The Clinton Thread

[rdh007]

"They aren't magical truth-telling beings just because they work in the Bush administration."

You, sir, are treasonous. I'd report you, but...

Spoiler

Big Brother is watching you anyway.

 

[Tron5000]

Yeah, great idea. Let's just leave Iraq, allow al-Sadr to take control of the country (with the aid of Iran, who is currently speeding up its nuclear weapons program), let the amount of violence in the country grow exponentially amidst genocide, and all but invite bin Laden to regroup (with the al-Qaeda members currently operating in Iraq) to re-establish the head base of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Yep, sounds like a fantastic idea to me.

Everyone wants to talk about bringing our troops home, yet few discuss the horrific realities that would closely follow such a move. This isn't "redeployment," it's running for the hills and allowing Iraq to descend into total and utter chaos.

We have trained over 175,000 Iraqi military personnel and 375,000 Iraqi police. The time will come (and is nearing) when they will be able to police the country and fight the insurgents (read: Islamic terrorists) on their own. That time is not now, and if we leave them at this critical juncture, that time will be never.

I thought Democrats were all about helping those "less fortunate." Well, I think the citizens of Iraq fall into that category. But instead of assisting these people and helping them reach a point where they can run the country and fight their battles on their own, Democrats want us to just leave these people to the unspeakable hardships that will befall them with a US withdrawal. Which is it? Help the people of Iraq, or say, "You know, it's time we take off. Good luck with everything" ?

Maybe President Obama will just go talk to all the terrorists over there and the sky over Iraq and Iran will be filled with rainbows made of cuddly puppies.

 

[Marx]

Yeah, great idea. Let's just leave Iraq, allow al-Sadr to take control of the country (with the aid of Iran, who is currently speeding up its nuclear weapons program), let the amount of violence in the country grow exponentially amidst genocide, and all but invite bin Laden to regroup (with the al-Qaeda members currently operating in Iraq) to re-establish the head base of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Yep, sounds like a fantastic idea to me.

Everyone wants to talk about bringing our troops home, yet few discuss the horrific realities that would closely follow such a move. This isn't "redeployment," it's running for the hills and allowing Iraq to descend into total and utter chaos.

We have trained over 175,000 Iraqi military personnel and 375,000 Iraqi police. The time will come (and is nearing) when they will be able to police the country and fight the insurgents (read: Islamic terrorists) on their own. That time is not now, and if we leave them at this critical juncture, that time will be never.

I thought Democrats were all about helping those "less fortunate." Well, I think the citizens of Iraq fall into that category. But instead of assisting these people and helping them reach a point where they can run the country and fight their battles on their own, Democrats want us to just leave these people to the unspeakable hardships that will befall them with a US withdrawal. Which is it? Help the people of Iraq, or say, "You know, it's time we take off. Good luck with everything" ?

Maybe President Obama will just go talk to all the terrorists over there and the sky over Iraq and Iran will be filled with rainbows made of cuddly puppies.

When will that time come Tron? It's been five years now and our brave forces are still on the front lines. I do not believe that as long as our troops are there in the main role that the Iraqi's and their government and army will ever step up. Why should they when we are still there in the main role doing it for them? You know? We should be in supporting roles at this point, not the main roles.

 

[Tron5000]

When will that time come Tron? It's been five years now and our brave forces are still on the front lines. I do not believe that as long as our troops are there in the main role that the Iraqi's and their government and army will ever step up. Why should they when we are still there in the main role doing it for them? You know? We should be in supporting roles at this point, not the main roles.

And we are reaching that point. Think about how long it takes to build a nation from the ground up. It took longer than 5 years after its birth for the US to establish a national infrastructure, and I'd say our country turned out OK.

No one can say for sure when the time will come when Iraq is a fully self-sustaining nation. You say "we should be in supporting roles," and we are getting to that point, as evidenced by the fact that Maliki ordered the strikes against al-Sadr, and the Iraqi military ran point on that mission with US troops acting in a supporting role. Maliki (and the Iraqi military) won that round, and al-Sadr declared a ceasefire. The Iraqi government and military called the shots there, not us. And they won.

