Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being that the 2006 election and aftermath motivated the president to come up with the surge plan does he need another motivator to get moving on leaving Iraq??
Why was there a surge to begin with? Because the war was going badly Bush had just lost the 2006 congressional elections.
Congress with the publics support pushed for war policy change. Many wanted to declare victory and leave.
Bush was forced to do something and that something was the Surge. Yes, to his & McCain's credit it has provided a much better Iraq.
But now they seemed to be bogged down in decision making once again. They want to stay for a longer time.
Iraq is much less violent,
the elected president of Iraq wants the US out in 2010, the Iraq people want the US out,
our military has been over extended,
Afghanistan needs more troops.
The budget deficit.
Being that the 2006 election and aftermath motivated the president to come up with the surge plan does he need another motivator to get moving on leaving Iraq??
2006 election as referendum on Iraq War
Polls showed that after the 2006 general election, “A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they [won] control of Congress”.[11] This view of the election as a referendum on the war was endorsed by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi who in the final days of the campaign said, “This election is about Iraq. If indeed it turns out the way that people expect it to turn out, the American people will have spoken, and they will have rejected the course of action the president is on.”[12] The news media viewed the Democratic victory in both houses of the US Congress as “punishing President George W. Bush and his Republicans over ethics scandals in Washington and a failing war in Iraq.”[13]
[edit]Democrats announce priority to be on changing Iraq policy
After her party's victory then House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (who would a month later make it clear for her disdain for the "surge proposal" [1]) wrote an article entitled "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker". The article explained that after visiting wounded Iraq War veterans at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center "I left there more committed than ever to bringing the war to an end. I told my colleagues yesterday that the biggest ethical issue facing our country for the past three and a half years is the war in Iraq. ...When the House reconvenes on January 4, 2007, Democrats will take power and I will take the gavel knowing the responsibility we have to you and to the country. The new Democratic Congress will live up to the highest ethical standard... [we] are prepared to lead and ready to govern. We will honor the trust of the American people; we will not disappoint."[14] In fact, the Pelosi-led Democrats either backed down on every single "end-the-war" proposal they brought, or it was voted down, with Democrats voting with the minority Republicans, leading many to suspect they never intended to change the situation at all.
we should have no interest in any foreign nation. we should withdraw our troops, we should cut off all financial aid to third world countries, f-them. let em burn.
we should have no interest in any foreign nation. we should withdraw our troops, we should cut off all financial aid to third world countries, f-them. let em burn.
Can always count on you to find the middle ground?
There was a surge because Bush didn't send enough troops in the beginning and the ones that were sent weren't properly utilized by Rumsfeld.
Yes, that definitely was the case.
However I am referring to the point after the elections in 2006. Before then Bush repeated again & again B]"STAY THE COURSE"[/b] but after the repudiation of the republican party Bush gave a speech telling America "I GOT THE MESSAGE". That is when he decided to change course in Iraq. That is when he started to consider all possible actions.
Eventually at McCain's nudging the surge came about.
But the election results forced Bush to act,
Until then he was repeating "STAY THE COURSE" time & time again!
This is a problem with this president he boxes himself in time & time again. He is stubborn and sometimes needs to shown the direction to go.
Why was there a surge to begin with? Because the war was going badly Bush had just lost the 2006 congressional elections.
Not possible. The troops were alerted for movement 180 days prior, so that blows your theory since they knew as early as June 2006 they were going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJS8510
Congress with the publics support pushed for war policy change. Many wanted to declare victory and leave.
But the Democrats couldn't muster up the courage to leave, and Pelosi did an about face (after she was made privy to a few things).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJS8510
Iraq is much less violent, the elected president of Iraq wants the US out in 2010, the Iraq people want the US out
The US isn't leaving. I take it the phrase "geo-strategy" isn't in your vocabulary. The US geo-strategy has remained unchanged for the last 30 years, and since only bureaucrats formulate geo-strategy, Obama isn't going to change it (unless Americans hold a referendum proclaiming they want to be a 3rd World Country). That geo-strategy requires the US to control Central Asia, and to do that, the US needs uninhibited air and ground access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian see to Central Asia, which means the US must control Iran. To do that, the US needs Iraq as a base.
I take it you also missed the news bits about the Kurds continually violating the Iraqi constitution by granting contracts to the Russians and Chinese for oil and natural gas exploration in Iraqi Kurdistan without the approval of the Iraqi Congress.
That is a clear and convincing statement by the Kurds to the Iraqis that "this is our oil and not yours," which is tantamount to saying "this is our country and not yours" (and yes, both Russia and China will back the Kurds on independence).
