• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hillary would leave troops in Iraq if elected.

Boy, your posts are just real, real bad. You do realize she isn't proposing leaving but a small contingent of troops in Iraq, a fraction of the amount there now, right? Which is standard U.S. war practice going on 200+ years now.

But let's be real here; at least she isn't killing 3,200 soldiers as this administration has done. Anyone is an improvement at this point.
 
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Boy, your posts are just real, real bad. You do realize she isn't proposing leaving but a small contingent of troops in Iraq, a fraction of the amount there now, right? Which is standard U.S. war practice going on 200+ years now.

But let's be real here; at least she isn't killing 3,200 soldiers as this administration has done. Anyone is an improvement at this point.
Click to expand...

Oh? She didnt vote for the authorization to use force? How about all of those spending bills that leave the troops in Iraq?

Blood is on her hands.
 
She's painted herself in a corner and is in an impossible position.

She is afraid to say that her original vote was a mistake for fear of appearing weak being a flip-flopper and going hardcore for withdrawal leaves her exposed to 'cut and run' or whatever the current bs label is.

Personally she should say what she really believes, which I know is probably impossible. But Hillary is the candidate most open to losing the election due to her handlers.

 
Even though I opposed the Iraq war as something the US never should have started, once we invaded, the USA has a responsibility
under international law to Iraq. If the USA abruptly pulls out tomorrow, its almost certain to ignite a full blown Iraqi civil war that will spill over Iraqi borders and also very likely ignite a wider mid-east war.

I therefore make three conclusions.

(1) We are in Iraq---the die is cast---no good to cry over spilled milk. Deal with it.

(2) GWB&co. are bumblers of an unprecedented magnitude. And have no constructive ideas on how to conduct this war. And worse yet, are largely ignoring both the international co-operation we need and also ignoring the fact that the democrats won the 11/06 elections---and by extension---the democrats have EARNED a share in planning the conduct of the Iraqi war.

(3) Because GWB&co. blissfully ignores the conditions set forth in point two, a national debate now swirls around about what to do about Iraq. With all possible options---responsible or not---on the table. When and if GWB&co. bows to political reality and includes congress, there is some hope of a bi-partisan responsible plan emerging. And GWB&co. is the roadblock on what is needed---and that is national unity.
 
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Boy, your posts are just real, real bad. You do realize she isn't proposing leaving but a small contingent of troops in Iraq, a fraction of the amount there now, right? Which is standard U.S. war practice going on 200+ years now.

But let's be real here; at least she isn't killing 3,200 soldiers as this administration has done. Anyone is an improvement at this point.
Click to expand...

Wait, didn't she vote for the war?

 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even though I opposed the Iraq war as something the US never should have started, once we invaded, the USA has a responsibility
under international law to Iraq. If the USA abruptly pulls out tomorrow, its almost certain to ignite a full blown Iraqi civil war that will spill over Iraqi borders and also very likely ignite a wider mid-east war.

I therefore make three conclusions.

(1) We are in Iraq---the die is cast---no good to cry over spilled milk. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Yet people have been telling us here at P&N that our troops are the problem and removing them fixes the problem.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even though I opposed the Iraq war as something the US never should have started, once we invaded, the USA has a responsibility
under international law to Iraq. If the USA abruptly pulls out tomorrow, its almost certain to ignite a full blown Iraqi civil war that will spill over Iraqi borders and also very likely ignite a wider mid-east war.

I therefore make three conclusions.

(1) We are in Iraq---the die is cast---no good to cry over spilled milk. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Yet people have been telling us here at P&N that our troops are the problem and removing them fixes the problem.
Click to expand...
They aren't the problem, the Iraqis are the problem.
 
When Congress voted "for the war" they weren't really voting for war, rather they were transferring their war powers and the decision to invade or not invade Iraq to Bush. Rest assured, the person ultimately responsible for invading Iraq and occupying it for four long years is Bush's and Bush's alone as commander in chief. Should Congress have given Bush a blank check? No way. I bet they'll never do it again, but still let's keep the blame squarely where it belongs. Moving forward, there are no good solutions for the SNAFU that is Iraq. Just like post-war Germany, Japan we'll be there in some capacity for a long, long time. We didn't build a dozen permanent bases in Iraq for nothing.
 
Given the following quotes

Yet people have been telling us here at P&N that our troops are the problem and removing them fixes the problem.


They aren't the problem, the Iraqis are the problem.

Given those quotes---we can conclude that we have the problem surrounded but not in any way contained. And like any other segment of society, there is no consensus on Anand tech either. But there is a certain wisdom in those two quotes----the way our troops are deployed is a problem----especially when GWB&co. has a flawed view of what they are fighting--which is not international terrorism---and GWB is trying to sell something the Iraqi people are not buying.---and if the shoe does not fit the foot, the existing plan is doomed.----GWB may have set up a puppet government in the green zone---but that puppet government does not speak for or impact the average Iraqi on the street.