The numbers of trained Iraqi military and police forces are rapidly growing. From nothing 5 years ago, these forces now number over 550,000. We are bringing home 20,000 of our troops this summer, and that is a pretty good sign that we are winning the war. As the Iraqis increasingly make strides toward self-governance and self-defense, more and more of our troops will come home.

If we leave now, we allow Iraq to descend into chaos and dishonor the memories of those in the US military who fought and died to bring freedom to the Iraqis. There are 2 outcomes in war: you win or you lose. We can either choose to stay and win (and help the Iraqis win), or we leave and admit defeat (for ourselves and for the Iraqis). I'm none too fond of the second option.

 

[The Senator]

Yeah, great idea. Let's just leave Iraq, allow al-Sadr to take control of the country (with the aid of Iran, who is currently speeding up its nuclear weapons program), let the amount of violence in the country grow exponentially amidst genocide, and all but invite bin Laden to regroup (with the al-Qaeda members currently operating in Iraq) to re-establish the head base of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Yep, sounds like a fantastic idea to me.

We had a chance to do this mission correctly at the very beginning. Instead, we spent three and a half years screwing around. The surge should have been implemented at the beginning of this war, instead of four years later.

We screwed up, and we screwed any chance of victory in the process.

Everyone wants to talk about bringing our troops home, yet few discuss the horrific realities that would closely follow such a move. This isn't "redeployment," it's running for the hills and allowing Iraq to descend into total and utter chaos.

Then let it be. Had we not entered Iraq, this pending civil war would have happened anyway. We serve as a barrier between three sides of this conflict. How long should we remain there? Ten years? Twenty? How about one hundred, like Walnuts McCain thinks? Meanwhile our soldiers are being murdered every single day by people we aren't sure are our friends or allies.

If we stay, we're screwed. There's no foreseeable path to victory, and we're just a mobile barrier waiting to break amid sectarian bloodshed. If we leave, we're screwed. Many of our soldiers will die as the numbers thin out, and the Iraqi people will be left to suffer in the process. The Iraqis should take control of their own government and police actions, which brings me to your next point...

We have trained over 175,000 Iraqi military personnel and 375,000 Iraqi police. The time will come (and is nearing) when they will be able to police the country and fight the insurgents (read: Islamic terrorists) on their own. That time is not now, and if we leave them at this critical juncture, that time will be never.

...Aren't those numbers comparable to the amount of troops we have in Iraq now? Why is it so hard to train these forces? Afterall, we don't train many of our troops when we send them into combat, considering many of them are national guardsmen. Bush and friends say that the troops are adequately prepared even though many of them are basically thrown into the desert, so why don't we just do the same to the Iraqis?

But in all seriousness... the numbers you mentioned are comparable to the amount of troops we have deployed in Iraq. Over 133,000 troops were stationed in Iraq last year. We should be training the Iraqis with all of our resources, then leave their country to them. It is their country, not ours, and their responsibility to sort out their own problems.

I thought Democrats were all about helping those "less fortunate." Well, I think the citizens of Iraq fall into that category. But instead of assisting these people and helping them reach a point where they can run the country and fight their battles on their own, Democrats want us to just leave these people to the unspeakable hardships that will befall them with a US withdrawal. Which is it? Help the people of Iraq, or say, "You know, it's time we take off. Good luck with everything" ?

I certainly support helping those who are less fortunate... in our own country. We've spent over $500 billion on this war, taking money from an oh-so-plentiful pit of nothingness (aka a deficit), when that money could have been put towards some sort of health care reform, maintaining social security, infrastructure repairs, or it simply could have been used to pay off our mounting debts to other nations such as China. The amount we've spent on this war has sucked us dry financially, and will ruin our children's financial certainty as they pay back our debts long after they themselves retire.

