general testifies rapid withdrawal is the only realistic solution

2

Comments

  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    there is one person runnign for president that has clearly and proudly stated he favors a LONG term US military presence in Iraq for years to come... and his name is NOT Obama, even though some of my friends here would like to paint it the other way around
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    my2hands wrote:
    there is one person runnign for president that has clearly and proudly stated he favors a LONG term US military presence in Iraq for years to come... and his name is NOT Obama, even though some of my friends here would like to paint it the other way around
    from what I've heard about Obama he's voted for the war numerous times. And I have yet to see a speech where he says he will end the war, which is what is needed right now.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Commy wrote:
    from what I've heard about Obama he's voted for the war numerous times.
    this again? its simple. he is not cutting off funds while there are 150,000 of our friends and family in a theater of war in harms way. he will not cut it off and force this administration into a hasty chotic withdrawl. i do not understand what is so ahard about that to understand for people. there is a right way and a wrong way to withdraw, period. whether we like it or not, that is the reality if the situation, this is not a video game that you simply hit "reset" on. the stakes are insanely high.
    And I have yet to see a speech where he says he will end the war, which is what is needed right now.
    then you have not seen 1 speech given by Obama then... not to mention your reply above states "from what i've heard about obama"??? which would tell me you have not been following any of what he has been saying or proposing, s oit would not suprise you me you dont know he has openly said wants to end the iraq war
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    my2hands wrote:
    this again? its simple. he is not cutting off funds while there are 150,000 of our friends and family in a theater of war in harms way. he will not cut it off and force this administration into a hasty chotic withdrawl. i do not understand what is so ahard about that to understand for people. there is a right way and a wrong way to withdraw, period. whether we like it or not, that is the reality if the situation, this is not a video game that you simply hit "reset" on. the stakes are insanely high.

    Think I'll take the generals opinion over yours, no offense.
    then you have not seen 1 speech given by Obama then... not to mention your reply above states "from what i've heard about obama"??? which would tell me you have not been following any of what he has been saying or proposing, s oit would not suprise you me you dont know he has openly said wants to end the iraq war
    I've seen plenty of speeches by Obama, he is very charismatic and almost had me fooled. But he has voted for the war numerous times and has yet to call for an immediate withdrawal of troops.
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    Commy wrote:
    asking the military to accomplish political goals seems like a bad idea. these guys are trained for combat, not politics.
    Wow...we agree on something.

    P.S. The war is over....we're losing the occupation. :D
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    tybird wrote:
    Wow...we agree on something.

    P.S. The war is over....we're losing the occupation. :D
    nice.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Commy wrote:
    Think I'll take the generals opinion over yours, no offense.

    The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order.



    ask the general if he would like to do this withdrawl with funding cut off and this administrations hand forced on the matter... and the joint chiefs scrambling to initiate a hasty and unplannned pull out of nearly 200,000 personnel... i dont think the general would approve of that style pullout... something tells me he would prefer a planned withdraw
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order.



    ask the general if he would like to do this withdrawl with funding cut off and this administrations hand forced on the matter... and the joint chiefs scrambling to initiate a hasty and unplannned pull out of nearly 200,000 personnel... i dont think the general would approve of that style pullout... something tells me he would prefer a planned withdraw

    And no one has said anything close to what you just typed out.


    Obama isn't for a rapid withdrawal as the general said needs to be done. He plans on keeping forces there to fight Al Qaeda and of course, we know from experience that anybody there will be labeled as that to justify our presence.
    His advisor on Iraq says a withdrawal by 16 months after taking office is a best case scenario....doesn't sound too 'rapid' to me. He plans on keeping the embassy there and his plans seem to indicate an occupation of Iraq well into his presidency.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    there is one person runnign for president that has clearly and proudly stated he favors a LONG term US military presence in Iraq for years to come... and his name is NOT Obama, even though some of my friends here would like to paint it the other way around


    They all are supporting plans that will continue this occupation for some time to come. Everyone here know this about McCain but many seem to think Obama is anti-war. Thus why we post about Obama and not McCain. I feel we are all intelligent enough for me not to have to state the obvious.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    my2hands wrote:
    The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order.



    ask the general if he would like to do this withdrawl with funding cut off and this administrations hand forced on the matter... and the joint chiefs scrambling to initiate a hasty and unplannned pull out of nearly 200,000 personnel... i dont think the general would approve of that style pullout... something tells me he would prefer a planned withdraw
    we could have all troops out within a week.

    One thing the US military learned from the cold war was rapid troop deployment. THe US army bragged that it could be anywhere in the world in 24 hours. I see no reason to assume the reverse isn't true.

    Get the fuck out of Iraq asap/
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    my2hands wrote:
    nice link there, i watch the show quite frequently... but they are assuming things and taking liberties with some of what he has said and painting with a broad brush.

    Obama has said, pretty clearly, that he wants to end the occupation of Iraq, as quickly as is responsibly possible, and keep a small force in the "region" (which is what we have had for decades now) to address any concerns that may arise and to help maintain regional stablilty. which is exactly what the general says in his testimony of the origial post. testimony that a few of you seem to support, myself included. so how is it the general is right by saying the exact same thing as Obama, but Obama is a war monger?

    Obama wants more than just a small presence in the region from all that I have read on him including the link I just posted to you. Apparently I'm not the only one who has this opinion of Obama, just look at all the articles I've posted with people stating the same concerns that I have.


    What Obama is saying in pep rally speeches and what Obama's actual plans are saying seem to be contradictory.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    as far as all this bullshit about "not cutting off funding with troops in harms way"

    can't they (congress) NOT sign or pass any bills funding the war,

    but instead sign SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ONLY FOR WITHDRAWAL?

