For scribo:

[Kelly the Dog]

Prevent a another 3000 loss , that could be a huge understatement. You have a better solution other than bending over and grabbing our ankles?

Yeah, I do, and did, going after the guys that killed the 3000 and keep the 4000 home and safe, furiously preparing for trouble like they have been for 240 years.

[Boomer860]

Yeah, I do, and did, going after the guys that killed the 3000 and keep the 4000 home and safe, furiously preparing for trouble like they have been for 240 years.

So then you would just ignore the fact that UN inspectors were not allowed in to see if in fact there were weapons. ,17 times?

[Kelly the Dog]

So then you would just ignore the fact that UN inspectors were not allowed in to see if in fact there were weapons. ,17 times?

We shouldn't have to go through all the reasons that the war was stupid again. It's been argued a million times, everywhere. There were multitudes of people here, and in the government, and across the world that were quite confident if not certain that Saddam could be contained, and wasn't a direct imminent threat to the United States. There is no question whatsoever this was a war of choice and not necessity.

[RI Bills Fan]

So then you would just ignore the fact that UN inspectors were not allowed in to see if in fact there were weapons. ,17 times?

 

Keep spewing the revisionist history...

 

Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out before the invasion. Google the name Scott Ritter. He was one of the chief inspectors. He tried to tell us that there were no WMDs but was quickly branded a traitor and Saddam Apologist by the Neocon Smear machine and the supposedly liberal media.

[scribo]

Who were never there until we arrived.

You are arguing a point that is no longer relevant to the discussion started at the beginning of this thread. The fact is we are there now, as is al Qaeda, no matter why. Whether we and the terrorists were there six years ago or not doesn't mean a damn thing to our present-day national security.

 

If we pull out of Iraq before Iraqi forces and government are ready to maintain security and independence from terrorists and Iran, we will be in much worse shape security-wise than we were 9/12/01. More than 4,000 U.S. heroes have given their lives combating those terrorists in Iraq, and their sacrifices will be wasted if we pull out now. And we will have to go back eventually, starting all over again.

 

I am not against withdrawing in 2011 if Iraq is ready, but I do not want our forces to leave until the war is won.

[scribo]

I want to add one thing here, even though I understand it does my argument no good...

 

I've stood in the mass graves in Iraq as women wailed next to me because in there they found their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers who had been missing for months or even years. I helped clear the jail cells that were obviously built and used as torture chambers. I have become friends with Iraqi families who suffered unspeakable atrocities at the hands of Saddam's regime. Regardless of why we were told we were going into Iraq, the millions of Iraqis who were liberated from Saddam needed help. I am very proud that our country extended that hand.

 

I also walked through the streets of Kuwait City, seeing the scars of Saddam's ruthlessness, meeting those who lost loved one when Iraq invaded. I have no doubt the Saddam-led Iraq was a major threat to that entire region and much of the United States' interests there.

 

But, alas, it is barely worth arguing anymore whether invading Iraq five years ago was just. All that matters now is that we leave the country a better place than how we found it. As long as we properly prepare the Iraqis to keep their country from being taken over by al-Qaeda, we will have done well.

[scribo]

A friend of mine with Vets4Victory just returned from Iraq with Brian Bennett from TIME. Brain just posted this great piece, which I think will force Obama to make some kind of statement on his intent in Iraq in the next few weeks:

 

Will Obama Have to Adjust His Timetable on Iraq?

 

Senior U.S. military officials will likely advise Barack Obama to adjust his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010.

 

Now that Obama has the mantle of leadership, reality may hit him square in the head. If he decides to side with senior U.S. military leaders and Iraqi officials, the rally I'm working on may have less traction. Of course, if he decides to go against them, then I think a rally might have some real momentum.

[RkFast]

I want to add one things here, even though I understand it does my argument no good...

 

I've stood in the mass graves in Iraq as women wailed next to me because in there they found their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers who had been missing for months or even years. I helped clear the jail cells that were obviously built and used as torture chambers. I have become friends with Iraqi families who suffered unspeakable atrocities at the hands of Saddam's regime. Regardless of why we were told we were going into Iraq, the millions of Iraqis who were liberated from Saddam needed help. I am very proud that our country extended that hand.

