posted
I haven't actually seen a news article yet, but it was just on CNN that a deal between the US and Iraq appears to be near on troop withdrawel.
According to CNN, the deal would have ALL US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. It would mandate all US troops out of the cities and to stay in their bases by the end of 2009, and would make most US troops leave by the end of 2010, ensuring that every soldier is gone by the end of 2011.
Frankly the terms are very surprising to me. All US troops out of the cities by the end of next year? The Iraqi government must really be pushing this, as it seems to run totally contrary to Bush's rhetoric on the subject. I'll find an article with more details and post it in a few minutes.
Apparently the troops would have to be out of the cities and on the bases by June 30th 2009, less than six months into the next administration. All combat troops would be out by December 2010. Looks like Maliki wasn't kidding when he supported Obama's withdrawel plan.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can the Bush administration commit its successor to this when it doesn't even know who the successor is?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Two senior U.S. officials said negotiators have made progress and are close to a deal. But they also said that some issues are unresolved and that troop withdrawals would be tied to conditions on the ground.
In short, I don't see this happening.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exposed enough that the Iraqi government is making it clear that we are not welcome to stay indefinitely.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, as long as the Iraqi government and the majority of the American people believe that we should limit our stay, I have no need to convince you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, as long as the Iraqi government and the majority of the American people believe that we should limit our stay, I have no need to convince you.
That's fortunate for you, since it's just an unsubstantiated opinion of yours. That it was ever a serious opinion in our government or our military that we permanently occupy Iraq.
Just to be clear, though, indefinite =/ permanent.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure that any agreement reached now will be subject to complete change as soon as the next President comes into office.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There seems to be a disconnect between what the news is reporting and what the government is saying (big surprise!). Dana Perino is basically saying the opposite of what the news is reporting. She's saying that there will be no timetable, and that we'll only leave when conditions are right. But I think it's been made abundantly clear that Iraq's government either wants us out or to back off, and sooner rather than later. They want firm dates and deadlines, which Bush has apparently said no to, but CNN and others say they are close to a deal. I don't see how it all fits together, but I also don't see how Bush can just say "no" if Iraq's government actually says "okay time to go."
I'm wondering if maybe Maliki is trying to play with American politics by taking the issue away from McCain. If Iraq isn't an issue for him, I think that gives Obama a huge boost. If Maliki says that they want us out sooner rather than later, and that there needs to be a firm timetable, then that forces McCain to either disregard his wishes or to abide by them, which I think makes the entire election about energy and the economy, which polls have shown people agree with Obama on a lot more than McCain. That's pure speculation though. It could be that Maliki isn't thinking about our elections at all, but I think of all major world figures, he and others in the Iraqi government could be a major influence on the election if they so choose to be.
Kwea -
Can you elaborate? The president by himself I don't think can enter into an agreement that binds the next president unless that agreement is subject to ratification by Congress, in which case the next president would have to abide by that deal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but does a century equal permanent? And we're all familiar with that quote, which you're taking out of context.
As for indefinitely, you've got me there. Though I think kmbboots was speaking 'long-term' indefinitely as opposed to short-term indefinitely.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the administration wants a foothold in the middle east. Certainly the neo-cons have publicly advocated for that. Saudi Arabia has been pressuring us to get off their country. Muslims don't want us there. We started building permanent bases in Iraq quite soon after the invasion. Senator McCain made the comparisons to our presence in Germany and Japan and S. Korea. (That is the context of the "100 years" quotation. He says that we should keep a presence there.)
Yes. I consider 100 years "long term" indefinite.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, now we've got a discussion. Though saying 100 years is by definition not 'indefinite'.
Certainly elements within our government want to establish a foothold in the Middle East. Here's a question for you, though: would it really be a bad or wicked idea? There will be a dominant military power in the region. The question is only, 'Who?'
The alternatives are not necessarily desirable for expedience or morality's sake. What will you say in twenty years when it's Iran with a dominant military presence in the region? "Well, we had to do what they asked." That salves the conscience, but does little to stave off open war, which is definitely possible.