To suggest that Iraq is stable is ludicrous. The only thing that's happened is that groups have changed strategy and tactics, most likely in the hopes that the US will draw down troops or foolishly remove them so the various Iraqi groups can gain an advantage.
If Obama withdraws all US troops and Maliki is not re-elected in October 2009 (he won't be) and the new Iraqi president and coalition government decides to start selling oil in Euros again and the US$ drops 6 points against the Euro and Americans are paying more for everything because of it, what do you suppose Obama's re-election chances in 2012 are?
Zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJS8510
Afghanistan needs more troops.
Then draft them. I guess you don't understand that M1A1 Abrahms Tanks and M2/M3 Bradleys and mountainous terrain don't go good together.
Only mountain, air-mobile, airborne and light infantry can fight in mountainous terrain. Ask the Russians what happens when an armored vehicle convoys try to negotiate dirt roads through mountains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJS8510
The budget deficit.
Isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJS8510
2006 election as referendum on Iraq War
Polls showed that after the 2006 general election, “A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they [won] control of Congressâ€.
That was never a platform for Democrats for the 2006 Elections. Stupid Americans simply assumed that by voting for the opposite party, things would change.
Being that the 2006 election and aftermath motivated the president to come up with the surge plan does he need another motivator to get moving on leaving Iraq??
Why was there a surge to begin with? Because the war was going badly Bush had just lost the 2006 congressional elections.
Congress with the publics support pushed for war policy change. Many wanted to declare victory and leave.
Bush was forced to do something and that something was the Surge. Yes, to his & McCain's credit it has provided a much better Iraq.
But now they seemed to be bogged down in decision making once again. They want to stay for a longer time.
Iraq is much less violent,
the elected president of Iraq wants the US out in 2010, the Iraq people want the US out,
our military has been over extended,
Afghanistan needs more troops.
The budget deficit.
Being that the 2006 election and aftermath motivated the president to come up with the surge plan does he need another motivator to get moving on leaving Iraq??
2006 election as referendum on Iraq War
Polls showed that after the 2006 general election, “A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they [won] control of Congressâ€.[11] This view of the election as a referendum on the war was endorsed by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi who in the final days of the campaign said, “This election is about Iraq. If indeed it turns out the way that people expect it to turn out, the American people will have spoken, and they will have rejected the course of action the president is on.â€[12] The news media viewed the Democratic victory in both houses of the US Congress as “punishing President George W. Bush and his Republicans over ethics scandals in Washington and a failing war in Iraq.â€[13]
[edit]Democrats announce priority to be on changing Iraq policy
After her party's victory then House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (who would a month later make it clear for her disdain for the "surge proposal" [1]) wrote an article entitled "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker". The article explained that after visiting wounded Iraq War veterans at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center "I left there more committed than ever to bringing the war to an end. I told my colleagues yesterday that the biggest ethical issue facing our country for the past three and a half years is the war in Iraq. ...When the House reconvenes on January 4, 2007, Democrats will take power and I will take the gavel knowing the responsibility we have to you and to the country. The new Democratic Congress will live up to the highest ethical standard... [we] are prepared to lead and ready to govern. We will honor the trust of the American people; we will not disappoint."[14] In fact, the Pelosi-led Democrats either backed down on every single "end-the-war" proposal they brought, or it was voted down, with Democrats voting with the minority Republicans, leading many to suspect they never intended to change the situation at all.
Interesting that the very people who opposed the Surge tooth and nail, Obama foremost, are now advocating a surge in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for Barry-come-lately and his acolytes a surge in Afghanistan will not accomplish what it did in Iraq. Ann Marlowe has a column in today's WSJ making that point and explaining the differences between the two countries that make a surge strategy unworkable in Afghanistan. This stuff is too important to be left to the likes of Obama and company.
That was never a platform for Democrats for the 2006 Elections. Stupid Americans simply assumed that by voting for the opposite party, things would change.
This was there, and so my question is - Since your prior posts indicate the politicians have moved with foresight, was this in the works during the mid-terms, as I recognize the date is post the elections, but it is on the site you referenced.
House Democrats Have A Plan (http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/03/house_democrats.php - broken link) Posted by Michael Link on March 8, 2007 at 03:29 PM
"Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats introduced legislation earlier today that would hold the Iraqi government accountable to meet benchmarks while calling for the redeployment of U.S. combat troops by a specific date. The legislation would also expand funding for veterans' health care and meet troop readiness standards so that they aren't sent in without the proper training, without the proper equipment, and in the proper time frame.
Here's what the Christian Science Monitor, which says Democrats are "drawing their line in the sand," states about the bill:
As a timetable, it could hardly be clearer: Show progress in Iraq by July or begin withdrawing US troops. Meet your goals by October or start bringing the troops home. No matter what, all troops are out by August 2008.
The proposal by Speaker Pelosi and others would, according to a press release from the House Appropriations Committee:
- Redirect more resources to the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan
- Attack the neglect of returning troops and veterans who are badly in need of healthcare, and
- Set a timeline for bringing the United States participation in Iraq's civil war to an end.
While Republicans refused for years to hold President Bush accountable for his failed Iraq policy, House Democrats are stepping up to the plate with their plan. In addition to these measures, the bill would add $1.4 billion "to cover the full cost of housing allowances for military members" and $2.5 billion "to address training and equipment shortfalls in forces not deployed to theaters of operation."
The information does appear to counter your argument that the American people did not expect the Democrats to begin troop withdrawals and change course in Iraq.
[quote=Mircea;4557377]Not possible. The troops were alerted for movement 180 days prior, so that blows your theory since they knew as early as June 2006 they were going.QUOTE]
I wonder if you could source your info above?
Interesting how Bush did not announce until 2007.
Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On January 10, 2007, President Bush announced changes in the administration's political and military strategy in the Iraq War during a national television speech broadcast. The speech and underlying strategy had been crafted under the working title "The New Way Forward." In the address Bush stated “America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. Bush committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad”[2]
[quote=Mircea;4557377]But the Democrats couldn't muster up the courage to leave, and Pelosi did an about face (after she was made privy to a few things).QUOTE]
True many democrats did not want to immediately end the war. they understood going in half assed does not mean you have to exit half assed
[quote=Mircea;4557377]The US isn't leaving. I take it the phrase "geo-strategy" isn't in your vocabulary. The US geo-strategy has remained unchanged for the last 30 years, and since only bureaucrats formulate geo-strategy, Obama isn't going to change it (unless Americans hold a referendum proclaiming they want to be a 3rd World Country). That geo-strategy requires the US to control Central Asia, and to do that, the US needs uninhibited air and ground access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian see to Central Asia, which means the US must control Iran. To do that, the US needs Iraq as a base.QUOTE]
You just stated the reason Cheney and other neocons are hopefully, no longer running the Bush administration.
[quote=Mircea;4557377]I take it you also missed the news bits about the Kurds continually violating the Iraqi constitution by granting contracts to the Russians and Chinese for oil and natural gas exploration in Iraqi Kurdistan without the approval of the Iraqi Congress.
That is a clear and convincing statement by the Kurds to the Iraqis that "this is our oil and not yours," which is tantamount to saying "this is our country and not yours" (and yes, both Russia and China will back the Kurds on independence).QUOTE]
So you agree it was incredible stupid to invade.
[quote=Mircea;4557377]To suggest that Iraq is stable is ludicrous. The only thing that's happened is that groups have changed strategy and tactics, most likely in the hopes that the US will draw down troops or foolishly remove them so the various Iraqi groups can gain an advantage. If Obama withdraws all US troops and Maliki is not re-elected in October 2009 (he won't be) and the new Iraqi president and coalition government decides to start selling oil in Euros again and the US$ drops 6 points against the Euro and Americans are paying more for everything because of it, what do you suppose Obama's re-election chances in 2012 are?Zero.QUOTE]
What will happen in 2010 will happen in 2012 or 2017.
Like Bush, Iraq is stubborn and will act when pushed.
[quote=Mircea;4557377]Then draft them. I guess you don't understand that M1A1 Abrahms Tanks and M2/M3 Bradleys and mountainous terrain don't go good together. Only mountain, air-mobile, airborne and light infantry can fight in mountainous terrain. Ask the Russians what happens when an armored vehicle convoys try to negotiate dirt roads through mountains.QUOTE]
I'll agree we need a draft if we are going your direction. But nobody will support a draft.
I guess you think the Marines are incapable of operating in Afghanistan.
[quote=Mircea;4557377]Isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things. That was never a platform for Democrats for the 2006 Elections. Stupid Americans simply assumed that by voting for the opposite party, things would change.QUOTE]
The real question is
Would there have been a surge without the 2006 congressional election going against the president?
For some reason you think I'm democrat, I guess you really don't understand all that much!
Interesting that the very people who opposed the Surge tooth and nail, Obama foremost, are now advocating a surge in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for Barry-come-lately and his acolytes a surge in Afghanistan will not accomplish what it did in Iraq. Ann Marlowe has a column in today's WSJ making that point and explaining the differences between the two countries that make a surge strategy unworkable in Afghanistan. This stuff is too important to be left to the likes of Obama and company.
remember 9/11
Afghanistan =Osama Bin Laden =Taliban
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
