Chef Jim Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 These wackos have been blowing themselves and their neighbors up for what seems like a billion years. Do you really think the US can and should be the guardians of peace? How come China and others don't think it's necessary for them to even help maintain peace in the region? They are just as dependent on the oil as we are, at least on the surface, and nobody is invading Saudi Arabia or the other Middle East oil producers. The domino theory just doesn't seem to have an end game in this part of the world. Guardians of peace??? !@#$ no. Guardians of oil.
SilverNRed Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Taking it out of context.... he did state 100 years. No one in their right mind wants our troops to be there for that long - troops safe or not safe. Here is the statement for you though. Are you as upset about all the other troops we have stationed around the world? Or that our Navy is abroad? We do have an interest in doing what we can to maintain some stability in the world.
PastaJoe Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 If our troops were getting slaughtered left and right, I'd advocate a change in strategy. Which is what McCain actually did, even when it was extremely unpopular to do so. McCain's stance on the surge was extremely unpopular at the time, but it paid off. He deserves credit for that. Democrats called for a change long before McCain. He called for change when it was unpopular within his own party, but popular with a majority of the country. But he never said the basic premise of occupying was wrong, and he wants to continue it. And it hasn't paid off because the Iraqis still haven't resolved their political differences which was the purpose of the surge, and as long as our military is there without an end in sight they won't have the urgency to do so.
PastaJoe Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Are you as upset about all the other troops we have stationed around the world? Or that our Navy is abroad? We do have an interest in doing what we can to maintain some stability in the world. Where else are they being shot at and killed with no end in sight? Even with Bosnia, the differing political parties were brought together and came to a political solution that ended the fighting, with minimal casualties to the U.S. military. Why hasn't there been a push for a political solution by our government in Iraq?
Adam Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Thank you for reminding me what your "talking point" is. (And for bringing up the "100 years" BS.) McCain is right (and, apparently, so was Obama back in 2004): This shouldn't be about an artificial timetable or just bringing the troops home ASAP. You commit to troops to a task because you think it's important enough that it has to be completed. You don't send American forces to a country and then announce they have X number of months to fight before it's time to leave. Casualties matter and success matters. The problem is that the task has become more about artificially making a government work, instead of decreasing the influence of Al Queda.
/dev/null Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Yeah. Obama Change = Retreat and surrender. Obama's using a variation of the Underpants Gnomes strategy Phase I: Hope Phase II: Phase III: Change
Adam Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Yeah. Obama Change = Retreat and surrender. Surrender to who? We aren't fighting a war anymore. It is Bush's war against air
Chef Jim Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Surrender to who? We aren't fighting a war anymore. It is Bush's war against air Yeah, air. It was AIRplanes that hit the towers. What a !@#$head.
Adam Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Yeah, air. It was AIRplanes that hit the towers. What a !@#$head. OK, lets just say that Saddam was tied in with Al Queda. Saddam is dead. Lets finish up in Iraq and get back to Al Queda. And don't EVER question my recollection of 9/11. That was more real for me than you can imagine !@#$head. If the next President actually makes an effort to get Bin Laden, he should be brought to justice.
erynthered Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 OK, lets just say that Saddam was tied in with Al Queda. Saddam is dead. Lets finish up in Iraq and get back to Al Queda. And don't EVER question my recollection of 9/11. That was more real for me than you can imagine !@#$head. If the next President actually makes an effort to get Bin Laden, he should be brought to justice. Dude. Al Queda IS in Iraq.
Adam Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Dude. Al Queda IS in Iraq. Oh, is that where they are- so once we're done in Iraq, all of Al Queda will be gone and the world will be all candy bars and marshmallows. I say we take a peak south of there and see if we can find some
erynthered Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Oh, is that where they are- so once we're done in Iraq, all of Al Queda will be gone and the world will be all candy bars and marshmallows. You've amazed me with your brilliance. Thanks for that.
Adam Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 You've amazed me with your brilliance. Thanks for that. I thought it was fairly creative for being shortly after lunch
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Guardians of peace??? !@#$ no. Guardians of oil. ya but... The bottom line is that if there's peace, there's no reason to have American soldiers guard oil, so it gets back to us attempting to play peacemaker in a region where it's proven never to last.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 OK, lets just say that Saddam was tied in with Al Queda. Saddam is dead. Lets finish up in Iraq and get back to Al Queda. wrong, Saddam was never tied to AQ except when the neocons wanted justification after 9/11 to invade Iraq and AQ was never in Iraq until we invaded them.
Adam Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 wrong, Saddam was never tied to AQ except when the neocons wanted justification after 9/11 to invade Iraq and AQ was never in Iraq until we invaded them. I was playing devils' advocate. Chances are there was always some Al Queda presence.......they are all over.
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 I was playing devils' advocate. Chances are there was always some Al Queda presence.......they are all over. If there was, it was probably tenuous at best. Secular Ba'athist regimes and fundamentalist Islamic popular movements don't really mix well together. Which is not to say they're not there now. They probably are, and in force. Just like the Iranians. Because when you declare war on the US (even if the US doesn't notice), and the US dangles a large, exposed military force right in front of you...you attack it. Particularly if you're an asymmetrical force and are patient enough to inflict "Death By Ten Thousand Paper Cuts" on it.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Really nothing to add constructively to this rap, but two redundant cents are Iraq was a neocon ill conceived, ill executed, and other than the initial take over, war that was unnecessary, and that has wasted over 5 years on the priority of going after Bin Laden in Afganistan and Pakistan the real perpetrators of 911. Enough about Iraq, get out and put the troops in Afganistan, devide it in three, put up a fence wall whatever and let what will inevitably happen with Syrian, Turkey and Iranian influence take its course. This is a lost cause. The troops are fighting centuries of history and McCain is right in the sense that otherwise we will need to be there for hundreds of years at unsustainable expense to our economy and treasury.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 Oh my god that is absolutely ridiculous. The talking point is how it's time to leave, not stay there for 100 years. Or in McCain land, win. Winning is all that matters. Not one democrat is humiliating the military. I think it's a shame that you even believe that. Someone get pBills a fire extinguisher. I think his hair's on fire. LEAVING IRAQ IS SURRENDERING.
Recommended Posts