Combat in Iraq continues.

[iGas]

For the first time I passed on a Presidential election. Neither one deserved my vote, and more than that both parties have come to see themselves as more important than the nation, rendering democracy a sham.

I have to agree that democracy is merely a word, but not true in reality. The US political system and laws have flaws but don't forget that the US is a Republic. On the other hand we have Canada that praise its freedom and "democratic" society, but in fact Canada political system is far from being democratic. IMHO, as a Canadian, the US is more of a democratic society than Canada monarchy/semi democratic system (only democratic when it suite the people in power, other wise they do what they please, ignore the law and/or change it to suit their needs).

I knew before he was elected that he was pro-Iraq War, but he doesn't need to lie about it, he just needs to admit that he wanted combat to continue.

I saw his pro-Iraq War voting record before he was elected, and I always knew that he was a moderate on pulling out ("moderate" meaning he was really against a complete withdrawal). Once he had been in office for 6 month letting the war continue on, I knew it was going to continue throughout his Presidency.

He actually supports the occupation of Iraq more than many Republicans do, and that's really shitty.

I like to see a complete pull out of Iraq, and have Bush & Co. on trials for war crimes, however that not going to happen.

If the American is ready for another morale defeat and economic hardship then a complete pull out of Iraq immediately is in order. It has been far too long since (1975) the American was defeated by somebody.

 

[EagleKeeper]

<snip>
If the American is ready for another morale defeat and economic hardship then a complete pull out of Iraq immediately is in order. It has been far too long since (1975) the American was defeated by somebody.

You have two statements that do not make sense.

Why would a complete pullout from Iraq create economic hardship for America?

America was not defeated by anyone in '75.
If you are refering to Vietnam; we pulled out of there due to political issues; not military defeats. We were never in there to win a war; just to allow the South Viets to control their territory.

 

[ShawnD1]

You have two statements that do not make sense.

Why would a complete pullout from Iraq create economic hardship for America?

Because you only pay the troops when they are out there shooting stuff and blowing shit up. As soon as they come home, all 1 million of the standing military are immediately fired and they go on welfare and start having crack babies.

 

[BoberFett]

Because you only pay the troops when they are out there shooting stuff and blowing shit up. As soon as they come home, all 1 million of the standing military are immediately fired and they go on welfare and start having crack babies.

Pffffft. We all know rednecks do meth, not crack.

 

[LumbergTech]

Nor am I. We knew it would happen. Party Over Principle. The boss is the same and so are the employees.

people just like to bitch....there have always been and always will be these exact same complaints

its not like you have a better solution that is actually feasible

 

[Fern]

This thread needs some reality. heck, I'm not even a fan of Obama.

First, as regards Obama's "BS" and "combat in Iraq continues", read the article:

Arriving in the Jubail section of Fallujah, about 40 miles west of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi forces came under fire and Iraqi soldiers fired back, killing four people and wounding three, said the spokesman, Maj. Rob Phillips. Two other individuals began shooting at the soldiers and also were killed.

Pentagon officials don't think that U.S troops fired any shots during the raid. Residents reported seeing U.S. military helicopters supporting the operation

It's not entirely clear that the US soldiers were actually doing any of the fighting. It also sounds like they were fired upon first. You really got a problem with them being able to defend themselves and shoot back?

Neither do I have a problem with US soldiers accompanying Iraq soldiers if for logistics and other support purposes.

LOL
Man please
If Bush was still President we would still have 150K troops there.

Nope.

I see people forgetting that we were in Iraq under a UN resolution that expired. Our timetable for withdrawal is not necessarily of our choosing. The only way the UN would extend the resolution is if the Iraqi government requested it, they wouldn't and didn't.

-snip-

I expected more out of Obama, but he caved in due to public demand of a complete withdraw in an unattainable time frame. At, least he didn't pull a Johnson and pour more troops into Iraq. And, it is plausible that Obama is just as good as a lier as Nixon but he did pull majority of the troops out instead of ramping up the air campaign and bombs the shit out of Iraq and its neighbors.
-snip-

Iraq was in relatively good shape when handed over to Obama.

No, he couldn't "pour more troops into Iraq" - see above about expiring UN resolution.

No, he didn't cave in "due to public demand of a complete withdraw in an unattainable time frame" - again, see info about UN resolution. Additionally, he is just basically following the Bush timeline.

