PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tamanon said:
And this Petraeus hearing is pretty annoying so far.
Click to expand...

Petraeus wants troop drawdowns suspended

WASHINGTON - The U.S. general commanding the Iraq war called Tuesday for an open-ended suspension of U.S. troop withdrawals this summer, asserting that an overly rapid withdrawal would jeopardize recent security gains.
Click to expand...

Gen. David Petraeus told a Senate hearing that he recommends a 45-day "period of consolidation and evaluation" once the extra combat forces that President Bush ordered to Iraq last year have completed their pullout in July. He did not commit to a timetable for resuming troop reductions after the 45-day pause.
Click to expand...

"At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions," Petraeus said
Click to expand...

"Stop me if you've heard this one before...."

"Taken as a snapshot, with scenes of increasing violence, and masked gunmen in the streets, it is hard to see how this situation supports a narrative of progress in Iraq," Crocker said. "There is still very much to be done to bring full government control to the streets of Basra and eliminate entrenched extremist, criminal, and militia groups. When viewed with a broader lens, the Iraqi decision to combat these groups in Basra has major significance."
Click to expand...

Major significance, eh? He must mean this: Al-Sadr threatens to end cease-fire

Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is demanding the Iraqi government protect the public from "the booby traps and American militias" or he may formally end the freeze he imposed seven months ago on his Mahdi Army fighters.
Click to expand...

Al-Sadr also wants a timetable for the U.S. to leave Iraq.
Click to expand...

Who the fuck cares what you want?
 
but the polls...THE POLLS!!!

this Petraeus hearing is mind-numbing. I'm amazed how 'outraged' some sound that Iran, who has a vested interest in protecting their border and influencing the direction of Iraq's progress, is vilified as saboteurs while we are the ones who forcibly invaded and started these macro-problems in the country to begin with.

edit: so the 'strategic' thing for Iran to do is to allow the US to install a puppet government on its border? i really hope Petraeus is playing possum.
 
scorcho said:
but the polls...THE POLLS!!!

this Petraeus hearing is mind-numbing. I'm amazed how 'outraged' some sound that Iran, who has a vested interest in protecting their border and influencing the direction of Iraq's progress, is vilified as saboteurs while we are the ones who forcibly invaded and started these macro-problems in the country to begin with.
Click to expand...

It's pretty funny indeed. "HOW DARE IRAN INTERFERE IN A SOVEREIGN NATION!"
 
Its pretty clear in my mind that Petraeus is setting up the timeline to coincide with the end of Bush's presidency.

In July, the rest of the surge forces will be out and there will be ~140,000 troops left (slightly more than before the surge). There will be a 45 day evaluation period that'll take us into September. From there, he has set up some kind of open ended assessment period that could last any number of months.

My guess is he carries out that assessment period past the election in November, so he can begin formulating a plan for either outcome.
 
siamesedreamer said:
Its pretty clear in my mind that Petraeus is setting up the timeline to coincide with the end of Bush's presidency.
Click to expand...

what??? you mean important foreign policy decisions are influenced by domestic politics?

NO WAI
 
bob_arctor said:
Oh goody, here's where I find out that political reconciliation has indeed happened!
Click to expand...
according to Lieberman, there's been more political progress in Iraq than in Washington DC! amazing!

Graham is a joke: 'Al Queada hates the surge!' also, nice conflation between AQ and AQI.

and. i think more average Iraqis want us to leave than AQ alone. besides, doesn't AQ want us to stay there?
 
I don't understand the whole "These guys questioning you and inquiring about facts, why they sound like you should be fired!"

And really, why is Al Qaeda even talked about in Iraq when they're one of the most minor factions there and not connected to the original Al Qaeda except in name only.
 
Tamanon said:
And really, why is Al Qaeda even talked about in Iraq when they're one of the most minor factions there and not connected to the original Al Qaeda except in name only.
Click to expand...
makes for a very convincing sound-bite narrative
 
Triumph said:
Good job, Graham. Because a "functioning democracy in Iraq" wouldn't look like a Shia Theocracy at all, nope. GAWD.
Click to expand...
ding ding.

just like 'democracy in the Middle East' wouldn't just elect the basest elements of society that would be virulently anti-American.
 
Tamanon said:
She's giving a speech, that's why:P
Click to expand...
oh my, i must've not realized how blatantly obvious that was. let me also state - she's sitting down.

she still sounds sedated even in giving non-canned responses.
 
PhoenixDark said:
I can't fucking wait to see the posts here once Obama starts doing the same damn thing
Click to expand...

Nah, it's a committee hearing, everyone always sounds sedated and gives speeches. Nobody ever shows emotion.
 
PhoenixDark said:
I can't fucking wait to see the posts here once Obama starts doing the same damn thing
Click to expand...
If he does, I'll be equally annoyed.

I've lost track of the question. Is she even responding to him now?
 
Tamanon said:
Nah, it's a committee hearing, everyone always sounds sedated and gives speeches. Nobody ever shows emotion.
Click to expand...
Graham and Lieberman sounded like neither. then again neither knew what the hell they were talking about.
 
harSon said:
Don't you dare give Obama any sass Michelle.
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to make me upset/irked or something?

It's a shame petty politics are blurring people's response to Clinton's session so far. Her position is basically the exact same as Obama's.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Is that supposed to make me upset/irked or something?

