Will Obama get ALL American troops out in sixteen months?

On McCain flip-flops: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html

0 Replies

snood wrote:

kicky, I've followed him pretty closely, and I don't think he ever said he would get ALL troops out in 16 months. Far as my memory and impressions tell me, when he says he'll get us out of Iraq he means that he will change the 160,000 troops to an estimated 20-30 thousand in the region as a rapid response unit.

To me, and I'm sure to those who have been compelled to deploy 3, 4 and 5 times, that is getting us out of Iraq.

Unless it takes 20 to 30 thousand troops to protect the embassy and our diplomats, I don't think your impressions are exactly right, snood. As shown by MM's quotes from his own website, he intends no permanent bases or combat brigades to remain there.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

On McCain flip-flops: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html

I don't know how accurate your source is, probably not completely, but I am aware of McCain flipflopping, more or less because he just isn't that well versed on alot of things, sort of clueless, but hey isn't this the same guy you have liked in the past, and isn't this the same guy that was the liberal media darling a short time ago, merely because he loved to badmouth his own president and his own party so the press would fawn over him as being a maverick?

My only hope is that he picks a decent vp choice, to hopefully help keep him focused and more consistent. We need somebody that understands the issues and the policies that go into them, inside and out. I vote Romney.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

He said he will. He won't. Change is a major part of his campaign, and this will be called change. Definately not a flip flop. We said we wanted change, and he is giving it to us.

it was nice while it lasted however, he is slowly showing himself to be nothing more than those vying for the same office.
flip flop on public funding.
flip flop(kinda sorta) on pulling troops.(I never took hold of that one anyway)

HOWEVER, he's not MCcain, so........he's got my vote.

P.s. THeY arE alL the SamE

0 Replies

Hey, Kicky, how'd you do that? Ask, and Barack Obama answers in an Op-Ed in the NYT the next day...

"My Plan for Iraq" by Barack Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

Pertinent parts, as far as I can tell:

Barack Obama wrote:

We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 monthsa residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

Quote:

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It's not going to work this time. It's time to end this war.

(Emphases mine.)

0 Replies

okie wrote: I don't know how accurate your source is, probably not completely, but I am aware of McCain flipflopping, more or less because he just isn't that well versed on alot of things, sort of clueless, but hey isn't this the same guy you have liked in the past, and isn't this the same guy that was the liberal media darling a short time ago, merely because he loved to badmouth his own president and his own party so the press would fawn over him as being a maverick?

If you question the source, question what they identify as McCain flip-flops, not the source. As for my flip-flop on McCain, it's primarily because he flip-flopped on torture. If he can flip-flop on torture, I figure every issue is open to flip-flop for him - and he's now proved that point, and it's not because he's a maverick that badmouthed our president. Bush deserves all the bad-mouthed criticism; he's earned most of it. Have you noticed our economy under Bush?

0 Replies

Yes, ci, and have you noticed the Democrat Congress has done nothing and their approval level is now in single digits?

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002912237

This is a congress that resides in la la land, spending time on things that are so far into left field it isn't even funny. Reading articles of impeachment against Bush, ha ha, get real.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Yes, ci, and have you noticed the Democrat Congress has done nothing and their approval level is now in single digits?

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002912237

This is a congress that resides in la la land, spending time on things that are so far into left field it isn't even funny. Reading articles of impeachment against Bush, ha ha, get real.

That's the reason why Americans rates congress below Bush; so what are you trying to tell us? They both stink to high heaven; who's in a position to admire our administration or congress? Or even the supremes?

0 Replies

Congress answer to the energy problem: pump oil out of the strategic oil reserve. One example of many, ci. These people are losers, and totally ignorant of the energy business. A bunch of clueless lawyers, their solution to any problem is to sue somebody probably, or blame somebody. Its the oil companies fault, ha, and the oil companies are the only people producing anything. Get real, ci.

Bail out loan companies, another example, hey it was the loan companies bad practices that caused the problem but Congress solution is to facilitate bad practices, bail them out.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Congress answer to the energy problem: pump oil out of the strategic oil reserve. One example of many, ci. These people are losers, and totally ignorant of the energy business. A bunch of clueless lawyers, their solution to any problem is to sue somebody probably, or blame somebody. Its the oil companies fault, ha, and the oil companies are the only people producing anything. Get real, ci.

Bail out loan companies, another example, hey it was the loan companies bad practices that caused the problem but Congress solution is to facilitate bad practices, bail them out.

Actually, it was the Fed and Bush who decided to bail out Fannie and Freddie this weekend.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I may have spouted off a little too quickly about a subject I am not totally familiar, cyclops. It is my impression that Fannie Mae is an example of a government sponsored loan operation, although not specifically guaranteed, it was government sponsored, as opposed to companies like Bear Stearns, so bailing out Fannie Mae may not be equivalent to bailing out Bear Stearns?