I support fixing social security, reforming health care, reforming welfare, repairing our infrastructure and paying back our debts more than going into a country for fictitious reasons so we can play "international policeman."

Maybe President Obama will just go talk to all the terrorists over there and the sky over Iraq and Iran will be filled with rainbows made of cuddly puppies.

And maybe Walnuts McCain will single-handedly steer us into victory on horseback, and all the Sunnis and Shia and Kurds will shake hands and dance to Abba on an electric glass dancefloor created after the nuclear annihilation of Iran and the installation of Democracy and American flags in every single country around the world!!! Yay!! Hooray for Democracy in the name of blood and treasure.

 

[Tron5000]

"Walnuts McCain" advocates a peacetime presence, which could last for 100 years.

We have soldiers in Germany, Korea, Japan...nearly everywhere in the world where we have waged battle. No one talks about bringing those troops home. 'Cause they're not getting shot at, which is exactly the same situation McCain envisions for Iraq.

And why resort to calling the man "Walnuts"? Didn't you get upset when someone referred to Obama by his given middle name?

If you say there is "no foreseeable path to victory," does that mean that you do not have confidence in our military to win this war? You think Iraq is doomed no matter what we do, so f*** it? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this defeatist mentality.

We ARE training the Iraqis. As I previously noted, the Iraqi military has begun running operations in Iraq, with assistance from our military. The goal is to see this increase, to the point where Iraq is strong enough to handle the terrorists on its own.

No sense responding to your last paragraph. You think those who envision a free and peaceful Iraq are living in a fantasy world. You would rather leave that nation, for whose freedom thousands of our countrymen have fought and died, to descend into chaos than to continue the fight.

What happens then? Iran and al-Qaeda assert their influence, turn Iraq into a terrorist state, and then where are we? Worse off than we are today.

But that's fine. Let's just let them deal with it. It won't impact us in the least. We'll just go about our merry lives while millions die in a genocidal war and Iran and Iraq are controlled by extremists with nuclear weapons.

Gotcha.

 

[Marx]

"Walnuts McCain" advocates a peacetime presence, which could last for 100 years.

We have soldiers in Germany, Korea, Japan...nearly everywhere in the world where we have waged battle. No one talks about bringing those troops home. 'Cause they're not getting shot at, which is exactly the same situation McCain envisions for Iraq.

And why resort to calling the man "Walnuts"? Didn't you get upset when someone referred to Obama by his given middle name?

If you say there is "no foreseeable path to victory," does that mean that you do not have confidence in our military to win this war? You think Iraq is doomed no matter what we do, so f*** it? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this defeatist mentality.

We ARE training the Iraqis. As I previously noted, the Iraqi military has begun running operations in Iraq, with assistance from our military. The goal is to see this increase, to the point where Iraq is strong enough to handle the terrorists on its own.

No sense responding to your last paragraph. You think those who envision a free and peaceful Iraq are living in a fantasy world. You would rather leave that nation, for whose freedom thousands of our countrymen have fought and died, to descend into chaos than to continue the fight.

What happens then? Iran and al-Qaeda assert their influence, turn Iraq into a terrorist state, and then where are we? Worse off than we are today.

But that's fine. Let's just let them deal with it. It won't impact us in the least. We'll just go about our merry lives while millions die in a genocidal war and Iran and Iraq are controlled by extremists with nuclear weapons.

Gotcha.

That's not a fair statement Tron. I don't believe that there is anyone on these boards OR in this country that does not firmly support or have confidence in our troops and their abilities. The question lies in the flawed mission, not in the capability of our brave armed forces.

 

[Tron5000]

That's not a fair statement Tron. I don't believe that there is anyone on these boards OR in this country that does not firmly support or have confidence in our troops and their abilities. The question lies in the flawed mission, not in the capability of our brave armed forces.

Well, the mission is certainly making progress. Coalition and civilian casualties are down drastically, al-Qaeda in Iraq is on the run, people are able to walk the streets in cities that were uninhabitable only months ago, Maliki's government ordered the Iraqi military operation which resulted in al-Sadr calling for a ceasefire, troops are about to begin coming home...This is called progress.