Saudi Arabia pressures for a lot of things. Let's not pretend you're advocating in support of them just because you support them. 'Muslims' don't want anything politically any more than Christians, Buddhists, or Jews do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't advocataing in support of Saudi Arabia; I was stating that there was pressure from them to get rid of our military presence there.
You're correct. I should not have used "Muslim" as a blanket term. Rather I should have said that our presence in Saudi Arabia is a point of contention and a rallying point for Muslim extremists.
Have you seen or heard the tape of Senator McCain throwing out "100 years"? Did it sound like a specific time to you? What about when he said ten thousand years? Did you hear what he said about keeping a presence - a foothold - there?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
100 years is obviously indefinite it is the DEFINITION of indefinite.
IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to push the semantics, then, no. Some day the United States will cease to exist, and there will certainly be no occupation. As all nations fall, and eventually life on Earth will cease, there cannot be such a thing as a "permanent" occupation.
And as the second link describes a presence in the style of Korea, a presence which has to date lasted as long as a large number of people's natural lifespans, one wonders exactly what a "long-term indefinite" presence would mean, if that does not fit the description.
But most people don't push for such absolute definitions, let alone think sneering down their noses at others for failing to fit them makes some sort of point for them.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seen it. It didn't sound like a specific time, because it's not like we're charting stars or anything. But that's not the same as 'indefinite', either. It's war.
quote:Rather I should have said that our presence in Saudi Arabia is a point of contention and a rallying point for Muslim extremists.
Agreed. Though not only do I object to stopping something just because our enemies want us to, I also wonder what might happen without those military bases there.
I wonder what the Saudi Arabians and Kuwaitis would have been saying on the subject of American troops in the region in the early 90s, had they not been there? Just throwing that out there.
quote:I wasn't advocataing in support of Saudi Arabia; I was stating that there was pressure from them to get rid of our military presence there.
Yes, well, that's obvious. Why mention it then? There's pressure from Saudi Arabians to do a lot of things.
Blayne, scope out a dicitonary sometime.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But most people don't push for such absolute definitions, let alone think sneering down their noses at others for failing to fit them makes some sort of point for them.
posted
They could make such an agreement, and if they took it to Congress it would, at least in theory, be binding on the next administration.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's a question for you, though: would it really be a bad or wicked idea?
I have said from the very beginning that I would have supported the administration had it come out and said that it intended to create a permanent powerbase in the Middle East, since I can imagine situations where such a base might be necessary. Killing thousands in order to establish a base while loudly claiming to be completely disinterested in such a base, though, is something I cannot condone.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly elements within our government want to establish a foothold in the Middle East. Here's a question for you, though: would it really be a bad or wicked idea? There will be a dominant military power in the region. The question is only, 'Who?'
Wicked? No, well, the way we're doing it, maybe. Bad idea? Maybe not, but I really don't think it's necessary.
I think the world oil economy is either at it's zenith, or approaching it. Most of the world's super oil fields are fading, and fields of that size aren't being found to replace them. World wide oil production has fallen off in recent years. Iran is producing less than they're allowed to by OPEC limits. Saudi Arabia's oil is crappy anyway. I think we can engage selectively in the region where we need to for our own security and world wide stability, and otherwise stay away.
Leaving a giant amount of US troops in the middle of a powder keg where they aren't wanted seems like a recipe for disaster rather than stability. Besides, we already have troops in Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey, and Afghanistan. Why do we need a large base in Iraq too? We're already over there, we're good.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't ours. If it isn't right for Spain to invade and occupy Pennsylvania because they have an interest in coal, it isn't right for us to invade and occupy Iraq. Whether or not we would be more benevolent occupiers.
It used to be that this country at least pretended to have some ideals.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wicked? No, well, the way we're doing it, maybe. Bad idea? Maybe not, but I really don't think it's necessary.
I agree, I agree, disagree. (Did that make sense?)
quote: I think the world oil economy is either at it's zenith, or approaching it. Most of the world's super oil fields are fading, and fields of that size aren't being found to replace them. World wide oil production has fallen off in recent years. Iran is producing less than they're allowed to by OPEC limits. Saudi Arabia's oil is crappy anyway. I think we can engage selectively in the region where we need to for our own security and world wide stability, and otherwise stay away.
I think that things like the world economy never reach their zenith, because so long as the human race isn't dead, it will always grow.
Also, though we are historically near the day (funny when it's only been a hundred years or so anyway), in reality it's still a long time before we (and the rest of the world) stop needing the Middle East.
------
quote:It isn't ours. If it isn't right for Spain to invade and occupy Pennsylvania because they have an interest in coal, it isn't right for us to invade and occupy Iraq. Whether or not we would be more benevolent occupiers.
It used to be that this country at least pretended to have some ideals.
By all means, let's shut down discussion by insisting your opposition lacks ideals.
Wait, I have a better idea: it's not just about coal, or oil.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree, I agree, disagree. (Did that make sense?)
I think so.
quote:I think that things like the world economy never reach their zenith, because so long as the human race isn't dead, it will always grow.
Also, though we are historically near the day (funny when it's only been a hundred years or so anyway), in reality it's still a long time before we (and the rest of the world) stop needing the Middle East.
Threads already pointed it out but the key word there was oil. I don't think the world economy as a whole is anywhere near its zenith, if there even is such a thing that could actually be measured.
Define long time. 50 years is a long time, I'll probably be close to dead by then. 100 years is a long time. Is 20? Honestly I think that if tomorrow we made it our absolute mission to be off Middle Eastern oil, we could stop importing from them in 30 years. A combination of electric cars, plant based products to replace petroleum based products, next generation biofuels and increases in domestic production would replace everything we import from them in 30 years. But really, that's less wishful thinking that cold reality. The truth is, the Middle East won't be pumping out as much oil in 30 years as they are today, despite the fact that demand world wide is likely to skyrocket. The third world is movin on up, and that move includes an insatiable thirst for an ever dwindling resource. We either get out of the way, or get sucked into an even worse nightmare than we're already in.
How do I really think it's going to work? The groundwork being laid right now, both technologically and in public relations (that is, in how the public views our current energy situation) is going to make it possible to ram home some big changes in the way we demand and consume different sources of fuel in the near future. But I see it as a three or four step process that's already begun.
1. High prices drive down demand of fuel inefficient cars and spark a wave of demand for fuel sipping smaller cars and hybrids. R&D dollars flow for small companies and labs searching for the right process and right fuel source for second generation cellulosic ethanol and other sources of fake oil, for lack of a better term.
This is already happening. Now if the price of oil bottoms out tomorrow, some of this I think will go away, but not all of it, and either way I don't see that happening. Even so, I'd love to see Congress put a floor under the price of oil and/or gas so that it can never go below a certain point again. Say, $60 for oil or $2.50 for gas. I'd be surprised if they were smart enough to do it, but it'd be nice. Even so I'm not positive that it'd be necessary, as I expect the price of oil to stay above that point for some time to come. Even if OPEC wanted to increase production to knock the price down, they couldn't. Only Saudi Arabia really has the ability to crank out more oil, and theirs is the crappy oil that takes extra time and money to refine to make it into gas because it's not light sweet crude, and that makes it naturally more expensive.
2. Car companies come out with cheaper more efficient hybrids and start to sell electric or PHEV vehicles, probable with a large government tax credit behind it to soften the blow and get economies of scale going to bring the price down. CAFE standards go up on a yearly to biyearly basis, always raising the bar. Second general cellulosic ethanol plants start to come online with a fuel slightly below the cost of a gallon of regular gas. Efficiency gains made in traditional ICE cars, reduced driving because of the price of gas, and a small switch to electric slowly curves America's demand. America's LDV fleet slowly changes over to 21st century cars as the older cars die off
I see this happening in the next five years. Most of it is already planned. GM and most of the Japanese Big Three are all planning to release PHEVs in the next couple years (GM is ahead of the pack a little). Toyota envisions a PHEV Prius within that time frame. Small startups like Zenn and Tesla plan to have an electric car on the market with a price point to make it available to the masses (likely via a hefty tax rebate). Second generation cellulosic plants are currently being built and will come online in that time. There's a wood waste biofuel plant being built in Michigan right now, and others are on the way. Algae was recently turned into a gasoline that is chemically identical to the stuff we put in our tanks, and I think this technology has the potential to be a gamechanger if it's scaled up.