 

I also walked through the streets of Kuwait City, seeing the scars of Saddam's ruthlessness, meeting those who lost loved one when Iraq invaded. I have no doubt the Saddam-led Iraq was a major threat to that entire region and much the United States' interests.

 

But, alas, it is barely worth arguing anymore whether invading Iraq five years ago was just. All that matters now is that we leave the country a better place than how we found it. As long as we properly prepare the Iraqis to keep their country from being taken over by al-Qaeda, we will have done well.

 

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

[Kelly the Dog]

A friend of mine with Vets4Victory just returned from Iraq with Brian Bennett from TIME. Brain just posted this great piece, which I think will force Obama to make some kind of statement on his intent in Iraq in the next few weeks:

 

Will Obama Have to Adjust His Timetable on Iraq?

 

 

 

Now that Obama has the mantle of leadership, reality may hit him square in the head. If he decides to side with senior U.S. military leaders and Iraqi officials, the rally I'm working on may have less traction. Of course, if he decides to go against them, then I think a rally might have some real momentum.

For anyone who bothered to listen to him, Obama has been saying the same thing for the entire campaign, as well as telling General Patreus in their meeting the same thing. He wants to end the war as quickly and as responsibly as he can. The goal is 16 months, but depends on what's happening on the ground at the time he gets into office (we still don't know that), he will listen to the generals and the Iraqis as he goes, and will be flexible.

[erynthered]

For anyone who bothered to listen to him, Obama has been saying the same thing for the entire campaign

 

 

 

 

 

[The Big Cat]

 

That video was completely retarded the FIRST time it was posted here. Do you honestly think it makes ANY point whatsoever?

[Boomer860]

That video was completely retarded the FIRST time it was posted here. Do you honestly think it makes ANY point whatsoever?

Well sure its retarded. Fall in line wth the rest of the sheep

[erynthered]

Well sure its retarded. Fall in line wth the rest of the sheep

 

 

Do you think it went over his head?

[scribo]

For anyone who bothered to listen to him, Obama has been saying the same thing for the entire campaign, as well as telling General Patreus in their meeting the same thing. He wants to end the war as quickly and as responsibly as he can. The goal is 16 months, but depends on what's happening on the ground at the time he gets into office (we still don't know that), he will listen to the generals and the Iraqis as he goes, and will be flexible.

 

Yes, I am sure Time magazine has it all wrong. They must be reading and watching something completely different than you.

 

Look, the fact is Obama has said from the start that he would start an immediate withdrawal if elected.

If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then the first thing I will do is call together the Joint Chiefs of Staff and initiate a phased redeployment.

What I can promise is that ... I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

 

He updated his stance very shortly after winning the nomination during that wild week of flipping on several issues. Then he said, "We can follow a policy that doesn’t change whether violence is up or violence is down, whether the Iraqi government takes responsibility or not; or we can decide that it’s time to begin a responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq."

 

Obama was trying to use moderate rhetoric to mask his Iraq policy.

 

I will be relieved and very supportive if Obama says in the coming weeks that he will keep the troops in Iraq until Iraq is legitimately capable of maintaining responsible security and sovereignty from terrorists and Iran. But until he says as much post-election, I have no real reason to believe he will do that.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yes, I am sure Time magazine has it all wrong. They must be reading and watching something completely different than you.

 

Look, the fact is Obama has said from the start that he would start an immediate withdrawal if elected.

 

 

 

He updated his stance very shortly after winning the nomination during that wild week of flipping on several issues. Then he said, "We can follow a policy that doesn’t change whether violence is up or violence is down, whether the Iraqi government takes responsibility or not; or we can decide that it’s time to begin a responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq."

 

Obama was trying to use moderate rhetoric to mask his Iraq policy.

 

I will be relieved and very supportive if Obama says in the coming weeks that he will keep the troops in Iraq until Iraq is legitimately capable of maintaining responsible security and sovereignty from terrorists and Iran. But until he says as much post-election, I have no real reason to believe he will do that.

Starting an immediate withdrawal was included in that. He has always said that, too. I probably should have included that in my list but I kind of thought it was implicit in the "he wants to end the war as quickly" and "the goal is 16 months" parts. He wants to take two brigades out immediately I think and put one or two new ones in Afghanistan.

[scribo]

Starting an immediate withdrawal was included in that. He has always said that, too. I probably should have included that in my list but I kind of thought it was implicit in the "he wants to end the war as quickly" and "the goal is 16 months" parts. He wants to take two brigades out immediately I think and put one or two new ones in Afghanistan.

Ah yes, a very good reason why I think a president should have served in the military before he can be allowed to command it. If an immediate withdrawal was what military commanders thought was appropirate now, that's what would be happening.

 

Why does he want to do that? Not because Gen. Patreus said that's what's needed. Was it because through his years of military experience, oh wait...cannot be that. It's because that's what the polls told him people wanted to hear. Because the war in Afghanistan is popular while the one in Iraq isn't.

 

Again, I will reserve full judgment until he speaks with the commanders on the ground and then talks about early term plans.

[The Big Cat]

Ah yes, a very good reason why I think a president should have served in the military before he can be allowed to command it. If an immediate withdrawal was what military commanders thought was appropirate now, that's what would be happening.

 

Why does he want to do that? Not because Gen. Patreus said that's what's needed. Was it because through his years of military experience, oh wait...cannot be that. It's because that's what the polls told him people wanted to hear. Because the war in Afghanistan is popular while the one in Iraq isn't.

 

Again, I will reserve full judgment until he speaks with the commanders on the ground and then talks about early term plans.

 

You've officially lost me.

[Kelly the Dog]

Ah yes, a very good reason why I think a president should have served in the military before he can be allowed to command it. If an immediate withdrawal was what military commanders thought was appropirate now, that's what would be happening.

 

Why does he want to do that? Not because Gen. Patreus said that's what's needed. Was it because through his years of military experience, oh wait...cannot be that. It's because that's what the polls told him people wanted to hear. Because the war in Afghanistan is popular while the one in Iraq isn't.

 

Again, I will reserve full judgment until he speaks with the commanders on the ground and then talks about early term plans.

Actually, I think it's because it's what he has believed and said all along, that he wants the Iraqis to know we mean business, and that they have to take more responsibility. You act like he hasn't had any discussions with foreign policy experts, numerous generals, Colin Powell, Patreus, etc, and just decided this willy-nilly. That's just ignorant, IMO. It may not be what a lot of people want but it is not just random plucking of troops. This is a very cautious, deliberate guy who does a lot of listening. He has been talking to Powell for a couple years. He has dozens of foreign policy advisors and dozens of retired military who have advised and supported him. Again, I am not saying this is the perfect way to go, I don't think anyone knows that. What I am saying is that it isn't coming from being naive or uninformed.

[scribo]

Actually, I think it's because it's what he has believed and said all along, that he wants the Iraqis to know we mean business, and that they have to take more responsibility. You act like he hasn't had any discussions with foreign policy experts, numerous generals, Colin Powell, Patreus, etc, and just decided this willy-nilly. That's just ignorant, IMO. It may not be what a lot of people want but it is not just random plucking of troops. This is a very cautious, deliberate guy who does a lot of listening. He has been talking to Powell for a couple years. He has dozens of foreign policy advisors and dozens of retired military who have advised and supported him. Again, I am not saying this is the perfect way to go, I don't think anyone knows that. What I am saying is that it isn't coming from being naive or uninformed.

As you said, this is what he has believed and said all along, before he spoke with Patreus, before he went to Iraq for the first time after starting his run. Colin Powell is not on the ground, has not been in "the loop" for some time now. I think this isn't so much a "willy-nilly" decision as it is a political one. One that he may very well add to the pile of campaign promises he won't be able to deliver on. Don't forget, the situation on the ground changes all the time. I think it is reckless to make such a promise so far out from when he is actually making the calls. As you said, this is what he has said all along.

 

I know this is disrespectful, but I believe he is more of a politician than he is a leader. The military doesn't need that type making troop movement decisions. He was catering to the surrender-now groups that are the subject of the original post in this thread. Now that he got their vote, he needs to start figuring out what is actually best of the security of our troops and our nation.

[scribo]

You've officially lost me.

How so? I am saying to be a good commander in chief, you need to understand what it is like to be in the military.

 

Keep in mind Obama will only be the second U.S. president to have not served at all in uniform. And yes, I know GWB barely served, but I am not saying he is a good CIC.