You are probably more familiar with this, as is ci, but I am not generally in favor of government bailouts and facilitating irresponsibility or risky investments. I would have to know more about Fannie Mae, etc.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I may have spouted off a little too quickly about a subject I am not totally familiar, cyclops. It is my impression that Fannie Mae is an example of a government sponsored loan operation, although not specifically guaranteed, it was government sponsored, as opposed to companies like Bear Stearns, so bailing out Fannie Mae may not be equivalent to bailing out Bear Stearns?

You are probably more familiar with this, as is ci, but I am not generally in favor of government bailouts and facilitating irresponsibility or risky investments. I would have to know more about Fannie Mae, etc.

I am not in favor of this, either. The gov't bailout of these guys is going to cost billions and the fact that they didn't put any strings on it is a criminal act, in my opinion.

Fannie and Freddie should both be nationalized, period. If the US Gov't is going to back these guys implicitly, then why pretend they are independent? They are not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Okie, you are not smart enough to be on this thread. Please go back to whatever bridge you were hiding under before you showed up here.

Soz, thanks for the article. And to those of you who pointed out that his actual promise was to get all combat troops out, thanks also. In my opinion, he will do his best to get this accomplished, but I still think it is a tangled mess over there, and that his political enemies would rather let more of our people die than give a "lefty" what he wants. My gut feeling is that he will not get it totally accomplished, but he will at least move us in that direction and make strides toward that goal.

Unlike McCain.

Obama sounds like he has a good understanding of the whole situation over there. He actually sounds like he understands the intricacies of the situation over there, unlike McCain and the clown we have in charge currently. I think that if McCain wins, he will keep talking about how the Islamofascists are the greatest challenge of our new century and how we need to stay and fight and all the crap that basically amounts to "I don't know, let's just keep blowing **** up and see if that works."

0 Replies

Also, McCain and his cunard will continue to use "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here" foolishness.

0 Replies

Some would say that this is the appeasement line which was popular in the thirties and was listened to for too long.

It places emphasis on the loss of life and financial cost, which we can all agree are bad things, and dismisses the danger of not being prepared to bear them as a safe option.

The question of whether or not it is a safe option is not considered. It is assumed to be. In which case those seeing a danger are obviously "clowns".

The notion that firms profiting from a war is a bad thing is ridiculous for an American. Americans believe, or so my impression is, that if there's a job to be done private enterprise is the way to get it done best and so if there's a war to be fought private companies will be used where possible. We are coming round to that view here in the UK. There has even been talk of a mercenary army recruiting worldwide.

And pension funds and trusts are invested in these companies. And we all have a share, as Lt. Minderbinder so famously said.

The dangers of a withdrawal ought to be debated but bearing in mind that debating gives the enemy hope.

Cyclo wrote-

Quote:

If the US Gov't is going to back these guys implicitly, then why pretend they are independent? They are not.

They haven't been for a very long time. No modern government can allow an independent financial sector. Or any other sector of significance.

The strippers and top-shelf mags are policed. And the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages are controlled with tweeting dials somewhere in the bowels of Westminster. Consumption control itself is coming. Getting the optimum ratio between piss-artists and professors is a tricky task.

0 Replies

Seems obvious that Afghanistan is also a big issue, what is Obama's stance on that? Pull out and leave it to the Taliban to wreak havoc? Just curious. Or is it to bomb hideouts in Pakistan, is that still his solution?

Since kickcan is so intelligent, maybe he has this figured out as well?

Reminder, Dems were solidly in favor of thw war in Afghanistan.

0 Replies

There is plenty of war left to be fought in that section of the world.
Don't expect any large scale troop withdrawal in the near future.

Our troops and the troops from other countries will be fighting in that area for many years to come.

BTW, chances are real good that Israel will hit Iraq, Iraq will hit Israel with missiles and all US bases
within reach of their missiles. Most, if not all of Iran's missiles will be shot down before hitting any targets.
After that our air power will pound Iran from a safe distance all before inauguration day.

Obama will not be able to keep his fool hardy campaign promises.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Soz, thanks for the article. And to those of you who pointed out that his actual promise was to get all combat troops out, thanks also. In my opinion, he will do his best to get this accomplished

So he gets all the COMBAT troops out, big deal.

What about all the support troops?
Those are the cooks, clerks, medical troops, armorers, mechanics, computer techs,dentists, supply personnel, and the thousands of other noncombat troops

It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?

I doubt Obama knows as much about the US military as you and I combined... he is the wrong man for the job.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?

I doubt Obama knows as much about the US military as you and I combined... he is the wrong man for the job.

I know he knows less about the military then I do.
I spent 24 years in uniform.
How much time has he spent in the military?

0 Replies

Will Obama get ALL American troops out in sixteen months?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know