3. As PHEVs and Hybrids get cheaper, they are bought with more regularity and become a significant portion of America's LDV fleet. Mostly powered by biofuel, which we won't need as much of since a large portion of cars are partially electrified, or a blend of biofuel and regular gas America has a greatly reduced need to import foreign oil, and gets most of its petroleum supplies from increased domestic production, Canada and Mexico.
I see this happening within 20 years. Maybe sooner, maybe a little later. Depends on how fast the price drops on newer cars and how fast this stuff can be brought to market. It's all on the books. Check the plans for what kinds of cars the Big three here and in Japan are planning on bringing to market in the next 10 years and look where they are spending their research and engineering dollars. It's all on small cars, hybrids and PHEVs (or E-REV, depending on the configuration), and a decent amount on fuel efficiency crossovers too. Second generation cellulosic ethanol I think will replace corn in the next 10 years. The yields for other fuel sources and the high price of corn will make a replacement feedstock for ethanol a no-brainer. I don't necessarily know what it'll be, it could be sorgrum, miscanthis, switchgrass (doubtful), algae, waste products, or a combination of all these things but corn's day in the sun is right now, and not in the days to come.
So define a long time to come. Do I think we'll be off oil in 30 years? 50? No, probably not by a LOOOONG shot. But could we be off Middle Eastern oil in 30 years? Yes, we could. Do I think we will be? There's a million factors in play, but I think yes, we will be, or at least I hope so.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: /QUOTE]By all means, let's shut down discussion by insisting your opposition lacks ideals.
Wait, I have a better idea: it's not just about coal, or oil.
Okay. Explain to me how it is right, then. What does give us the right to invade and occupy a country because it is "strategic"? Why is that area of the world "strategic" if not because of their resources?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a lot of time right now but didn't want you to think I was ignoring your question, so here's a brief reply: it's strategic for its location right smack dab between Asia and Europe and Africa. It's strategic because wars that start there (and they will start there, without someone's dominant military presence in the region-in fact the next war if the US weren't there would probably be to establish that dominant military presence) might spread. It's strategic because our embattled ally, Israel, is right in the neighborhood and faces constant destruction.
And of course it's also strategic because at least for the present and the near future, the region's residents can effectively hold the world hostage to its resources. It would be one thing if it were just about nailing us for every cent they can get, but it's not, is it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the ballooning price of petroleum has been a greater factor for change of business and lifestyle than just about anything that could have been legislated. But I also think, given the current climate, that any sort of move to keep the price of gas above a certain level borders on political suicide. It feels like there's an awful lot of people right now clamoring for offshore drilling as though the changes that many are predicting will improve prices slightly thirty years up the line are instead going to bring gas back to two dollars a gallon tomorrow.
There are some industries, especially freight, that are really suffering under the current prices, and I don't want to trivialize that. I hope in the long run it might emphasize the need to put more money and time into R&D on retrofitting an "engine" that assumes cheap petroleum energy in abundance.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It used to be that this country at least pretended to have some ideals.
By all means, let's shut down discussion by insisting your opposition lacks ideals.
Wait, I have a better idea: it's not just about coal, or oil.
If pushed on the matter, despite some of the language that is used in describing the invasion of Iraq, I don't think most of its proponents would describe it as an idealistic decision. I think they'd describe it as a pragmatic one.
quote:Certainly elements within our government want to establish a foothold in the Middle East. Here's a question for you, though: would it really be a bad or wicked idea?