Fern

 

[EagleKeeper]

Because you only pay the troops when they are out there shooting stuff and blowing shit up. As soon as they come home, all 1 million of the standing military are immediately fired and they go on welfare and start having crack babies.

Some amount are guard troops.
At most you have 50K troops coming home; many will have skills that can be utilized as the economy recovers when their enlistment terms are up.

 

[woolfe9999]

Fern is essentially correct on all points. 1. Nothing going on in Iraq right now is any different than Obama said it would be. 2. The withdrawal timetable was set before Obama was in office so he deserves very little credit for it, nor does Bush.

The only difference between Bush and Obama on Iraq is that Obama didn't put us in there to begin with. That's about it.

- wolf

 

[ShawnD1]

Some amount are guard troops.
At most you have 50K troops coming home; many will have skills that can be utilized as the economy recovers when their enlistment terms are up.

shell shock
You stand corrected

 

[EagleKeeper]

We have pulled 100K troops out. How many of them are having a hard time adjusting?

There will always be some that have problems. The majority do not.

 

[ShawnD1]

We have pulled 100K troops out. How many of them are having a hard time adjusting?

There will always be some that have problems. The majority do not.

Nah, they are lazy good for nothing government employees. They'd never make it in the real world. We'll have a more effective fighting force if we privatized the military.

 

[sao123]

Some amount are guard troops.
At most you have 50K troops coming home; many will have skills that can be utilized as the economy recovers when their enlistment terms are up.

great, they can all come home to their jobs which have all been shipped overseas.

more skills = want more money = companies will find cheaper labor.
we need to create a shortage of labor in the market not flood it with more unemployed people.

 

[iGas]

You have two statements that do not make sense.

Why would a complete pullout from Iraq create economic hardship for America?

America was not defeated by anyone in '75.
If you are refering to Vietnam; we pulled out of there due to political issues; not military defeats. We were never in there to win a war; just to allow the South Viets to control their territory.

Semantic!

You can say what ever you wants, but every American that was around during the Vietnam "conflict" know that American lost because many lives was lost for nothing, the people also lost faith in its government as well as American economic robustness (hence, the search and work out sourcing to foreign countries).

There weren't welcome wagon waiting for the Vietnam vets, as the vets of WWI & WWII enjoyed, and to add insult to injury the Vietnam Vets didn't receive employment help or readjustment training for a civilian life.

My suspect is that the Iraq vets wouldn't be treated nearly as bad as Vietnam vets, but I'm sure that there will be resentments among the vets & civilians alike, as well as a sense of lost of hope/goals/self worth.

IMHO, people that are gung ho for wars are the ones that never has been in a war or are mad men.

 

[EagleKeeper]

great, they can all come home to their jobs which have all been shipped overseas.

more skills = want more money = companies will find cheaper labor.
we need to create a shortage of labor in the market not flood it with more unemployed people.

Such as what happened in '45.

It is the quality of leadership that makes the difference.
Both at that time and know, it was a Dem in the Whitehouse.
But different policies toward the country:'(

 

[EagleKeeper]

You have two statements that do not make sense.

Why would a complete pullout from Iraq create economic hardship for America?

America was not defeated by anyone in '75.
If you are refering to Vietnam; we pulled out of there due to political issues; not military defeats. We were never in there to win a war; just to allow the South Viets to control their territory.

Semantic!

You can say what ever you wants, but every American that was around during the Vietnam "conflict" know that American lost because many lives was lost for nothing, the people also lost faith in its government as well as American economic robustness (hence, the search and work out sourcing to foreign countries).

There weren't welcome wagon waiting for the Vietnam vets, as the vets of WWI & WWII enjoyed, and to add insult to injury the Vietnam Vets didn't receive employment help or readjustment training for a civilian life.

My suspect is that the Iraq vets wouldn't be treated nearly as bad as Vietnam vets, but I'm sure that there will be resentments among the vets & civilians alike, as well as a sense of lost of hope/goals/self worth.

IMHO, people that are gung ho for wars are the ones that never has been in a war or are mad men.

Then you need to determine/define what the word lost means.

The poitical battle was lost; the PR battle was lost; the conflict that required destroying the enemy when engaged was not lost.

It is because of the poitcal and public relations that the Vets from that era did not get the support. People wanted to look at the negative side and the government bought into that perception.