Now, I grant you that the approach to the war was greatly flawed for the first 4 years. But then General Petraeus took charge, made changes in strategy, suggested the surge, and it has all worked. We are moving toward victory, as the very evidence on the ground affirms.

So if we are making progress and moving toward victory, how can it then be said that there is "no foreseeable path to victory"? Do you not believe that our military can win this war?

 

[Marx]

Well, the mission is certainly making progress. Coalition and civilian casualties are down drastically, al-Qaeda in Iraq is on the run, people are able to walk the streets in cities that were uninhabitable only months ago, Maliki's government ordered the Iraqi military operation which resulted in al-Sadr calling for a ceasefire, troops are about to begin coming home...This is called progress.

Now, I grant you that the approach to the war was greatly flawed for the first 4 years. But then General Petraeus took charge, made changes in strategy, suggested the surge, and it has all worked. We are moving toward victory, as the very evidence on the ground affirms.

So if we are making progress and moving toward victory, how can it then be said that there is "no foreseeable path to victory"? Do you not believe that our military can win this war?

Progress and success are a point of view Tron. There have been reductions in violence, I will give you that much. But you have to admit that the bar for success has been set so low, that anything is welcomed. Our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war that has been brewing for quite some time. We may be able to further push some form of stability in Iraq, but I believe that it will be fragile at best. I think Iraq is destined to break in three sections among sectarial lines. That being said, I don't think that there is any real sense of "victory" in the traditional form being possible.

 

[The Senator]

And why resort to calling the man "Walnuts"? Didn't you get upset when someone referred to Obama by his given middle name?

I refer to him as "Walnuts" because a) he talks like he's a squirrel with his cheeks filled with walnuts, and b) there was some poorly-made YouTube video circulating a while back, where someone playing John McCain introduced himself as "walnuts"

I also didn't get upset when someone referred to Obama by his middle name. In face, I started a debate on Obama's middle name in which I said "I think its silly how everyone gets upset whenever some refers to Obama as 'Barack Hussein Obama'"...

If you say there is "no foreseeable path to victory," does that mean that you do not have confidence in our military to win this war? You think Iraq is doomed no matter what we do, so f*** it? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this defeatist mentality.

I do not have confidence in our military because their commander-in-chief has been steering them away from a path to victory from the very beginning of this war.

Iraq could have been successful, if we employed the surge at the very beginning rather than relying on Rumsfeld's 'brilliant' "shock and awe" strategy which basically had us walking around in a circle for three and a half years.

We ARE training the Iraqis. As I previously noted, the Iraqi military has begun running operations in Iraq, with assistance from our military. The goal is to see this increase, to the point where Iraq is strong enough to handle the terrorists on its own.

Again, if we went to Iraq with the same amount of troops as there are trained Iraqi security officers, then why don't we give them the same level of training many of our soldiers received? Give them six months of training, then say "see ya; you're on your own."

The Iraqi government has had four years to straighten itself out. Wasn't our mission to overthrow Hussein and start a free government, anyway? Didn't we install a new Government in 2003 and 2004? They should have inherited this conflict the moment they became a sovereign government.

No sense responding to your last paragraph. You think those who envision a free and peaceful Iraq are living in a fantasy world. You would rather leave that nation, for whose freedom thousands of our countrymen have fought and died, to descend into chaos than to continue the fight.

They are living in a fantasy world, though. How are you going to end the sectarian violence which has existed for thousands of years? Is Bush's strategy to hand out Bibles and force everyone to convert to Christianity? Because until these three sects resolve their conflict, there will always be strife in Iraq.

These folks aren't going to stop executing their 'enemies' because the United States came and said "ok guys, please play nice or we'll bomb ya." The United States is a retaining wall which is about to break. This pending civil war will never be stopped.

What happens then? Iran and al-Qaeda assert their influence, turn Iraq into a terrorist state, and then where are we? Worse off than we are today.

