Will Ron Paul remove all troops from Iraq?

macgyver06

has he stated this? or does he say their will be a withdrawal..or doe she sya withdrawal all troops?

DriftingByTheStorm

macgyver06 wrote:

has he stated this? or does he say their will be a withdrawal..or doe she sya withdrawal all troops?

He would bring them home "immediately", but he would seek an "orderly withdrawal".

I remember a bit about "you would ask the generals how much time they think it would take to load the ships and send everyone home, but that is what you would do. You would get your generals to tell you what they think, because you should always be asking your commanders, who know best [... blah blah blah, maybe another speech coming up ...] we just marched in there, we can just turn around and come home. Just come home!"

Bottom line: Find out how long it takes to get it done, and do it.

scot88

no, he won't, because he will never get elected and be put in a position to do so.

macgyver06

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

He would bring them home "immediately", but he would seek an "orderly withdrawal".

I remember a bit about "you would ask the generals how much time they think it would take to load the ships and send everyone home, but that is what you would do. You would get your generals to tell you what they think, because you should always be asking your commanders, who know best [... blah blah blah, maybe another speech coming up ...] we just marched in there, we can just turn around and come home. Just come home!"

Bottom line: Find out how long it takes to get it done, and do it.

The president of the united states is the head of the military. I made this thread because im gonna bring it back to life in 2009 and i want to hear the answers.. most of the democrats are saying they would withdrawal in an orderly fashion...in 3 months or a year...or all at once immediately.

the thing is... you hear this from all candidates and they dont dig deep into how they are going to do it... and also like ive stated in other threads... is ron paul talking about the troops guarding the oil fields... i know someone wrote that it will be left up to israels army to protect them, but does anybody really believe this could happen...and if so is that the best idea we have??

i also cant imagine these candidates who wont tell you how or why or be sincere..i cant imagine them abandoning the oil fields.

gabers

scot88 wrote:

no, he won't, because he will never get elected and be put in a position to do so.

Valid point. Also, he won't be eliminating the CIA and Social Security for the same reason.

t206

I dont care how long it takes or what the details are because this is the detail that really matters:

The war costs $9Billion a month, this country can NOT afford to keep that cost on the books. PERIOD.

Cosmo

Face it... we are stuck there.
Why?
Because who is running the show? The Command and Control Operations? Who is providing all of the logistics support? Who is providing all of the Medical? Who is providing all of the air cover?
How long is it going to take to train the Iraqis to cover these vital areas? Look how long it has taken to train those numbnuts to shoot a fucking rifle. Who do we place in Command and Control... when we've either killed or have been water boarding all of the Iraqis with military leadership skills? Where are they going to get the aircraft? Are we just going to give leave a fleet of C-17, C-130s, CH-160s, etc? Where are their combat doctors (other than Syria, Lebbanon, Europe... all the smart ones with money took part in the 2.5 million exodus).
If we leave.. we have to leave those americans behind... to be protected by who? Iraqi combat forces? No fucking way in Hell is that ever going to happen.
And if we leave... when we leave... all the shit is going to come down and all of the numbnut war/bush supporters are going to say it's our fault because we didn't want the war in the first place. It doesn't matter if we left last year, today, tomorrow or 20 years from now. Those fuckers are going to fight and kill each other because our withdrawal will create another power vaccuum.
...
Our cleanest way out.. the Iraqis kick us out. But, why should they? We've already given them almost a trillion dollars (or has it surpassed that? I lost count at 780 Billion) and provide them with a focus of their anger... instead of their own leadership.

t206

Cosmo wrote:

Face it... we are stuck there.
Why?
Because who is running the show? The Command and Control Operations? Who is providing all of the logistics support? Who is providing all of the Medical? Who is providing all of the air cover?
How long is it going to take to train the Iraqis to cover these vital areas? Look how long it has taken to train those numbnuts to shoot a fucking rifle. Who do we place in Command and Control... when we've either killed or have been water boarding all of the Iraqis with military leadership skills? Where are they going to get the aircraft? Are we just going to give leave a fleet of C-17, C-130s, CH-160s, etc? Where are their combat doctors (other than Syria, Lebbanon, Europe... all the smart ones with money took part in the 2.5 million exodus).
If we leave.. we have to leave those americans behind... to be protected by who? Iraqi combat forces? No fucking way in Hell is that ever going to happen.
And if we leave... when we leave... all the shit is going to come down and all of the numbnut war/bush supporters are going to say it's our fault because we didn't want the war in the first place. It doesn't matter if we left last year, today, tomorrow or 20 years from now. Those fuckers are going to fight and kill each other because our withdrawal will create another power vaccuum.
...
Our cleanest way out.. the Iraqis kick us out. But, why should they? We've already given them almost a trillion dollars (or has it surpassed that? I lost count at 780 Billion) and provide them with a focus of their anger... instead of their own leadership.

Let me give you an example...if I dont have money to put gas in my car, the result is that Im unable to start the engine and drive somewhere.

Now, lets apply that example...the United States does not have $9B a month to spend on this war, most other candidates expect to stay in it for at least 5 more years...5 years = 60 months. 60 months x $9 billion = $540 Billion. We run out of money and the ward ends...regardless of who is still there or what the conditions are. Is the answer to bleed ourselves dry and run into the ground?

I dont understand how people have this misguided perception that the US has an unlimited source of funds. It isnt hard to grasp that this war is on the verge of pushing our country to the edge of financial collapse. If the war doesnt do it, a bail out of the mortgage/credit industry will.

Someone needs to bring financial sense back to DC, so regardless of all his other policies, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has enough of an understanding of economics and finace to try and fix this problem.

t206

t206 wrote:

Let me give you an example...if I dont have money to put gas in my car, the result is that Im unable to start the engine and drive somewhere.

Now, lets apply that example...the United States does not have $9B a month to spend on this war, most other candidates expect to stay in it for at least 5 more years...5 years = 60 months. 60 months x $9 billion = $540 Billion. We run out of money and the ward ends...regardless of who is still there or what the conditions are. Is the answer to bleed ourselves dry and run into the ground?

I dont understand how people have this misguided perception that the US has an unlimited source of funds. It isnt hard to grasp that this war is on the verge of pushing our country to the edge of financial collapse. If the war doesnt do it, a bail out of the mortgage/credit industry will.

Someone needs to bring financial sense back to DC, so regardless of all his other policies, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has enough of an understanding of economics and finace to try and fix this problem.

Oh...and just a little extra information, we are already in $10 TRILLION of debt as a country:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html

Cosmo

t206 wrote:

Let me give you an example...if I dont have money to put gas in my car, the result is that Im unable to start the engine and drive somewhere.

Now, lets apply that example...the United States does not have $9B a month to spend on this war, most other candidates expect to stay in it for at least 5 more years...5 years = 60 months. 60 months x $9 billion = $540 Billion. We run out of money and the ward ends...regardless of who is still there or what the conditions are. Is the answer to bleed ourselves dry and run into the ground?

I dont understand how people have this misguided perception that the US has an unlimited source of funds. It isnt hard to grasp that this war is on the verge of pushing our country to the edge of financial collapse. If the war doesnt do it, a bail out of the mortgage/credit industry will.

Someone needs to bring financial sense back to DC, so regardless of all his other policies, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has enough of an understanding of economics and finace to try and fix this problem.

...
Doesn't matter to the 'Git 'er Dun' folks. They don't have dime one invested in this war. They are nothing more than cheerleader assholes. ask them about the cost in lives and they bring up the number killed during WWII (as if they somehow relate in anything other than the word "War" is use in both). Ask them about the cost in taxpayer dollars and that give you that moronic bumber sticker quote, "Freedom isn't free".
Ask them at what point do their acceptable losses become unacceptable... 10,000 dead? 20,000? 100,000? And you get silence.
...
As for your car/gas example... the gas station will give you all the gas you want, to run your car... you just open an account in your kid's name and any of the kids he/she will bear... and voila!!! They have to pay for what you do today. Nothing invested... nothing lost.
That's the mentality you are facing.

Yoyoyo

macgyver06 wrote:

is ron paul talking about the troops guarding the oil fields...

i also cant imagine these candidates who wont tell you how or why or be sincere..i cant imagine them abandoning the oil fields.

First you would have to get a candidate to admit the war is about oil...have any of them but Paul admited this?

"Give them their country back" from the last debate.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

If RP does not get elected the USA is going to become Shitsville USA

brain of c

losers can't do anything.

macgyver06

Mestophar wrote:

First you would have to get a candidate to admit the war is about oil...have any of them but Paul admited this?

"Give them their country back" from the last debate.

Mike Gravel

Bushleaguer28

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

If RP does not get elected the USA is going to become Shitsville USA

we already have shitsville USA . . . its called new jersey

t206

brain of c wrote:

losers can't do anything.

No, losers dont even TRY to make change or do anything. It is easy to belittle those who are trying because there is a chance they can fail...for you there is no chance of failure and no risk. I admire him for taking the chance and putting himself out there, and regardless of what most think, he does have a better than average chance of winning...most of the "he cant win" crowd dont have anything to back that up with.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Iraq will become Iran, will become something else, and the US WILL lose eventually....(however the US dollar will probably become pretty toilet paper before then as everyone shuns it like the plague).

This is a 100% for certain scenario. Just ask Hitler's ghost.

mammasan

Bushleaguer28 wrote:

we already have shitsville USA . . . its called new jersey

OW!! Easy there. New Jersey is one of the best states to live in. Besides Connecticut it has the highest personal and per household medium income. It has the 2 or 3rd lowest gas prices in the country. Sure the Northeast Corridor (Elizabeth, Newark, and Jersey City) and Camden are a little fucked up but the rest of the state is beautiful. Also if not for Jersey which contributes the most in federal taxes of any state in the union, but receives the least amount of federal dollars, per capita a lot of the other "poorer" states wouldn't be getting all those nice federal funds to maintain infastructure and educate your kids.

810wmb

don't y'all have the highest percentage of whacked mob guys per square mile?


heheheheheeh

mammasan

810wmb wrote:

don't y'all have the highest percentage of whacked mob guys per square mile?


heheheheheeh

No that's Staten Island.