Say Anything Blog

Well if we have reached a “remarkable victory” why aren’t we pulling our troops out?

The fact that the surge has worked, and we have finally brought some stability to a region the US helped destabilize, when the US attacked it, doesn’t mean attacking Iraq was a good idea.

In the end all we have done is eliminate the one counter balancing force in the area (Saddam Hussein), and opened the door for Iran to broaden its influence in the region.

I don’t even think you would agree that is a good idea.

In the end all we have done is eliminate the one counter balancing force in the area (Saddam Hussein), and opened the door for Iran to broaden its influence in the region.

Oh, I am sure Pol Pot was a ‘counter balancing force’ in the area as well. That is not a reason for allowing a genocidal regime to continue.

Besides, Saddam was not half the ‘counter balancing force’ in the region against Iran that the U.S. armed forces are.

Dont bother trying to reason and intellectualize with them Tim.  Giving them facts and true Democrat positions don’t mean anything to them, and they certainly don’t want to hear anything but the sound of their own voices, from their right-wing echo chambers.

You said everything pretty much I was going to say so I will leave it alone.

Again, this proves that Rob has no understanding of the English language.  Only he could confuse the word PROGRESS with VICTORY.

When and if the shit hits the fan in Iraq, after our meddling, and it happens on a Dems watch, it will be their fault for all the ignored possibilities the Bush Administration is not talking to us about.

Hannitized, the Democrats’ and Obama’s positions on Iraq are now so confused, incoherent and contradictory that you can’t possibly understand what it is.

Does Obama favor a firm 16 month withdrawal or not?

Is that with, or without flexibility?

Is that before, or after, he listens to the generals?

Is that with, or without, al-Qaeda attacks?

Is there progress or not due to The Surge?

Obama is just a hopeless muddle on this, as he is on so many other things.

And it doesn’t matter what he posts on his website - he will happily turn around and contradict it in the blink of an eye.

Hannitized, the Democrats’ and Obama’s positions on Iraq are now so confused, incoherent and contradictory that you can’t possibly understand what it is.

Does Obama favor a firm 16 month withdrawal or not?

It’s about as confused as the Iraqis, as they just came out and said the same thing.  They have a date and later stated that they wanted a targeted date with some flexibility.

If you pin point them on their various statements it is no different.  The only thing you can articulate is that you don’t understand Obamas position and we get that.

The fact of the matter is Bush is being obtuse by making his policy staying and Obama is essentially making his policy leaving.  We all know the US cant stay in Iraq forever, so they have to eventually leave.  We know Obama can’t leave based on an exact date, so he will eventually have to give in to circumstances on the ground.

The American public want Obamas position, not Bush’s.  The Iraqi’s want Obama’s position, not Bush’s.

The Iraqis are not with you my friend.

Well if we have reached a “remarkable victory” why aren’t we pulling our troops out?

Because there is a difference between winning a war and maintaining security. Not surprising that the Boy Blunder Hannitized can’t tell the difference either! (Must be deafened from his Left wing echo chamber!)

Tim have you questioned the stationing of troops in Germany?That war was fought well and good probably before you were born. A “remarkable victory” does not in and of itself guarantee the peace.

Oh, and for your information: We are pulling the troops out. Just not all of them, or as fast as the Moonbat Wing of the Democrat Party would like!

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

The only thing you can articulate is that you don’t understand Obamas position and we get that.

Heh, you don’t understand his position either, and I notice you didn’t even try to explain it.

The Iraqis are not with you my friend.

You don’t even know what my view is on this, so it is presumptuous of you to say this.

Well if we have reached a “remarkable victory” why aren’t we pulling our troops out?

Why haven’t we pulled out of Europe, Japan and South Korea, many decades since we won the victory? Because the enemies of those nations and the U.S. still exist and we are needed there to maintain the security and prosperity of those areas of the world for our national security. The same thing applies to Iraq and Afghanistan, as the world’s only true super-power, we have an obligation to the national security of the United States to keep these areas as stable as possible.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Poof,

Because there is a difference between winning a war and maintaining security.

Yeah, we have been “maintaining security” since we saw Bush declare victory behind the “mission accomplished” sign.

The fact of the matter is that we won, lost and are winning the war in Iraq.  Nothing is permanent yet and none of you are willing to be real on this issue.

Ken,

Heh, you don’t understand his position either, and I notice you didn’t even try to explain it.

I did explain it, I said it was the same as the Iraqi’s and then I stated their position.  What more do you need?

