Printable View
I hope we never have a military policy that is responsive to polling.Quote:
Originally Posted by alaskaguy
If there is such an underswelling of opinion that we should leave by the Iraqis wouldn't that be reflected in their political leadership? There is a big difference between what people say they want to a pollster and what they actually want.
The Iraqi Parliament has also requested that the U.S. military occupation end. This has to be one of the more underreported media stories of Iraq (I threw that in for all of those that believe that the media is outwardly biased to the left). However, the Prime Minister, has not enforced the requests of either the Parliament or the Iraqi population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Incyte
I think that takes you back to alaskaguy's comment that we "own" Iraq. We've invested so much money and time into building that government that they basically owe us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Incyte
Interesting. We all know how important those non-binding resolutions are.Quote:
Originally Posted by alaskaguy
The US presence in Iraq is authorized under a UN Security councel mandate which is now about to end.
If the Iraqi gov't wanted us to leave why did they just offer us economic incentives for a long term presence?
Iraqis may offer US deal to stay longer - Yahoo! News
According to the article:
The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.
[quote=Incyte;262889]Interesting. We all know how important those non-binding resolutions are.
The US presence in Iraq is authorized under a UN Security councel mandate which is now about to end.
quote]
The Iraqi Parliament passed a binding resolution that required Maliki to go to the Parliament and give Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the mandate. It was signed by the majority of the 275-seat legislature, then sent to the president. According to the Iraqi constitution, the president had 15 days to veto it by sending it back to the parliament; otherwise it automatically becomes a ratified law. The 15 days passed without a veto, so, according to the terms of the constitution, the Iraqi parliament's resolution became a law in mid-June 2007.
Something happened, however, between the passage of that law and the latest report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. According to Moon's latest report to the Security Council (PDF), dated Oct. 15, the law that had been passed by the duly elected legislature of Iraq became nothing more than a "nonbinding resolution"
Link:
Iraqi Government to UN: "Don't Extend Mandate for Bush's Occupation"
That's quite a source you just quoted. I try not to read materials from a source that says efforts to help the Darfur region are a scam.Quote:
Originally Posted by alaskaguy
The Iraqi resolution is of course non-binding. It's like Congress mandating that they be asked how our UN ambassador should vote which is clearly the province of the executive branch. The resoution is non-binding because its an ultra vires resolution.
Sometimes I almost hope one of the fringe democrats would get elected just so they can immediately pull every single troop out of Iraq and see how that works out for the world. From the discussion here that would clear out Iraq's final hurdle to becoming a democratic world power and our best friend.
Absolutely 100% correct, I couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwitt
I would have Ron Paul for president tattooed on my forehead if not for his foreign policy. I love his stance on the Constitution and limited government. However, I just do not think that we can responsibly pull out of Iraq immediately. Our recent strategy has begun to bear fruit, and that has resulted in a strategy of phased withdrawal that will work, and will leave Iraq a viable national entity.
Our ability to project power throughout the world makes us safe. The crossover point in this conversation is whether, with our current debt, we can afford to project our power globally. That is a very disturbing question to ask.
As of now, Huckabee is my leading candidate. Ron Paul is a wild card who I won't completely discount, and the rest, I'm not sure. I really like Duncan Hunter, but I don't think he has a chance. My only serious dislike on the Republican side is Romney. I just don't believe him.
That seems to be a common sentiment. He almost seems like too much of a politician, if that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonepride
First I am not a fringe Democrat. I'm not even a registered Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by wonkadog
Nevertheless, the foreign policy of the Republican presidential candidates (excluding Ron Paul) have caused me to consider voting for a Democratic presidential candidate.
I advocate a prompt withdrawal from Iraq. However, I don't forseee a withdrawal being a pancea. I realize that there will be costs associated with a withdrawal. But I believe the costs of a prompt withdrawal are less than other alternatives.
Which of the Dem candidates will provide a quick withdrawal? Richardson? Him only? Which actually have the guts to do it? Paul only?
Richardson, Edwards, Gravel (assuming we consider him as a candidate), Kucinich, Richardson, and Paul are advocating a prompt/quick withdrawal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Incyte
It's not which candidate has the guts to withdrawal, it's which candidates have the sense to implement a withdrawal.
Link:
Election Guide 2008 - Presidential Election - Politics
That has not been what I have been spoon fed by the evening news? I hear it is worse than ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonepride
The Case For Facing Facts | Newsweek Iraq War | Newsweek.comQuote:
Originally Posted by bawbie
There’s No Place Like … Iraq? | Newsweek Iraq War | Newsweek.com
Here are two that I could find that show a changing face on the situation on the ground. They also come from a non-Conservative voice. The second article is about the refugees that are returning home, there are still plenty out there but more have been coming back in the last few months. To ignore the fact that a change has been taking place with GEN Petraeus in command is just absurd.
Paul was one of only a few that didn't vote for the war in the first place. Hagel from Nebraska was another and I wish he would of ran.