It's a shame petty politics are blurring people's response to Clinton's session so far. Her position is basically the exact same as Obama's.
Click to expand...
exactly one person mentioned something about stumping. saying she sounds 'sedated' or like she is giving a speech is petty?
 
scorcho said:
exactly one person mentioned something about stumping. saying she sounds 'sedated' or like she is giving a speech is petty?
Click to expand...
I just tuned in, when the Senator right before Clinton was asking questions. I don't watch these kinds of hearings often, but Clinton seemed to use a big chunk of her time to establish her campaign position, not ask questions. It's an observation. I don't know if that's par for the course for everyone or not.
 
PhoenixDark said:
Is that supposed to make me upset/irked or something?

It's a shame petty politics are blurring people's response to Clinton's session so far. Her position is basically the exact same as Obama's.
Click to expand...

It's just a joke :)

And why must you bunch every Obama supporter together when responding to a single incident? We don't have a collective mind.
 
GhaleonEB said:
I just tuned in, when the Senator right before Clinton was asking questions. I don't watch these kinds of hearings often, but Clinton seemed to use a big chunk of her time to establish her campaign position, not ask questions. It's an observation. I don't know if that's par for the course for everyone or not.
Click to expand...

It's pretty par for the course. Hearings aren't really about getting facts. Witness the Big Oil hearings.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Didn't DailyKos confirmed Petreaus saying the surge is not working? I remember a thread last month on that. Oh wait. It's DailyKos....
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting DailyKos isn't a credible source of information? Can you back that up with anything?
 
Long-term, advocacy for democracy in the region addresses the root causes of disenfranchisement that leads to the empowerment of terrorist and militant groups who take what are essentially political and diplomatic issues into their own hands. The argument that an election in a religious area would only see the rise of religious political parties and is therefore folly of the highest order, seems myopic, short-sighted, and paternal in the sense that it obliquely suggests these people can't govern themselves rationally and need to be dominated by a non-representative system like the uncivilized little children they are. Of course, this also in spirit contradicts the idea that a longstanding imperialist occupation to stabilize a volatile country is immoral if done against the will of the people; ultimately I feel it's a self-defeating argument that's only being made because feels good as an attack.
 
APF said:
Long-term, advocacy for democracy in the region addresses the root causes of disenfranchisement that leads to the empowerment of terrorist and militant groups who take what are essentially political and diplomatic issues into their own hands. The argument that an election in a religious area would only see the rise of religious political parties and is therefore folly of the highest order, seems myopic, short-sighted, and paternal in the sense that it obliquely suggests these people can't govern themselves rationally and need to be dominated by a non-representative system like the uncivilized little children they are. Of course, this also in spirit contradicts the idea that a longstanding imperialist occupation to stabilize a volatile country is immoral due if done against the will of the people; ultimately I feel it's a self-defeating argument that's only being made because feels good as an attack.
Click to expand...
Those are some long ass sentences.
 
040808DailyUpdateGraph1lkjbvcx.gif
 
APF said:
Long-term, advocacy for democracy in the region addresses the root causes of disenfranchisement that leads to the empowerment of terrorist and militant groups who take what are essentially political and diplomatic issues into their own hands. The argument that an election in a religious area would only see the rise of religious political parties and is therefore folly of the highest order, seems myopic, short-sighted, and paternal in the sense that it obliquely suggests these people can't govern themselves rationally and need to be dominated by a non-representative system like the uncivilized little children they are. Of course, this also in spirit contradicts the idea that a longstanding imperialist occupation to stabilize a volatile country is immoral due if done against the will of the people; ultimately I feel it's a self-defeating argument that's only being made because feels good as an attack.
Click to expand...

So you agree then, we should get the fuck out of Iraq. Good.
 
GhaleonEB said:
I just tuned in, when the Senator right before Clinton was asking questions. I don't watch these kinds of hearings often, but Clinton seemed to use a big chunk of her time to establish her campaign position, not ask questions. It's an observation. I don't know if that's par for the course for everyone or not.
Click to expand...
Video recordings of these hearings have resulted in a lot of pointless pontificating rather than any worthwhile back-and-forth. A lot of it is just a battle to get your soundbyte into the next news cycle, unfortunately.
 
APF said:
Long-term, advocacy for democracy in the region addresses the root causes of disenfranchisement that leads to the empowerment of terrorist and militant groups who take what are essentially political and diplomatic issues into their own hands. The argument that an election in a religious area would only see the rise of religious political parties and is therefore folly of the highest order, seems myopic, short-sighted, and paternal in the sense that it obliquely suggests these people can't govern themselves rationally and need to be dominated by a non-representative system like the uncivilized little children they are. Of course, this also in spirit contradicts the idea that a longstanding imperialist occupation to stabilize a volatile country is immoral due if done against the will of the people; ultimately I feel it's a self-defeating argument that's only being made because feels good as an attack.
Click to expand...
no one is negating the benefits of democracy/political liberalization as a long-term concept. but structuring OUR foreign policy and peace-building practices around promoting instantaneous democracy-for-the-sake-of-democracy as a near-immediate panacea for our relations/problems in that area is myopic. it failed in Africa, it's failing now in Iraq.
 
belvedere said:
The man said he'd be fine with a 100 year U.S. presence in Iraq. Not once, but on a few different occasions now. These were direct responses to questions using the word "war".
Click to expand...

Are you truly unable to see the distinction between what McCain said and what Obama has been saying/implying?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MMA-GAF | Interim Thread 7
65 66 67 68 69
3K
316K
manfestival replied
So they deleted my post, because of jelousy and envy
3 4 5 6 7
302
61K
GeorgPrime replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
259K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom