Hillary wants retreat in 90 days

[Splum]

This woman is insane, she wants our troops to leave Iraq in 90 days!?
Does she really think Iraq and the middle east will be magically fixed because we leave?! Im glad she has no power in our country.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/hillcast/?sc=8

Partisan politics aside, leaving Iraq would be disastrous for the future of the United States. These extremists will STILL come for us and expand their power bases in the middle east. Even if Israel is destroyed they wont stop there.

[SomeCreep]

I think they should leave tomorrow. Whether they stay there 1 more day, 90 more days, or 5 more years, it wont make a difference to Iraq and their government. It will only make a difference to the pockets of U.S. tax payers.

[ayne468]

I don't think they should stay...I don't think they are making things better, just getting killed

[Splum]

Originally Posted by SomeCreep

I think they should leave tomorrow. Whether they stay there 1 more day, 90 more days, or 5 more years, it wont make a difference to Iraq and their government. It will only make a difference to the pockets of U.S. tax payers.

Hello? 9/11? Hello? You would rather have semi-sporadic terrorist acts happening just to save a few bucks? Insane I tell you insane.

[Matt 26z]

Retreat? The war has already been won. No WMD. Saddam gone. What other reasons did we go in for?

The violence against our toops goes on only because we are there.

[SomeCreep]

Originally Posted by Splum

Partisan politics aside, leaving Iraq would be disastrous for the future of the United States.

Never say that in public, it sounds so foolish.

"GOING" to Iraq was disastrous for the future of the United States. Now all we can do is leave, because the longer we stay there, the more U.S. troops will die. And IMO, giving the Iraqi people "freedom" is not worth the lives of 3000+ U.S. soldiers.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Retreat? The war has already been won. No WMD. Saddam gone. What other reasons did we go in for? The violence against our toops goes on only because we are there.

What?! Haha what dream world are you living in? Islamic extremists declared war on us in 1998 and our former President ignored them until we couldnt ignore them anymore on 9/11. You people really think this shit would stop if we leave?

[Splum]

Originally Posted by SomeCreep

Never say that in public, it sounds so foolish.

"GOING" to Iraq was disastrous for the future of the United States. Now all we can do is leave, because the longer we stay there, the more U.S. troops will die. And IMO, giving the Iraqi people "freedom" is not worth the lives of 3000+ U.S. soldiers.

This ISNT ABOUT THE IRAQI people its about the United States and its assertion of power in the world. If we leave we will be WEAK and every single enemy that we have(and its alot and has been for many years even before Bush was even born) will eventually come for us.

[SomeCreep]

Originally Posted by Splum

Hello? 9/11? Hello? You would rather have semi-sporadic terrorist acts happening just to save a few bucks? Insane I tell you insane.

More U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Dont be fooled by the lies. The U.S. is a much more dangerous place now, than it was before 9/11. Iraq is also a much more dangerous place now.

[he-fox]

Originally Posted by Splum

This ISNT ABOUT THE IRAQI people its about the United States and its assertion of power in the world. If we leave we will be WEAK and every single enemy that we have(and its alot and has been for many years even before Bush was even born) will eventually come for us.

this is a fucked up philosophy

[directfiesta]

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by Splum

Hello? 9/11? Hello? You would rather have semi-sporadic terrorist acts happening just to save a few bucks? Insane I tell you insane.

The type of terrorists in Iraq are not the same type that hit us on 9/11.

[uno]

Originally Posted by Splum

Hello? 9/11? Hello? You would rather have semi-sporadic terrorist acts happening just to save a few bucks? Insane I tell you insane.

What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? I know you've been asked this several times, but have never given a decent answer.

[SomeCreep]

Originally Posted by Splum

This ISNT ABOUT THE IRAQI people its about the United States and its assertion of power in the world. If we leave we will be WEAK and every single enemy that we have(and its alot and has been for many years even before Bush was even born) will eventually come for us.