So what if Iraq joins forces with Iran? Both nations should be able to form alliances with whoever they want, whenever they want. They're independent, sovereign bodies which don't need the United States to act like a babysitter for them.

Iraq has never been allied with al-Qaeda, and the presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq has been minimal at best. We only hear about a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda because Bush thinks the more he repeats it, the better chance it'll become true.

You know where we'll be if we stay? In the middle of a civil war. You know where we'll be if we leave? In the middle of a civil war. We're just as likely to establish permanent peace in Iraq now than we would be if we left and all hell broke loose.

But that's fine. Let's just let them deal with it. It won't impact us in the least. We'll just go about our merry lives while millions die in a genocidal war and Iran and Iraq are controlled by extremists with nuclear weapons.

Bush should have thought about the consequences of his actions before he decided to take us to war with Iraq. He also should have realized that by focusing solely on Iraq, we would hurt the job we're doing in Afghanistan. And we are starting to lose there, too, since the Taliban is coming back to power, since Osama bin Laden hasn't been captured and the United States is in as much danger now than it was after 9/11. He should have known that be focusing on a war cast for fictitious purposes, he would be taking his eye off of real threats in other countries around the world. He should have known this. But instead he employed his oh-so-successful cowboy diplomacy, ruining the chances we had in Iraq while harming our mission in Afghanistan.

 

[Tron5000]

I refer to him as "Walnuts" because a) he talks like he's a squirrel with his cheeks filled with walnuts, and b) there was some poorly-made YouTube video circulating a while back, where someone playing John McCain introduced himself as "walnuts"

I also didn't get upset when someone referred to Obama by his middle name. In face, I started a debate on Obama's middle name in which I said "I think its silly how everyone gets upset whenever some refers to Obama as 'Barack Hussein Obama'"...

If you say there is "no foreseeable path to victory," does that mean that you do not have confidence in our military to win this war? You think Iraq is doomed no matter what we do, so f*** it? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this defeatist mentality.

Bush should have thought about the consequences of his actions before he decided to take us to war with Iraq. He also should have realized that by focusing solely on Iraq, we would hurt the job we're doing in Afghanistan. And we are starting to lose there, too, since the Taliban is coming back to power, since Osama bin Laden hasn't been captured and the United States is in as much danger now than it was after 9/11. He should have known that be focusing on a war cast for fictitious purposes, he would be taking his eye off of real threats in other countries around the world. He should have known this. But instead he employed his oh-so-successful cowboy diplomacy, ruining the chances we had in Iraq while harming our mission in Afghanistan.

I'm not talking about the reasons that we went to war. That's not at issue here. The fact of the matter is that we are engaged in a war, and we are winning it. So contrary to the evidence coming from the battlefield, do you still believe that our military will not win this war?

Iraq and Afghanistan are 2 different fronts in the same war. We are not losing in Afghanistan. You are correct that we have yet to find bin Laden, but find him we will. And hopefully, he'll be hanged by his countrymen just as Saddam was.

Iraq is the central front in this current war. If we abandon it, we invite chaos into a region that we are attempting to stabilize. We leave Israel all alone to deal with an Iran that wants to eradicate Jews and an Iraq that will be under the control of Iran and bin Laden, who want nothing more than to harm America and its allies.

 

[Marx]

Edit

 

[Tron5000]

The Taliban are the strongest that thay have been since before 9/11 and are only gaining in strength. There is no winning or losing. The traditional war has gone out the window. You cannot eliminate an ideology.

Yet they seek to eliminate us. How do you propose we deal with that?

Make no mistake about it: This is the War Against Islamic Fascism. They will not stop until the world is ruled by Islamic Law, and they will kill anyone who will not allow this to happen. How should we deal with this threat?

 

[Marx]

Yet they seek to eliminate us. How do you propose we deal with that?

Make no mistake about it: This is the War Against Islamic Fascism. They will not stop until the world is ruled by Islamic Law, and they will kill anyone who will not allow this to happen. How should we deal with this threat?