    What is so hard about that?

    Surely the congress has the power to declare specific funds appropriations.

    That is why i find this to be a bunk argument.

    Draft up a budget and put in it that it is ONLY for withdrawal.

    Problem solved.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    as far as all this bullshit about "not cutting off funding with troops in harms way"

    can't they (congress) NOT sign or pass any bills funding the war,

    but instead sign SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ONLY FOR WITHDRAWAL?

    What is so hard about that?

    Surely the congress has the power to declare specific funds appropriations.

    That is why i find this to be a bunk argument.

    Draft up a budget and put in it that it is ONLY for withdrawal.

    Problem solved.


    Exactly!! Some people want to act like Congress doesn't power of the purse but they in fact do. There is already money they could use to begin a withdrawal and all this talk of 'cut and run', 'more death and chaos if we leave' or 'stay there if al Qaeda is there' is only politicing straight outta the pages of the republican handbook.
    Politicians have think tanks to come up with this crap and the public buys it hook, line and sinker. They want to continue this war so it will line the pockets of their war profittering benefactors. Whether it be Democrat or Republican....both parties are pros are selling bullshit to suit their agenda. I am so frustrated about this because I really thought people had widely started to wake up to this fact after seeing how Bush and co so easily sold this war and it was based on pure crap. But sadly, it seems that they think it's only republicans who are guilty of things like this and view the democrats as on their side.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • tybird
    tybird Posts: 17,388
    Commy wrote:
    One thing the US military learned from the cold war was rapid troop deployment. THe US army bragged that it could be anywhere in the world in 24 hours. I see no reason to assume the reverse isn't true.
    It's easy getting somewhere...the problem occurs when you pack up all this shit to go there, bring in more shit when you decide to stay awhile, invite some more friends over because you think that would be cool, they bring more shit with them...suddenly there's a bunch of shit and people there.

    Yes, they can be anywhere in the world in 24 hours...but you have to read all the caveats. Projecting a limited force can be done quite rapidly, and limited is the key word. However, invading and occupying a country the size of Iraq was not something done in 24 hours of man and equipment moving. The actual build-up for the initial invasion took over a year. So, the army can project a limited force anywhere in the world within 24 hours....however they have been projecting force towards Iraq for five plus years now. That's a lot of 24 hours of movement there.

    That said, the occupation needs to come some sort of resolution soon. However, you're not going to wake up one morning to hear that all the troops came home over night.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    as far as all this bullshit about "not cutting off funding with troops in harms way"

    can't they (congress) NOT sign or pass any bills funding the war,

    but instead sign SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ONLY FOR WITHDRAWAL?

    What is so hard about that?

    Surely the congress has the power to declare specific funds appropriations.

    That is why i find this to be a bunk argument.

    Draft up a budget and put in it that it is ONLY for withdrawal.

    Problem solved.

    It's called VETO!!!!! Obama has tried repeatedly to pass legislation for withdrawal, joined by other Dems like Kennedy and Kucinich. They constantly get veto'd

    Problem not solved...not until Obama takes office.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    brandon10 wrote:
    Problem not solved...not until Obama takes office.

    Oh.
    Okay.

    I can't wait.
    :D

    Like i've said before,

    either he's the best liar they've ever found

    OR

    he is the most naive, yet well intentioned, candidate this country has had in a half century or more ... and the Powers That Be are going to be thrilled when the race riots that follow his untimely death allow them to implement martial law.

    But i just find it hard to believe that he is either that naive, or that well intentioned. The three things i find hardest to swallow about all this hype are

    1. The massive amounts of money he is taking from the very same interests he claims to be fighting. Some of that money which has come directly from the institutions which own the Federal Reserve (Citibank, JPMorganChase)

    2. His talk about NAFTA, and then the story about the internal memo from the canadian diplomat meeting where Canada was told not to worry about his stance on NAFTA, that it was just public posturing. On the other hand, maybe he is totaly fucking naive, and doesn't understand shit like this.
    US Ambassador to Canada Says wrote:
    “Our relationship is so strong and so deep that it’s not dependent on which party is in power, either in Canada or the U.S. Our relationship transcends politics.” AND THEN “I don’t think it’s in danger of being rescinded or changed substantially. It’s been a great benefit to both our countries,” said Wilkins. “While you’ve had some comments about it, one way or the other … I think NAFTA will prevail.”

    3. Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of his supervisors. I find this one particularly troubling, although it is hard for me to reconcile some of Mr. Brzezinski's more recent statements against what he has said in past decades. Maybe he really is old and soft. But i fear he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    tybird wrote:
    Qatar and Kuwait...two places that were key in the build-up prior to the invasion. Uzbekistan is probably also in the mix.


    and poland, you forgot poland heh heh heh

    i know poland isn't close, i couldn't resist :D
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    brandon10 wrote:
    It's called VETO!!!!! Obama has tried repeatedly to pass legislation for withdrawal, joined by other Dems like Kennedy and Kucinich. They constantly get veto'd

    Problem not solved...not until Obama takes office.


    there's already money there for the troops to come home!!!!

    problem solved w a filibuster or impeachment

    and obama tried once or twice, not really what i'd call 'repeatedly' he also has voted to fund the war thru 2009
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    my2hands wrote:
    funny, thats exactly what Barack Obama is proposing...


    yes a withdrawal... and a re-distribution of troops outside iraq borders


    you are for the war in iraq.


    lets make that clear
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    macgyver06 wrote:
    you are for the war in iraq.


    lets make that clear


    hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha....


    you have no clue what you are talking about, thanks for the laugh

Categories