I see you've been completely brainwashed by Bush and the media. At this point, it is probably better you just believe what you like.

"The world is a safe place thanks to Bush and hopefully our soldiers will stay in Iraq another 10 years to ensure none of our other enemies attack us."

Okay, I must go outside now, it is raining gum drops and chocolate muffins.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by SomeCreep

More U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Dont be fooled by the lies. The U.S. is a much more dangerous place now, than it was before 9/11. Iraq is also a much more dangerous place now.

Tell that to the people who worked in the World Trade Center on 9/10/2001
Its ALWAYS been dangerous. The US is not as dangerous NOW as it was before 9/11 there hasnt been another attack. You are the one fooled by the lies. 3000+ blessed soldiers lives pales in comparison to the mass murder these terrorists are committing everyday and want to commit here.

[Matt 26z]

I love how the Republican thought process is that every terrorist in the world has rushed into Iraq to fight us there, instead of here in the US.

These people are so fucking stupid.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by he-fox

this is a fucked up philosophy

STFU jungle monkey you and Costa Rica are irrelevant in this conversation. Just stay in your little beef deprived banana eating mosquito infested bubble.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

I love how the Republican thought process is that every terrorist in the world has rushed into Iraq to fight us there, instead of here in the US. These people are so fucking stupid.

Prove it motherfucker, has there been another attack IN THE USA? No. Do you even have a fucking clue of whom you have to thank for that? All those soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world fighting this battle for your pussy ass.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by uno

What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? I know you've been asked this several times, but have never given a decent answer.

Yes I have you lieing shit bucket. Many times. And yet again.

Iraq invades Kuwait in 1990, the UN authorizes the USA and its coalition to eject Iraq from Kuwait. We set bases up in Saudi Arabia to start military action against Iraq, this pisses Bin Laden and other extreme muslims off who then declare that the United States and its allies must leave the "holy lands". Because of our presence there and our support of Israel Bin Laden and other extremists declared war on the United States and they attacked us in 1993, 1995 and 2001(9/11).

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by Splum

3000+ blessed soldiers lives pales in comparison to the mass murder these terrorists are committing everyday and want to commit here.

Let's look at the type of terrorists we are killing in Iraq vs. the guys who actually hit us on 9/11.

The terrorists in Iraq are basically desert bums. They come in from the mountains and blend into the chaos of Iraq. They are opportunistic, and take what they can get. Given who they are, they are incapable of getting passports and traveling to the US.

The 9/11 terrorists on the other hand were seemingly regular people with regular lives in stable middle eastern countries. They had jobs, families and a future. That is what allowed them to get into the US. We are not killing these types in Iraq.

[he-fox]

Originally Posted by Splum

STFU jungle monkey you and Costa Rica are irrelevant in this conversation. Just stay in your little beef deprived banana eating mosquito infested bubble.

You are so tough behind your keyboard. Ignorant, coward, redneck.

[websiex]

Originally Posted by Splum

STFU jungle monkey you and Costa Rica are irrelevant in this conversation. Just stay in your little beef deprived banana eating mosquito infested bubble.

Resorted to ad hominem attacks and you're debating? Stick to watching Fox News IMO...

[theking]

It has become apparent to me that this Administration has chosen not to engage our military power to put a somewhat rapid end to the bullshit that has been allowed to take place in Iraq and in addition the polls show that the majority of the American people do not support the Administrations prosecution of this conflict...I favor an immediate phased withdrawal and let Iraq suffer with the consequences.

If the CONUS is ever struck again...in any significant way...I think next time around we will not pussyfoot around as we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But who knows...we pussyfooted around in Korea and Vietnam in a big way...Lebbanon and Somalia in a smaller way...so we seem slow on the uptake.

I do hope and expect that we will rebuild our military ASAP and increase the end strength back to the more than two million active duty personnel that it was before Congress began the cuts during President Bush Sr's term in office.

Continue on with the good fight Splum.

[websiex]

Originally Posted by theking

But who knows...we pussyfooted around in Korea and Vietnam in a big way..

The United States had a full all out ground offensive in Vietnam, over 3.5 million US troops served in SE Asia during that war... I wouldn't call that "pussyfooting". Also, we had over 500,000 troops on the ground, (3.5 million switching in and out). It was a full blown war basically, and the US got beat... Iraq appears to be heading down that same road.

[StuBradley]

wow...this thread really backfired on you. looks like the majority want us out.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by websiex

The United States had a full all out ground offensive in Vietnam, over 3.5 million US troops served in SE Asia during that war... I wouldn't call that "pussyfooting". Also, we had over 500,000 troops on the ground, (3.5 million switching in and out). It was a full blown war basically, and the US got beat... Iraq appears to be heading down that same road.

Iraq isnt even CLOSE to Vietnam what are you talking about? You just said the numbers yourself. We havent sustained the casualties we did in Vietnam.

U.S. dead: 58,209

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

[Splum]

Originally Posted by StuBradley

wow...this thread really backfired on you. looks like the majority want us out.

Oh yeah ten porn pushers really represents average Americans dumb ass.

[Xyborg]

Splum... god bless you and god bless America....
but first look at this...

youtube.com/watch?v=m9A_vxIOB-I

US troops must leave Iraq, Bush never care about terrorism or Iraqi people, he only "think" on the price of the gas... oh.. and his whisky bottle..

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Splum

Oh yeah ten porn pushers really represents average Americans dumb ass.

Well these people represent the average Americans.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2007...pTimetable.htm

Only 33% want us to stay till the end.

[websiex]

Originally Posted by Splum

Iraq isnt even CLOSE to Vietnam what are you talking about? You just said the numbers yourself. We havent sustained the casualties we did in Vietnam.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

I didn't say Iraq is the same as Vietnam; I said it was heading down the same road. Vietnam's highest casualty numbers came at the end of the war after failed troop surges in 67-69.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Well these people represent the average Americans. Only 33% want us to stay till the end.

55% want us to withdraw within a year, last time I checked thats 365 days not 90.

[theking]

Originally Posted by websiex

The United States had a full all out ground offensive in Vietnam, over 3.5 million US troops served in SE Asia during that war... I wouldn't call that "pussyfooting". Also, we had over 500,000 troops on the ground, (3.5 million switching in and out). It was a full blown war basically, and the US got beat... Iraq appears to be heading down that same road.

President Eisenhower sent the first troops to Vietnam and from that time...until Nixon finally ordered that some of the proper targets were no longer safe from attack...the military fought with one hand behind its back.

Those that supplied the NVA and the Port of Haiphong were not allowed to become targets and the cities of North Vietnam were not allowed to become targets. Finally Nixon ordered 24/7 bombing of the cities and harbor and in eleven days it brought the North to the peace table and facilliated our withdrawal of our forces. Two years after our forces withdrew the South was overrun. The Southern forces got beat not US forces.

The Vietnam conflict would have been over in one day with the use of Tactical Nukes. It would have been over in 30 days with the use of sustained bombing on the proper targets (as was proven by 11 days of sustained bombing on some of the proper targets). It would have been over in 90 days with a ground invasion of the North.

[sacX]

Originally Posted by Splum

Tell that to the people who worked in the World Trade Center on 9/10/2001
Its ALWAYS been dangerous. The US is not as dangerous NOW as it was before 9/11 there hasnt been another attack. You are the one fooled by the lies. 3000+ blessed soldiers lives pales in comparison to the mass murder these terrorists are committing everyday and want to commit here.

Why do you think the US is less dangerous now? There were 8 years between the 1993 WTC attack and 2001. Does that mean Clinton did a good job of protecting the homeland? Bush is only at 5 1/2 years.

[theking]

BTW...the Iraq conflict was won in the first 24 days (I had predicted that it would take 10 days) when the Iraq Army was defeated and the government removed.

What has taken place since and now...is not a war...but is a poorly run effort at nation building.

[jacked]

Originally Posted by Splum

This woman is insane, she wants our troops to leave Iraq in 90 days!?
Does she really think Iraq and the middle east will be magically fixed because we leave?! Im glad she has no power in our country.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/hillcast/?sc=8

Partisan politics aside, leaving Iraq would be disastrous for the future of the United States. These extremists will STILL come for us and expand their power bases in the middle east. Even if Israel is destroyed they wont stop there.

do you think iraq and the middle east will be magically fixed if we occupy their country for another 10-20-30-40-50 years...

more of our soldiers die for a war started to fatten the wallets of our politicians

[sacX]

Originally Posted by theking

BTW...the Iraq conflict was won in the first 24 days (I had predicted that it would take 10 days) when the Iraq Army was defeated and the government removed.

What is taken place since and now...is not a war...but is a poorly run effort at nation building.

sure it's a war

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war

pretty much all those definitions fit.

[websiex]

Originally Posted by theking

President Eisenhower sent the first troops to Vietnam and from that time...until Nixon finally ordered that some of the proper targets were no longer safe from attack...the military fought with one hand behind its back.

Those that supplied the NVA and the Port of Haiphong were not allowed to become targets and the cities of North Vietnam were not allowed to become targets. Finally Nixon ordered 24/7 bombing of the cities and harbor and in eleven days it brought the North to the peace table and facilliated our withdrawal of our forces. Two years after our forces withdrew the South was overrun. The Southern forces got beat not US forces.

The Vietnam conflict would have been over in one day with the use of Tactical Nukes. It would have been over in 30 days with the use of sustained bombing on the proper targets (as was proven by 11 days of sustained bombing on some of the proper targets). It would have been over in 90 days with a ground invasion of the North.

Well, maybe if you were a general you could've won the war in 30 days like you say, but don't you think that the military would have bombed the proper targets to begin with instead of mindlessly bombing like you're saying... I mean, they killed over 2 million civilians in the war by mindlessly bombing, yet you are saying they could've WON in 30 days by bombing "proper targets". (Probably with less civilian casualities)

Anyway, I still don't believe it is "pussyfooting" when 3.5 million troops serve in a war, although your definition and mine may vary. I see your "pussyfooting" as horrible leadership (10 year war could've been 30 days?).

And, The Cold War could've been over in 1 day if we used "tactical nukes".

[theking]

Originally Posted by jacked

do you think iraq and the middle east will be magically fixed if we occupy their country for another 10-20-30-40-50 years...

more of our soldiers die for a war started to fatten the wallets of our politicians

Pigshit.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by sacX

Why do you think the US is less dangerous now? There were 8 years between the 1993 WTC attack and 2001. Does that mean Clinton did a good job of protecting the homeland? Bush is only at 5 1/2 years.

Clinton was the reason 9/11 happened on American soil at all. He could have had Bin Laden years ago, keep in mind Al Qaeda had been continually attacking our overseas interests ALL through the Clinton years.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by jacked

do you think iraq and the middle east will be magically fixed if we occupy their country for another 10-20-30-40-50 years... More of our soldiers die for a war started to fatten the wallets of our politicians

It wont be "fixed" properly unless we wipe out or reform that entire region, we certainly cant do it while a portion of our own country wants to run from the fight. Our politicians will make money no matter whats going on in the world they would find ways to take our money what the hell does this have to do with anything?

[theking]

Originally Posted by websiex

Well, maybe if you were a general you could've won the war in 30 days like you say, but don't you think that the military would have bombed the proper targets to begin with instead of mindlessly bombing like you're saying... I mean, they killed over 2 million civilians in the war by mindlessly bombing, yet you are saying they could've WON in 30 days by bombing "proper targets". (Probably with less civilian casualities)

Anyway, I still don't believe it is "pussyfooting" when 3.5 million troops serve in a war, although your definition and mine may vary. I see your "pussyfooting" as horrible leadership (10 year war could've been 30 days?).

