UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Obama on Iraq


5/5/08 10:02 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Crazy Zimmerman
398 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 35054
 

 Obama says that he favors a phased withdrawal that will take at least 2 years.  He says that by that time we will have been in Iraq for 7 years, and if the Iraqis can't stand up for themselves after 7 years, they won't be able to stand up for themselves in 14 or 28 or 56 years.

He says the real fight is in Afghanistan and that we need to put the focus back on Al Qaida, who is just as strong now as they were before 9/11.  He says that Iraq is draining our resources and causing us to neglect Afghanistan.

Is he some douchbag liberal or does he have valid points?  It's so bizarre that a "liberal" is calling for Iraqis to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get off Uncle Sam's tit, but conservatives want us to coddle Iraqis and provide them welfare in an open ended committment.

Who is right?

5/5/08 10:04 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Brigham
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/12/05
Posts: 17010

While Obama isn't my candidate (neither is McCain or Clinton as, all of them suck dick) he makes a valid point. While, I don't think we can just get out of Iraq, Afghanistan seriously needs to be the focus.

5/5/08 10:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CavemanDave
265 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/26/05
Posts: 12109

 He is a liberal douchebag and will do nothing different than anybody else who gets in office.


He will have a major withdrawl over the next two years and leave a huge base and embassy there.  Chances are if McCain is there, it will be roughly the same thing...perhaps a year longer.

5/5/08 10:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigEyedFish
105 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/02
Posts: 17090
The answer is that he is a douchebag. Arguing for or against the merits of this war is one thing. But assuming that there could be no difference between years 7 and 8 is completely misguided. What he said is impossible to predict.


"He says the real fight is in Afghanistan and that we need to put the focus back on Al Qaida, who is just as strong now as they were before 9/11. He says that Iraq is draining our resources and causing us to neglect Afghanistan."


The real fight is not in Afghanistan. The real fight is in the region. Not so much pulling triggers in Kandahar, but pressuring the REGIONAL governments through a US presence in the region - anywhere in the region. Once this pressure is felt, and illustrated through a successful operation in Iraq (assuming that is possible/iminent), then the hopes would be that regional governments, fearing the same fate as the Taliban/Saddam regimes will not be so passive when dealing with terrorist operations/institutionalized Islamic Fundamentalists in the madrassas and schools.


Obama is even more misguided than Bush is on how to deal with this situation properly.
5/5/08 10:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SirPrize
25 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/4/02
Posts: 5338
I agree with CavemanDave.

The Dems were all bitching about getting our of Iraq ASAP. Then... those who started running for President started singing a different tune. Now, instead of "immediate withdrawl", they speak of "phased withdrawl". It's easy for someone to bitch from the sidelines, but a different story when that person might wind up in the driver's seat.
5/5/08 10:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigEyedFish
105 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/02
Posts: 17091
"Anyone who calls it "welfare" should be embarrassed to have been so easily conned. Apples and oranges. The only similarities is that they both cost money. "



well put
5/5/08 10:47 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SirPrize
25 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/4/02
Posts: 5339
"Baraq is calling for Iraq to fight for themselves, fine. The US called for the South Vietnamese to take up the good fight when we betrayed/abandoned them, too. If we pull out of iraq it sends a simple signal: do NOT side up with America- EVER. Vietnamese who allied themselves with the US had their entire families exterminated when we abandoned them, and the same thing will happen to Iraqis. It's stupid to think anything else."

Don't forget the Kurds. We abandoned them afterter Gulf 1, and they got slaughtered. I believe many Iraqis are/were hesitant to side with the USA this time around, because they remember what happened to the Kurds after we left.
5/5/08 10:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GracieDisc
180 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/12/03
Posts: 5299

One thing the politicians seem to forget, is that these Middle Easterners have been fighting for 1,000 years. It's what they do.


Do we really think we're going to do any changing in 5, 7, 15 or 50 years?

5/5/08 10:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FightWatcher
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/18/03
Posts: 13028
ghimblaut - 

It's not a contradiction that conservatives want to stay in Iraq. