McCain caught in crossfire over U.S. troops' status

[BAMAPHIN 22]

Republican John McCain's campaign jousted Sunday with two prominent politicians over when and how to pull troops out of Iraq: Barack Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

In an interview published over the weekend in a German magazine, al-Maliki seemed to endorse Obama's short-term plan to pull out U.S. troops over 16 months. However, an al-Maliki spokesman seemed to back away from those comments in a statement released Sunday.


Democrats embraced al-Maliki's initial comments. McCain campaign aides noted that al-Maliki's government and U.S. military officials say security needs on the ground must dictate any withdrawal.


Obama "is stubbornly adhering to an unconditional withdrawal that places politics above the advice of our military commanders," said McCain foreign policy aide Randy Scheunemann.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...0-McCain_N.htm

[FINdestructible]

In an interview published over the weekend in a German magazine, al-Maliki seemed to endorse Obama's short-term plan to pull out U.S. troops over 16 months.

This has since been debunked. al-Maliki never said that.

[WaywardZest]

Originally Posted by FINdestructible

This has since been debunked. al-Maliki never said that.

Except it hasn't. The magazine is standing by its story, and the prime minister offered a very weak "rebuttal", including:

"But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited."

[Dolphins9954]

Originally Posted by WaywardZest

Except it hasn't. The magazine is standing by its story, and the prime minister offered a very weak "rebuttal", including:

Lost in Translation


Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.
Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.

The German magazine said on Saturday that Maliki supported Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months. The interview was released on Saturday.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," Der Spiegel quoted Maliki as saying.

Dabbagh said statements by Maliki or any other member of the government should not be seen as support for any U.S. presidential candidate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...32883920080720



Looks like words got mixed up and the translation was wrong.

[Dolphins9954]

Originally Posted by WaywardZest

Except it hasn't. The magazine is standing by its story, and the prime minister offered a very weak "rebuttal", including:

I wonder if Maliki agrees with the part of Obama's plan that will leave troops in Iraq for sercurity. And the part that will leave our Military bases there. I'm pretty sure the Iraqis want all our troops to leave along with our Military bases.

[Ferretsquig]

At least lost in translation is a better excuse than misinterpreted or misunderstood. I'm sure he said it and about three seconds later reflected and wished the words had never come out of his mouth. Maliki has made is clear on several occasions that he wants a set date for withdrawal. But as his adviser stated, other nation's leaders aren't supposed to take sides in elections.

[WaywardZest]

Originally Posted by Dolphins9954

I wonder if Maliki agrees with the part of Obama's plan that will leave troops in Iraq for sercurity. And the part that will leave our Military bases there. I'm pretty sure the Iraqis want all our troops to leave along with our Military bases.

I am sure he would prefer that to McCain's stance.

Originally Posted by Dolphins9954

Lost in Translation

My favorite movie!

[Dolphins9954]

Originally Posted by WaywardZest

I am sure he would prefer that to McCain's stance.



My favorite movie!

I think the Iraqis would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.

[The_Dark_Knight]

Originally Posted by Dolphins9954

I think the Iraqis would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.

I think the Germans would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Italians would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Japanese would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Croats would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Bosmians would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Africans would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.

Why don't we ever talk about these troop redeployments?

[MDFINFAN]

Originally Posted by The_Dark_Knight

I think the Germans would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Italians would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Japanese would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Croats would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Bosmians would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Africans would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.

Why don't we ever talk about these troop redeployments?

All those countries you sited wouldn't want us to leave, we're a part of their ecomonies... Our soldiers spend a lot of money in their countries.. not even close to this situation.

But now Iraq does want us to leave by 2010, and now it's no waffles, it's unmistakable...

[The_Dark_Knight]

Originally Posted by MDFINFAN

All those countries you sited wouldn't want us to leave, we're a part of their ecomonies... Our soldiers spend a lot of money in their countries.. not even close to this situation.

But now Iraq does want us to leave by 2010, and now it's no waffles, it's unmistakable...

Who cares what those countries want?? They're OUR troops!!! BRING THEM HOME!!!!!

Of course I'm being fecicious here, but the point being is we have more troops stationed in all of these other countries than what's in Iraq, but no one ever talks about bringing them home...and why? "well because they aren't being killed" So the question becomes...is it ok for troops to remain in these countries because they aren't being hurt? Hmmmm, if that's the case then...at what "acceptible casualty rate" is it ok then to deem that US soldiers are safe enough to remain in Iraq...as we are in these other nations??? I mean, soldiers are killed in automobile accidents in Germany on the autobahn but no one screams for soldiers to be withdrawn from Germany because they are dying, so why do we stay in Germany? Why are we in Germany anyhow? What are we in Italy? Spain? Japan? Korea? Why??? What purpose does it have to have all of these soldiers stationed in countries overseas? Can't we have troops remain in Iraq for the same reasons as we have troops in Germany? Italy? Japan? Hell, even Korea, which is STILL technically at war!! If the answer is "no, they must all be brought home", then you have to explain this one to me.

[MDFINFAN]

Originally Posted by The_Dark_Knight

Who cares what those countries want?? They're OUR troops!!! BRING THEM HOME!!!!!

Of course I'm being fecicious here, but the point being is we have more troops stationed in all of these other countries than what's in Iraq, but no one ever talks about bringing them home...and why? "well because they aren't being killed" So the question becomes...is it ok for troops to remain in these countries because they aren't being hurt? Hmmmm, if that's the case then...at what "acceptible casualty rate" is it ok then to deem that US soldiers are safe enough to remain in Iraq...as we are in these other nations??? I mean, soldiers are killed in automobile accidents in Germany on the autobahn but no one screams for soldiers to be withdrawn from Germany because they are dying, so why do we stay in Germany? Why are we in Germany anyhow? What are we in Italy? Spain? Japan? Korea? Why??? What purpose does it have to have all of these soldiers stationed in countries overseas? Can't we have troops remain in Iraq for the same reasons as we have troops in Germany? Italy? Japan? Hell, even Korea, which is STILL technically at war!! If the answer is "no, they must all be brought home", then you have to explain this one to me.

TDK, you miss one MAJOR point, those countries invited us in, Iraq was invaded..it a totally different situation. You act like they're screaming at us to stay there, that's not what's happening. We will under both men running for president, have a present in Iraq...both have stated that. That's not the issue. the issue is what kind of present. A temp force to train and keep safe our citizens and interest vs. a long stay which the Iraqi so far haven't asked for but Bush is trying to force down their throats, I say let them ask if that's what they want.. I know the oil is there, and that's our interest..but we told the world they're a soveign nation and get to choose.. now we have to back up our big talk..let's see if we trust them...

[Dolphins9954]

Originally Posted by MDFINFAN

All those countries you sited wouldn't want us to leave, we're a part of their ecomonies... Our soldiers spend a lot of money in their countries.. not even close to this situation.

But now Iraq does want us to leave by 2010, and now it's no waffles, it's unmistakable...

I rather the soldiers spend that money here.

They want us to leave. All of us. Do you really think they want up to 50,000 American troops to stay in their country for years to come possibly decades? Do they still want a whole bunch of U.S. military bases in their country for years to come as well. Obama will not end our military presence in Iraq at all. He will only cut troop levels but still keep a substantial amount of American troops and military bases in Iraq for a long time. The Iraqis really have no choice in the matter. They better start getting used to us being there for a while. Or wait to 2012 when hopefully we get a candidate that truly wants to end our presence in Iraq.

[Dolphins9954]

Originally Posted by The_Dark_Knight

I think the Germans would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Italians would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Japanese would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Croats would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Bosmians would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.
I think the Africans would prefer that we leave. And not with conditions.

Why don't we ever talk about these troop redeployments?

I don't think the Iraqis want us to stay for years to come. They want all of us to eventually leave as soon as possible. The point I was making that Obama is not going to withdraw the troops and end the war. His own plan calls for up to 50,000 to stay in Iraq along with our military bases for years after 2010. Even if Obama wins and becomes president. A substantial amount of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. The Iraqis don't have a choice at all. And they better get used to us being there.

When it comes to troop redeployment. I agree. Bring them all home.