And, The Cold War could've been over in 1 day if we used "tactical nukes".

The military was denied permission to bomb strategic targets because of the micro management by polictical leaders for political reasons. The same problem that took place in Korea and the same problem that is currently taking place in Iraq. It wasn't until Nixon finally removed some of the restrictions on strategic targets and the 24/7 bombing on these targets brought the North to the peace table and an agreement in just 11 days.

[interracialtoons]

I think the point republicans don't get is that if we stay we still lose.
They are still living in Dick Cheney's fantasy about being welcomed as liberators.

All the people who want us to stay should join the army so there will be enough troops or STFU.

[websiex]

Originally Posted by Splum

Clinton was the reason 9/11 happened on American soil at all. He could have had Bin Laden years ago, keep in mind Al Qaeda had been continually attacking our overseas interests ALL through the Clinton years.

Bush did a lot too when he first got in office, didn't he? I mean, it's not like his cabinet ignored a memo that said "bin Laden DETERMINED on striking in the US" or anything, right?

[themonk]

well i dont really care

[websiex]

Originally Posted by theking

brought the North to the peace table and an agreement in just 11 days.

Yeah, the US got a devil of a deal out of that peace talk... (not really, all the US got was 58,000 deaths, POWs, and hundreds of thousands of WIAs)

[theking]

Originally Posted by websiex

Bush did a lot too when he first got in office, didn't he? I mean, it's not like his cabinet ignored a memo that said "bin Laden DETERMINED on striking in the US" or anything, right?

Actually he did not ignore it as he is the one that called for the report which is basically why it was entitled as it was.

[interracialtoons]

Originally Posted by theking

The military was denied permission to bomb strategic targets because of the micro management by polictical leaders for political reasons. The same problem that took place in Korea and the same problem that is currently taking place in Iraq. It wasn't until Nixon finally removed some of the restrictions on strategic targets and the 24/7 bombing on these targets brought the North to the peace table and an agreement in just 11 days.

Man, I'm so tired of Vietnam excuses.

When I studied military science and became an army officer they never taught us about these excuses. They showed us how we lost and what to do to prevent it from happening again.

You sound like a guy who lost a fist fight while everyone watched you lose and you keep talking about how you would have hit him harder if ...but...but...but...but...and because....then if....

Hint: Noboby gives a shit about what "could have happened" because what happened was defeat and that's the end of the game.

[jacked]

Originally Posted by Splum

It wont be "fixed" properly unless we wipe out or reform that entire region, we certainly cant do it while a portion of our own country wants to run from the fight. Our politicians will make money no matter whats going on in the world they would find ways to take our money what the hell does this have to do with anything?

it will never be "fixed"... the longer we stay the more the hatred grows and the more resistance we will encounter.

and the politicians making money has a lot to do with it the war is a money making machine, how much has been spent on this successful war? ( MOTIVE TO MAKE THE WAR LAST THE LONGER THE WAR LASTS THE MORE MONEY THEY MAKE )

at this point i don't support the war in the beginning i felt it was something that needed to be done in retaliation for 9/11 but now we are basically wiping them out and making them start from scratch sounds a bit like genocide to me were targeting the iraqi people, redefining their whole way of life all to bring us that much closer to controlling more of the worlds oil.

[theking]

Originally Posted by websiex

Yeah, the US got a devil of a deal out of that peace talk... (not really, all the US got was 58,000 deaths, POWs, and hundreds of thousands of WIAs)

Of course the North did not abide by the agreement once US forces were withdrawn. The US did not abide by an agreement that it made to the South...which was to once again begin 24/7 bombing of the North...if the North did not abide by their agreement. Congress shut off all funds for any further action in Vietnam (which may also happen with Iraq) so the President could not respond to the agreement that was made with the South.

[LiveDose]

I can't stand that bitch.