You don’t even know what my view is on this, so it is presumptuous of you to say this.

Ok, so what is your view?  Is your view to have troops out by December 10, 2010?

BAGHDAD - Face to face with Iraq’s leaders, Barack Obama gained fresh support Monday for the idea of pulling all U.S. combat forces out of the war zone by 2010. But the Iraqis stopped short of actual timetables or endorsement of Obama’s pledge to withdraw troops within 16 months if he wins the presidency.

When did McCain ever get this close????

Why haven’t we pulled out of Europe, Japan and South Korea, many decades since we won the victory? Because the enemies of those nations and the U.S. still exist and we are needed there to maintain the security and prosperity of those areas of the world for our national security. The same thing applies to Iraq and Afghanistan,

Neiman,

Are you seriously saying we have won the war in Afghanistan?  Iraq, I could say we are winning, but by no means have we “won”....just yet.

Hell, even McCain knows we haven’t “won”.

The situation is full of hope - but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains. Progress has been due mainly to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. - John McCain

Ok, so what is your view?  Is your view to have troops out by December 10, 2010?

No. Artificial timelines only embolden the enemy.

I think we should eventually have a force of 20,000 -30,000 troops manning permanent bases there for decades.

But if the Iraqis want us out, then as a sovereign nation we should respect their wishes and not try to strongarm them.

Neiman, Are you seriously saying we have won the war in Afghanistan?  Iraq, I could say we are winning, but by no means have we “won”....just yet.

The topic was staying after the victory!

Yeah, we have been “maintaining security” since we saw Bush declare victory behind the “mission accomplished” sign.

I don’t mind differences in opinion and vigorous debate; but I get really angry about this lie being repeated over and over again. First, the mission of that Navy Battle Group was accomplished, he never said the war was won and over. Next, we had toppled Saddam and from that limited definition we accomplished that mission.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

No. Artificial timelines only embolden the enemy.

I knew you would say that.  So i was right...the Iraqi’s are not with you because they gave the date of December, 2010.  As did Obama!!

You are simply parroting Bush.

I think we should eventually have a force of 20,000 -30,000 troops manning permanent bases there for decades.

OK?

But if the Iraqis want us out, then as a sovereign nation we should respect their wishes and not try to strongarm them.

So you don’t want an artificial time line, even though the Iraqi’s do.  And you want to troops to stay, unless the Iraqi’s don’t want them to.

That is mixed up as anyone.  You only care what the Iraqi’s want half of the time?

Why are you bashing Obama?

So you don’t want an artificial time line, even though the Iraqi’s do.  And you want to troops to stay, unless the Iraqi’s don’t want them to.

That is mixed up as anyone.  You only care what the Iraqi’s want half of the time?

Why are you bashing Obama?

Huh?

You are as incoherent as Obama.

Nieman,

I don’t mind differences in opinion and vigorous debate; but I get really angry about this lie being repeated over and over again.

Did major combat operations end after the Mission Accomplished fiasco?  Yes or no?

My point Ken, is that you are mixed up man. 

Will you admit that Iraqis have an artificial time line?

If you care what the Iraqi’s want, why don’t you support an artificial time line?

Un-Sanitized: I am not in a court with a liberal lawyer demanding a yes or no answer.

My full answer is: The major combat operations to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his troops was over for all intent and purposes. The combat against the insurgents just began and unfortunately has taken a long time to bring to an end, but the major combat operations I described, which involved that Naval Task Force was accomplished and Bush never intimated anything else.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Will you admit that Iraqis have an artificial time line?

If you care what the Iraqi’s want, why don’t you support an artificial time line?

Hannitized, they don’t have an artificial time line. They have not come to terms with the U.S. over what, if any, timeline will be put in place.

In fact, the closest that the Iraqis have come is Maliki saying “that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal.”

In fact, the closest that the Iraqis have come is Maliki saying “that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal.”

WRONG!!!  Take a gander;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_on_el_pr/obama

“We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq,” spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said after Obama met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq’s position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.

Iraq’s Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, said after meeting Obama that Iraqi leaders share “a common interest ... to schedule the withdrawal of American troops.”
BAGHDAD - Face to face with Iraq’s leaders, Barack Obama gained fresh support Monday for the idea of pulling all U.S. combat forces out of the war zone by 2010. But the Iraqis stopped short of actual timetables or endorsement of Obama’s pledge to withdraw troops within 16 months if he wins the presidency.

Admit you were wrong Ken.