Yes it would. People who live in the middle east, like all other peoples, have a the right to self rule. They have a right to determine how their resources should be used. Its their home!!!
quote:And of course it's also strategic because at least for the present and the near future, the region's residents can effectively hold the world hostage to its resources.
Since when does refusing to sell your personal property at a low price constitute "holding people hostage".
It's this kind of hyperbole that really gets to me. It implies that we somehow have a right to the oil in the middle east and if they won't sell it too us, they are committing an heinous crime.
We have known for over 30 years that depending on oil from the middle east to fuel our economy was a liability. We have known for over 30 years that this was unsustainable. We should have spend those 30 years diligently developing alternatives. Instead, we sold our souls to the Saudi's in exchange for artificially low oil prices. The fact that we've made shortsighted choices doesn't make them evil when they choose to use their resources in some way other than selling them to us.
People who kill other people because they "need" more resources are evil. Justifying that by saying they were "holding us hostage" by refusing to sell to us on reasonable terms is morally repugnant.
Invading a country so that we can ensure that their resources continue to be used to benefit us is evil. Absolutely evil!! Unquestionably immoral.
[ August 08, 2008, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of just whining about how we think it is immoral, why don't you explain why you think it is moral? If you have a moral argument, make it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead of just whining about how we think it is immoral, why don't you explain why you think it is moral? If you have a moral argument, make it.
I wasn't whining, I was bitching. There's a difference:)
Anyway, look, normally I don't mind at all slogging through this sort of discussion, even if it's with people who start (and speak) with the assumption that I'm an immoral schmuck lacking ideals, it's just that I really don't feel like it right now.
posted
I am not making that assumption at all. I don't believe I have addressed your particular morals at all. I was discussing the morality of the actions of our country. If I have given that impression, show me where and I'll correct it.
If you have an argument about how our actions (specifically our invasion and occupation of Iraq) are moral or how they meet our ideals, make it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It occurrs to me that if the United States succeeds in gaining energy independece from the oil reserves of the Middle East, our level of engagement there (by which I mean not merely military presence) may decrease significantly. I think we'll probably always have some stake in the region, given Israel, but I have to wonder what matters unforeseen might come of energy independence.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have said from the very beginning that I would have supported the administration had it come out and said that it intended to create a permanent powerbase in the Middle East, since I can imagine situations where such a base might be necessary.
I suppose this gets back to semantics, but I had always thought this was the intention of the occupation of Iraq (going past regime change). Bush spoke of creating a space for democracy, and hopes that having tried democracy, the Iraqis would want to develop that. But maybe the muslim world just isn't ready for it yet. :snark:
I don't necessarily agree that the way the occupation was carried out was ideal for fostering democracy, but I don't agree that it wasn't clear from the start that we wanted to foster an ally in Iraq.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It occurrs to me that if the United States succeeds in gaining energy independece from the oil reserves of the Middle East, our level of engagement there (by which I mean not merely military presence) may decrease significantly. I think we'll probably always have some stake in the region, given Israel, but I have to wonder what matters unforeseen might come of energy independence.
Personally I'd like to see it become a partnership of us and Europe stepping in to help when it's needed, instead of us being forced to do it out of necessity every time while Europe sits back and chastises us no matter what we do.
I'd like it to be more of a partnership, for a lot of reasons, from burden sharing to not being tsked tsked across the Atlantic.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Personally I'd like to see it become a partnership of us and Europe stepping in to help when it's needed, instead of us being forced to do it out of necessity every time while Europe sits back and chastises us no matter what we do.
I'd like it to be more of a partnership, for a lot of reasons, from burden sharing to not being tsked tsked across the Atlantic.
Ideally, yes, but I think we may have some fence-mending to do first, especially with the possibility that the Euro may become the world's dominant currency in the next decade or so.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ideally, yes, but I think we may have some fence-mending to do first, especially with the possibility that the Euro may become the world's dominant currency in the next decade or so.
With the PRC so swiftly growing, it will be interesting to see how long such a thing (if it happens) lasts.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
