day Lewis' character might do in There Will Be Blood (He is an oil man, after all.):


Only time will tell...

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

JUL 09, 2008 01:06 AM

Where the hell do these Iraqi people get off asking us to leave their country?! The audacity!

[/sarcasm]

Volkov

Volkov

San Antonio, TX
OLD SKOOL

JUL 09, 2008 05:31 AM

that's the other thing I find amusing. The media is portraying it as Iraq demanding that the US leave, when in reality it's closer to them saying " We want you to get out!.....eventually....maybe.....if we can get our house in order sometime in the next five years or so."

I agree that it is in large part an internal public relations stance to boost the Iraqi people's faith in the central government, and if it works...that's a good thing.

I still don't know about us not having permanant bases there. I'm still of the mind that at least one or two will remain with reduced personnel a la post-war Germany.