Iraqis: Deal close on plan for US troops to leave - Dallas Cowboys Forum

**BrAinPaiNt** · 08-07-2008

LINK

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer 20 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - Two Iraqi officials say the U.S. and Iraq are close to a deal under which all American combat troops would leave by October 2010 with remaining U.S. forces gone about three years later.

A U.S. official in Washington acknowledges progress has been made on the timelines for a U.S. departure but offered no firm date. Another U.S. official strongly suggested the 2010 date may be too ambitious.

A timetable is part of a security agreement being negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi officials. Both sides stress the deal is not final and could fall apart over the issue of legal immunity for American troops.

One of the U.S. officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had a long and "very difficult" telephone conversation Wednesday in which she pressed the Iraqi leader for more flexibility, particularly on immunity.

zrinkill · 08-07-2008

Good ...... just do not call us back

canters · 08-07-2008

Good news here. It is a shame the surge failed, heh Barry O'?

arglebargle · 08-07-2008

It's a shame that it took three years of blood and destruction for there to be some decent attempt to calm things there. Whether or not you were in favor of the move into Iraq, you have the right to expect things to be handled competantly. Unfortunately for many troops and civilians, this was not the case.

zrinkill · 08-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by arglebargle

It's a shame that it took three years of blood and destruction for there to be some decent attempt to calm things there. Whether or not you were in favor of the move into Iraq, you have the right to expect things to be handled competantly. Unfortunately for many troops and civilians, this was not the case.

Some people have an uneducated view on War.

I am surprised we have accomplished as much as we have in such little time.

Compared to anything before it ..... its an overwhelming success.

iceberg · 08-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by arglebargle

It's a shame that it took three years of blood and destruction for there to be some decent attempt to calm things there. Whether or not you were in favor of the move into Iraq, you have the right to expect things to be handled competantly. Unfortunately for many troops and civilians, this was not the case.

it's a shame we live in such an imperfect world, i know.

ThaBigP · 08-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by arglebargle

It's a shame that it took three years of blood and destruction for there to be some decent attempt to calm things there. Whether or not you were in favor of the move into Iraq, you have the right to expect things to be handled competantly. Unfortunately for many troops and civilians, this was not the case.

Let me see if I get this straight - the left in this country almost immediately began the shriek of "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!", reducing the political will of this nation to complete this job properly. Then, after-the-fact, gripe about the ensuing 3+ year occupation as being a quagmire borne of "incompetence"? Whose incompetence, exactly?

Your homework - look up "Munchausen syndrome by proxy"

Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchau...drome_by_proxy

Doomsday101 · 08-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by arglebargle

It's a shame that it took three years of blood and destruction for there to be some decent attempt to calm things there. Whether or not you were in favor of the move into Iraq, you have the right to expect things to be handled competantly. Unfortunately for many troops and civilians, this was not the case.

How many wars are? You don't think other wars have involved changing of tactics when one tactic is not working?

**BrAinPaiNt** · 08-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaBigP

Let me see if I get this straight - the left in this country almost immediately began the shriek of "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!", reducing the political will of this nation to complete this job properly. Then, after-the-fact, gripe about the ensuing 3+ year occupation as being a quagmire borne of "incompetence"? Whose incompetence, exactly?

Your homework - look up "Munchausen syndrome by proxy"

Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchau...drome_by_proxy

Can you honestly sit there and tell me with a straight face that Donald Rumsfeld and some of the other Generals before them were as good as the Current SOD and Petraus? I don't Think so.

burmafrd · 08-08-2008

Rumsfeld dropped the ball but so did a lot of senior generals. Which is not a surprise since they were all graduates of the peace dividend stupidity of the 90s. I happen to think that what we went through here is what happened in WW2: we had generals left over from the 30's who were not worth a damn; very few men who were generals before 1941 ever amounted to much in WW2. The military that we had left after the 90s was in many ways just like the 30's military = a lot better equiped but with lousy leadership.

canters · 08-08-2008

Rummy tried to fight the war on the cheap. By the time he left, I think even he knew he had overstayed his welcome.

One of Bush's many faults is his loyalty to subordinates....he has kept folks on too long before and Rummy was one of them.

burmafrd · 08-08-2008

Loyalty is NOT a fault as long as you hold them accountable; Bush has not and that is the problem.

It should be noted, though, that Rummy was absolutely right at the beginning of the war when the Generals told him to take Iraq
it would need twice the troops that went. Now holding it is another story....