# Iraqi Cities to Become Terrorist Controlled July 1, 2009



## Article 15 (Aug 20, 2008)

> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to a preliminary draft of an agreement on the future of U.S. troops in Iraq, a senior U.S. military official said.
> 
> Iraq says U.S. troops will be out of cities by June 30; the U.S. says the date is only a goal.
> 
> ...



U.S. official: Draft of deal for Iraq pullout reached - CNN.com


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 21, 2008)

> there are no dates in the agreement, only general time frames



That means we can bullshit voters until after the elections.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 21, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> That means we can bullshit voters until after the elections.



The whole thing is sprinkled with tidbits for Bush apologists to extract and use in an effort to paint this as something other than a timetable.


----------



## TeachMe (Aug 21, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> The whole thing is sprinkled with tidbits for Bush apologists to extract and use in an effort to paint this as something other than a timetable.



It better not be a timetable.  Do you not understand that pulling out based upon artificial time and not based upon conditions on the ground is a horrible way to operate?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 21, 2008)

TeachMe said:


> It better not be a timetable.  Do you not understand that pulling out based upon artificial time and not based upon conditions on the ground is a horrible way to operate?



It's a timetable ... just reaching this tentative agreement shatters everything that has been coming from the Bush Administration about timetables ... pure hypocrisy ... sneaking in that it's based on "conditions on the ground" is just there for the sping meisters to play with ... by announcing that it's based on the "conditions on the ground" they've told the enemy there that if they chill out and go into hiding between now and the tentative date ... and things look good ... American forces are coming home in bulk.

The pro-war crowd has been calling those advocating this surrender monkey's ... cut and runners ... traitors!!!

But since BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH is saying that it's different it will be gobbled up like candy.

About Face!!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> It's a timetable ... just reaching this tentative agreement shatters everything that has been coming from the Bush Administration about timetables ... pure hypocrisy ... sneaking in that it's based on "conditions on the ground" is just there for the sping meisters to play with ... by announcing that it's based on the "conditions on the ground" they've told the enemy there that if they chill out and go into hiding between now and the tentative date ... and things look good ... American forces are coming home in bulk.
> 
> The pro-war crowd has been calling those advocating this surrender monkey's ... cut and runners ... traitors!!!
> 
> ...



BULLSHIT. The plan ALL ALONG has been to turn over the job to the Iraqis. Which means at some point we leave the fighting to them. They say they are ready and seem to be doing ok at it, so we agree we will leave as they take over.

THAT was the plan ALL along.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLSHIT. The plan ALL ALONG has been to turn over the job to the Iraqis. Which means at some point we leave the fighting to them. They say they are ready and seem to be doing ok at it, so we agree we will leave as they take over.
> 
> THAT was the plan ALL along.



And now the Bush Administration has told the terrorists that they just need to lay low for less than a year then the Americans will leave ... I know if I were a terrorist leader that's what I would be telling my organization after hearing this news.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> And now the Bush Administration has told the terrorists that they just need to lay low for less than a year then the Americans will leave ... I know if I were a terrorist leader that's what I would be telling my organization after hearing this news.



LOL, ya cause there are so many of them left. The US will maintain combat forces to assist the Iraqis for some time. THAT also has been the plan ALL along.

The day to day security will fall on the Iraqis with us maintaining a reaction force to aid them around the Country. Eventually we will cease the reaction forces as well or draw them down to something similar to Korea.

I guess the North Koreans missed the pull out of most of the American Army in early 50's?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL, ya cause there are so many of them left. The US will maintain combat forces to assist the Iraqis for some time. THAT also has been the plan ALL along.
> 
> The day to day security will fall on the Iraqis with us maintaining a reaction force to aid them around the Country. Eventually we will cease the reaction forces as well or draw them down to something similar to Korea.
> 
> I guess the North Koreans missed the pull out of most of the American Army in early 50's?



They knew they'd be facing total war if they made a move ... There's a glaring difference between North Korea and terrorists ... terrorists don't have a country ... nor do they think or act in the same way those with a country do ... they don't care ... and after all the U.S. has done they can't turn around and nuke Baghdad.


----------



## editec (Aug 21, 2008)

I am so happy that Bush and Co. are now implementing the plan that others once suggested...the plan that when anyone else suggested it, the Neo-cons characterized it as cowardly and caving into terrorism.

The fact that Bush and Co.  have changed their minds, and now recognize that turning over Iraq to the Iraqi is a grand idea, really is the important thing.

The Iraq policy should not be about saving face, but about saving lives.

I think those of us who really care about the American troops, ought to just thank Bush for changing the course, and not worry too much about how we were insulted and called names by these guys for suggesting the plan that Bush has finally decided to implement.

All that matters is that _finally_ Bush and company are waking up to reality.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 21, 2008)

editec said:


> I am so happy that Bush and Co. are now implementing the plan that others once suggested...the plan that when anyone else suggested it, the Neo-cons characterized it as cowardly and caving into terrorism.
> 
> The fact that Bush and Co.  have changed their minds, and now recognize that turning over Iraq to the Iraqi is a grand idea, really is the important thing.
> 
> ...



I think they are coming close to accomplishing another of the original goals. I know it's politically convenient to make it sound as if he is finally listening to the democrats but it's simply not true.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> I think they are coming close to accomplishing another of the original goals. I know it's politically convenient to make it sound as if he is finally listening to the democrats but it's simply not true.



Nope, the entire plan from start to finish involved us turning security over to the Iraq Government. Anyone that was not a political hack would admit that and quit making false claims now. We will switch to some fire Brigades and eventually as the Iraqis get even better switch to just being there if they need us.

As was planned from day one.


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Aug 21, 2008)

More leftwing propoganda from Article 15....

THIS IS NOT A TIMETABLE, FOLKS!!!

This is merely just a schedule showing an estimated date in which we might start drawing down our troops.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 21, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> More leftwing propoganda from Article 15....
> 
> THIS IS NOT A TIMETABLE, FOLKS!!!
> 
> This is merely just a schedule showing an estimated date in which we might start drawing down our troops.



But the liberals SO want to make it look as if they ended the war. It'll be pretty tough to honestly claim that when the framework is already beign set in motion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> But the liberals SO want to make it look as if they ended the war. It'll be pretty tough to honestly claim that when the framework is already beign set in motion.



You can count on it getting screwed up if Obama is President and the Democrats control both houses of Congress. His 16 months will become 5 or 6 and he will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. AND then blame Bush.


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Aug 21, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> But the liberals SO want to make it look as if they ended the war. It'll be pretty tough to honestly claim that when the framework is already beign set in motion.



The liberals could have defunded the war and ended it a long time ago. But that's a separate issue. What's at issue here is conservatives and Republicans stating that if we gave a date for withdrawl or force reduction, terrorists would just wait until that date before reclaiming their cities.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can count on it getting screwed up if Obama is President and the Democrats control both houses of Congress. His 16 months will become 5 or 6 and he will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. AND then blame Bush.



certainly a possiblity --all depending on conditions on the ground of course.


----------



## editec (Aug 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can count on it getting screwed up if Obama is President and the Democrats control both houses of Congress. His 16 months will become 5 or 6 and he will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. AND then blame Bush.


 
I rather doubt that.

We'll see, of course.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> The liberals could have defunded the war and ended it a long time ago. But that's a separate issue. What's at issue here is conservatives and Republicans stating that if we gave a date for withdrawl or force reduction, terrorists would just wait until that date before reclaiming their cities.



No the Government has been opposed to saying on x date we leave, no matter what. It has always been for turning over control of Iraq's day to day security to IRAQ. That has been the ENTIRE plan from day one.

It is now possible to talk about doing just that with tentative dates because the terrorists and the Insurgents have been broken. They are unable t just wait and attack later in any force, To many Iraqis are shooting them and turning them in.


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Aug 21, 2008)

Right, let's try to deflect and distract the tentative date for troop withdrawl by blaming this on Obama and the left.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 21, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> Right, let's try to deflect and distract the tentative date for troop withdrawl by blaming this on Obama and the left.


It always seems to work.


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 21, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> Right, let's try to deflect and distract the tentative date for troop withdrawl by blaming this on Obama and the left.


Exactly. They haven't taken responsibilty for anything since invading Iraq. It's always somebody elses fault.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 21, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> Right, let's try to deflect and distract the tentative date for troop withdrawl by blaming this on Obama and the left.



oh please--Obama himself has a timetable.


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Aug 21, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> oh please--Obama himself has a timetable.



GREAT POINT!!! Because as everybody knows the Presidential candidate's timetable supercedes the Commander-in-Chief's.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 21, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> GREAT POINT!!! Because as everybody knows the Presidential candidate's timetable supercedes the Commander-in-Chief's.



So explain to me again the problem with the current adminstrations attempt to time our withdrawal ? If Bush does it, Iraq will become a terrorist state yet if Obama does it everything will be hunky dory ?


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Aug 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is now possible to talk about doing just that with tentative dates because the terrorists and the Insurgents have been broken. They are unable t just wait and attack later in any force, To many Iraqis are shooting them and turning them in.



So what you're saying is that Obama's prediction for troop withdrawl in 12 months was closer than McCain's assessment that we'd be there for 50 years.


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Aug 21, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> So explain to me again the problem with the current adminstrations attempt to time our withdrawal ? If Bush does it, Iraq will become a terrorist state yet if Obama does it everything will be hunky dory ?



There's nothing wrong with the timetable for withdrawl. Hell, why wait until June 2009, let's withdraw them in January. Even a hardcore military guy like RGS believes that the insurgency is broken.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 21, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> There's nothing wrong with the timetable for withdrawl. Hell, why wait until June 2009, let's withdraw them in January. Even a hardcore military guy like RGS believes that the insurgency is broken.