That's a good question. One that I do not have an answer to. All I am saying is that you cannot eliminate an ideology. It just won't work, which is why "victory" isn't possible.

 

[The Senator]

You are correct that we have yet to find bin Laden, but find him we will. And hopefully, he'll be hanged by his countrymen just as Saddam was.
.

Sigh... just because Bush said it, doesn't mean its true...

 

[Tron5000]

Sigh... just because Bush said it, doesn't mean its true...

Thanks for discounting my personal beliefs and my cognitive thinking abilities by assuming that my beliefs are rooted in what another man says. Apparently you think I am not a human being who can think for himself. Thanks for that.

 

[comicgirl]

Former president Bill Clinton's campaign rally this morning at the junior high gym in Corydon, Indiana was a wealth of Hillary Clinton surrogates, among them many who had their own thoughts about Sen. Barack Obama's recent comments about small town voters....

Over seven stops in North Carolina, Clinton said "Everywhere I go there are all these people with signs, saying I'm not bitter - I'm not bitter."

During Clinton's seven stops in North Carolina on Saturday there were no "I'm not bitter" signs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/bill-clinton-claims-to-se_n_96643.html


Good ole Bill, the congenital liar.

 

[blackcobra]

Billary can't win on attacking his policies, just his character, and bittergate is the latest in her desperate attempt to subvert the popular vote.

 

[The Senator]

So? Many voters are still offended by Obama's remarks, regardless of whether these signs exist...

 

[C.F. Kane]

Billary needs a hug. And then go back into retirement.

 

[souvlaki]

So? Many voters are still offended by Obama's remarks, regardless of whether these signs exist...

I don't know if that is the case. If the polls taken the last couple of days are any indication, the only people upset over this are pundits on CNN, and people that disliked Obama in the first place. I think they are overplaying their hand on this one. Between Hillary getting jeered yesterday, and then this getting brought up, if they don't play it right this will blow up in their faces.

 

[The Senator]

I don't know if that is the case. If the polls taken the last couple of days are any indication, the only people upset over this are pundits on CNN, and people that disliked Obama in the first place. I think they are overplaying their hand on this one. Between Hillary getting jeered yesterday, and then this getting brought up, if they don't play it right this will blow up in their faces.

It doesn't really matter how Obama does in the primary. I'm completely beyond that at this point, and am approaching this as if he is the nominee. Even if Obama survives the primary and makes it through the convention, he will deal with considerable backlash from independent and Republican voters who have been on the fence in crucial states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, where voters certainly enjoy their guns and religion, and also feel illegal immigration is a serious problem which isn't only confined to "bitterness" and "voter antipathy." The Democratic Primary does not reflect how this will play out in the general election.

 

[comicgirl]

I live in PA; home of the former Bethlehem Steel, Steelton Metalworks(right down the road), etc....Obama is right, folks here are angry, frustrated and bitter. That tends to happen when your job (and sometimes your retirement plan)is gone.

 

[Matt]

I live in PA; home of the former Bethlehem Steel, Steelton Metalworks(right down the road), etc....Obama is right, folks here angry, frustrated and bitter. That tends to happen when your job (and sometimes your retirement plan)is gone.

Would you agree that said 'bitterness' has turned everyone into racist, gun-totting, zealots?

 

[The Senator]

I live in PA; home of the former Bethlehem Steel, Steelton Metalworks(right down the road), etc....Obama is right, folks here are angry, frustrated and bitter. That tends to happen when your job (and sometimes your retirement plan)is gone.

It doesn't matter what you or other die-hard Obama supporters think. It matters what the independents and Republicans in many swing states think. They aren't going to buy the whole "I misspoke" line he gave the other day, and they certainly aren't going to let him brush it under the rug. These are the folks who Obama has been counting on-- independents and moderate Republicans (the Obamacans as he so arrogantly calls them) who helped give him a boost in the primary. And they don't take kindly to being insulted en masse.