But if we accept those quotes as somewhat valid---then what implications does it have in formulating a better plan? Or do Anand tech forum trolls just want to cry over spilled milk by dredging up endless quotes that are by no means a universal viewpoint.?
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Boy, your posts are just real, real bad. You do realize she isn't proposing leaving but a small contingent of troops in Iraq, a fraction of the amount there now, right? Which is standard U.S. war practice going on 200+ years now.

But let's be real here; at least she isn't killing 3,200 soldiers as this administration has done. Anyone is an improvement at this point.
Click to expand...

Oh? She didnt vote for the authorization to use force? How about all of those spending bills that leave the troops in Iraq?

Blood is on her hands.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at deflection, but you still lose. Clinton made a mistake voting for the war, sure. Thing is she's been making up for the mistake for a long time now by asking for intelligent withdrawal out of this disaster. What's the Bush administration asked for? Eh, ratcheting up the troop levels, killing more soldiers and burning more cash. Despite the fact we've been told that they believed we were in the "last throes" of the insurgency, that there was "no doubt" there were WMDs, etc. What else could they possibly be wrong about? But I guess it's hard to blame anyone at all for voting for a war the administration literally cooked the intel on and sent Libby to jail for.
 
To ntdz,

Before we all totally distort the Hillary plan we must realize three things. (1) Leaving a small force in Iraq may well be enough to prevent a total Iraqi collapse into anarchy. (2) That the Hillary plan must be considered as only one of many options. (3) The Republican plan advanced by GWB&co. has a four year track record of proven failure.

But your other contention says it all---Can we make up our minds.----short answer, no. So other plans must be put on the table---what kind of a nut would stay the course with a proven GWB&co. proven track record of failure?------and your only answer seems to be knocking down all other options leaving GWB&co. winning by default?---the position of someone bereft
of alternative ideas.
 
Hillary has no plan....and doesnt deserve to be president...she doesnt represent the average american in any way whatsoever..
 
Sounds like Hillary has a good plan. Reduced forces that will target the real threat of Al Qaeda instead of wasting American lives to keep Shiites and Sunnis from fighting their Civil war.
She got my vote.
 
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Hillary has no plan....and doesnt deserve to be president...she doesnt represent the average american in any way whatsoever..
Click to expand...

In what ways does she not? Can you show me major campaign platforms that she has that are not supported by large numbers of Americans? (Hell, I'm letting you off easy... if you say she doesn't represent us in any way I should only have to find one issue where she DOES fit in)

Anyways, feel free to fill me in.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Topic Title: Hillary would leave troops in Iraq if elected.
Topic Summary: Say what?! Talk about making the bats battier!
Click to expand...
Hillary's as much a sell out political whore as McCain. This liberal won't be voting for either of them.
So, uh, ok.

Can we make up our minds. I thought our presence was what was making the whole situation unstable...
Click to expand...
Stop thinking, and take up some hobby your more quaified to pursue.
... and now she says she would keep a presence there? I think they were interviewing Bush in drag.
Click to expand...
:shocked: < shudders >

Second thought, maybe that's Rove's brilliant idea of a way to capture the gay vote. :laugh:
 
raise your hand if any of this surprises you... this is Hillary we're talking about folks. This is her "thing"...

she is weak, immoral, and indecisive. welcome to last week...
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
raise your hand if any of this surprises you... this is Hillary we're talking about folks. This is her "thing"...

she is weak, immoral, and indecisive. welcome to last week...
Click to expand...
Yeah she's too much like the Dub (except she's a lot more intelligent)
 
I lost all respect for Hillary Clinton when at a FUNERAL she gave a political speech, ever since then I don't care if she does gets the Democrat Nomination I'm voting for the other candidate. It's only the power & prestige of being President she wants and nothing else. If she does get elected she'll end up being the worse President of all time (Which should be hard to do since Bush right now is taking those honors) and will totally ruin the USA.
 
Did anybody catch John Edwards remarks on this "seeming contradiction" of Hillary's?

He gave her a pass, instead of going after her.

He mumbled something about "well, if we have an Embassy there we'll have to have troops to guard it".

The guy's showing some real restraint. He's from my state (NC) and he can be as "hard ball" as it gets. After all, he's a trial lawyer.

Somebody outta start a poll on guessing the date the gloves come off. 😉

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Gimli
I lost all respect for Hillary Clinton when at a FUNERAL she gave a political speech, ever since then I don't care if she does gets the Democrat Nomination I'm voting for the other candidate. It's only the power & prestige of being President she wants and nothing else. If she does get elected she'll end up being the worse President of all time (Which should be hard to do since Bush right now is taking those honors) and will totally ruin the USA.
Click to expand...
It wouold be different if we could be convinced that Bill would be running the country as a Proxy. If it was between her and Rudy or McCain I would have to hold my nose and vote for them. If it was Newt or Romney I might have to bite the bullet and vote for her. Let's hope it doesn't come down to that and Edwards, Obama or Richardson gets the nod on the Denm side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top