Thats not what the original poster says.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/748850-post5.html


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Aug 21, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Thats not what the original poster says.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/748850-post5.html



It's early in the morning. Go drink some coffee. I'll give you a pass for completely missing his point...come back and re-read it when you feel more alert.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> So what you're saying is that Obama's prediction for troop withdrawl in 12 months was closer than McCain's assessment that we'd be there for 50 years.



You know as well as I do he meant in garrison at the permission of the Host country, seeing how he clearly said no fighting and no dieing. But do go ahead and lie some more.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2008)

I never said we should leave now, more lies from you. What? No valid argument so you are going to make shit up?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can count on it getting screwed up if Obama is President and the Democrats control both houses of Congress. His 16 months will become 5 or 6 and he will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. AND then blame Bush.



January + 5 or months = June or July 2009 ... the same timetable Bush just set.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 21, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> More leftwing propoganda from Article 15....
> 
> THIS IS NOT A TIMETABLE, FOLKS!!!
> 
> This is merely just a schedule showing an estimated date in which we might start drawing down our troops.





"This is not the timetable you have been calling for."


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 21, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> U.S. official: Draft of deal for Iraq pullout reached - CNN.com



This is what I've been trying to tell these right wingers for so long.  What have we won in Iraq?  Sadr is going to take over, and Iran is going to help him.  If we stay, we get road side bombed and it costs US taxpayers billions.  Sure Blackwater, Haloburton and Exxon make a fortune, but the American people WILL NEVER WIN.  Define winning. 

We would need to stay forever to protect Al Malaki.  Sadr will be the next president.

Now if Bush didn't rape their country with Haloburton & Blackwater, maybe we could have.  Had he partnered with Iran instead of trying to start a conflict with them, maybe we could have got their help all these years.  But Bush wanted all the oil to himself.  Now he's begging for help.   

The American people are really clueless.  It is sad to me.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 21, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> "This is not the timetable you have been calling for."



The Daily Show was making fun of this.  Bush kept calling it a Horizon instead of a timetable, because no matter how much you move towards the horizon, it never gets any closer.  LOL..


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 21, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> January + 5 or months = June or July 2009 ... the same timetable Bush just set.



You need to read this.  ThomHartmann.com - The Republican Plan For 2008 Begins Today

The Republican Plan For 2008 Begins Today 

Published on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 by CommonDreams.org 

1. Shift ownership of the downside of the war and occupation of Iraq to the Democrats. 

2. Begin to wind down American involvement in the occupation of Iraq no later than mid-2008. 

3. Claim victory and get out of direct combat in Iraq by the early fall of 2008.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Aug 21, 2008)

About time he listened to American and Iraqi public opinion. Of course, he had to wait until the contracts got distributed, but now that the cake is sliced and distributed he can start getting out. Either way, regardless of who proposes it or for what reason, it's good that a timeline is being set to end the occupation and hand power to Iraqis.


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Aug 23, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I never said we should leave now, more lies from you. What? No valid argument so you are going to make shit up?



Nobody made shit up. Looks like someone forgot to issue you some reading skills when you enlisted in the Corps. I never said you said we should leave; I said you said the insurgency was broken.

If you can find where I said otherwise by June 30, 2009, I'll apologize. If not lick my balls.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 23, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> Nobody made shit up. Looks like someone forgot to issue you some reading skills when you enlisted in the Corps. I never said you said we should leave; I said you said the insurgency was broken.
> 
> If you can find where I said otherwise by June 30, 2009, I'll apologize. If not lick my balls.



Pull them out big boy I have a K-Bar to take care of them. Your entire rant has to do with us leaving, which is in fact what we have ALWAYS planned to do. The Insurgency is broken as well as the terrorist groups. They still exist but are so weakened as to be more easily contained. Iraqis are turning them in, killing them and kicking them out faster then they can reorganize.


----------



## Red Dawn (Aug 23, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> And now the Bush Administration has told the terrorists that *they just need to lay low for less than a year then the Americans will leave* ... I know if I were a terrorist leader that's what I would be telling my organization after hearing this news.



Word. 

I've spent the last three years having NeoCons lecture me that giving the terrorists a date, would mean they would just lay low and wait until we left. 

But, for some odd reason, Neocons have "suddenly" stopped using that talking point in the last 30 days. 

I wonder why?


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Aug 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pull them out big boy I have a K-Bar to take care of them. Your entire rant has to do with us leaving, which is in fact what we have ALWAYS planned to do. The Insurgency is broken as well as the terrorist groups. They still exist but are so weakened as to be more easily contained. Iraqis are turning them in, killing them and kicking them out faster then they can reorganize.



Please, internet machoman. You've already made threads about how much of a depressed cripple you really are. Save the tough guy K-Bar talk for one of these noobs that hasn't read about your sad sob story yet.

Now that we've identified your comprehension problem and since you've acknowledged for a second time that the insurgency is broken, let me restate my previous post again:

There's nothing wrong with the timetable for withdrawl. Hell, why wait until June 2009, let's withdraw them in January. *Even a hardcore military guy like RGS believes that the insurgency is broken.*


----------

