Is Obama going to stop the war?

prism

In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.



what was that about how he hasn't done anything thus far as a Senator to make an attempt at getting out of Iraq?

ledvedderman

prism wrote:

In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.



what was that about how he hasn't done anything thus far as a Senator to make an attempt at getting out of Iraq?

"Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!"

Im still here

chipboy wrote:

What's the general concensus?

no, he has no plan for change, just a catch phrase gullible people are buying into

Im still here

prism wrote:

In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.



what was that about how he hasn't done anything thus far as a Senator to make an attempt at getting out of Iraq?

source it.......

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

ledvedderman wrote:

"Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!"

if Obama was really against the war, he would grab a m16 and storm the White House. he's such a fake.

prism

ledvedderman wrote:

"Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!"

LOL!

ledvedderman

Im still here wrote:

source it.......

Gladly...

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_pl_1/index.php

ledvedderman

If Obama were really against the war he would blow up every country. No other countries in the world= no more foreign wars.

It's just that simple folks.

prism

Im still here wrote:

source it.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

edit: i see that ledvedderman already has but this is an additional source

Im still here

ledvedderman wrote:

Gladly...

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_pl_1/index.php

hahahahahaha

"Phased Redeployment" does not mean stopping the War

it means starting another War

the important word is "Redeployment"

ledvedderman

Im still here wrote:

hahahahahaha

"Phased Redeployment" does not mean stopping the War

it means starting another War

the important word is "Redeployment"

Is that what it means you legislative guru you? I don't know if this is what the wording meant, but wouldn't it make sense to have our troops in a war against a group that attacked us? Redeploy the troops to Afghanistan which has fallen into chaos since we took the eye of the ball to go into Iraq.

Im still here

ledvedderman wrote:

Is that what it means you legislative guru you? I don't know if this is what the wording meant, but wouldn't it make sense to have our troops in a war against a group that attacked us? Redeploy the troops to Afghanistan which has fallen into chaos since we took the eye of the ball to go into Iraq.

here are the facts

8 PERMANENT Military bases have been built in Iraq, plus the largest U.S. Embassy in the World

we are never leaving there

if you research Bush's signing statements, we will be permanently in Iraq forever, plus the Agreement arranged by Bush and our installed Dictator in Iraq plainly states we are there to stay, it is actually a Treaty for us to extend the War indefinitely

just like Korea, just like Japan, just like Germany, etc, etc, etc

ledvedderman

Im still here wrote:

here are the facts

8 PERMANENT Military bases have been built in Iraq, plus the largest U.S. Embassy in the World

we are never leaving there

if you research Bush's signing statements, we will be permanently in Iraq forever, plus the Agreement arranged by Bush and our installed Dictator in Iraq plainly states we are there to stay, it is actually a Treaty for us to extend the War indefinitely

just like Korea, just like Japan, just like Germany, etc, etc, etc

Source that shows those bases have to be filled w/ permanent troops?

Im still here

ledvedderman wrote:

Is that what it means you legislative guru you? I don't know if this is what the wording meant, but wouldn't it make sense to have our troops in a war against a group that attacked us? Redeploy the troops to Afghanistan which has fallen into chaos since we took the eye of the ball to go into Iraq.

so you arent' against War

at least you are honest

don't you think we've destroyed both of those Countries and killed countless innocent people

I would say we are even for the damage done on 911

actually we caused way more damage to them than they could ever do to us

War is not the answer when a covert operation would accomplish the same thing without all the innocent bloodshed

War is Profitable for the Establishment and their buddies

don't you see what's goin on?

Im still here

ledvedderman wrote:

Source that shows those bases have to be filled w/ permanent troops?

they won't be filled with permanent troops until they institute the Draft, which has been introduced under various bills since 911

but the fact that they are Permanent Bases really says it all

ledvedderman

Im still here wrote:

so you arent' against War

at least you are honest

don't you think we've destroyed both of those Countries and killed countless innocent people

I would say we are even for the damage done on 911

actually we caused way more damage to them than they could ever do to us

War is not the answer when a covert operation would accomplish the same thing without all the innocent bloodshed

War is Profitable for the Establishment and their buddies

don't you see what's goin on?

I am against wars of choice. A war of retaliation is totally different in, in my book. You can't just let someone come in and kill 3,000 of your citizens and on the next day look those people in the eye who lost loved ones and say "we're going to let them get away with this one".

War is hell. It does no one good, except those who profit. Right now it is profitable for the buddies of the administartion, but a Obama administration wouldn't give no bid contracts to cronies.

ledvedderman

Im still here wrote:

they won't be filled with permanent troops until they institute the Draft, which has been introduced under various bills since 911

but the fact that they are Permanent Bases really says it all

So you debunked your own reply w/ another reply. There will be no draft. It has been introduced, but it will never pass. It's a political ploy being used right now.

Im still here

ledvedderman wrote:

I am against wars of choice. A war of retaliation is totally different in, in my book. You can't just let someone come in and kill 3,000 of your citizens and on the next day look those people in the eye who lost loved ones and say "we're going to let them get away with this one".

War is hell. It does no one good, except those who profit. Right now it is profitable for the buddies of the administartion, but a Obama administration wouldn't give no bid contracts to cronies.

so 3000 innocent American Civilians killed on 911

plus 4000 American Soldiers killed

equals a Million dead Iraqis

this math doesnt seem to make sense

and that's not counting all the innocent people we have killed in the actual Country that attacked us

Im still here

ledvedderman wrote:

So you debunked your own reply w/ another reply. There will be no draft. It has been introduced, but it will never pass. It's a political ploy being used right now.

it will pass sooner or later

their persistence is proof of that

ledvedderman

Im still here wrote:

so 3000 innocent American Civilians killed on 911

plus 4000 American Soldiers killed

equals a Million dead Iraqis

this math doesnt seem to make sense

and that's not counting all the innocent people we have killed in the actual Country that attacked us

Why are you comparing Iraq to 9/11? If you had the use of your eyes and the ability to read you would see that I said I was against a war of choice...like Iraq.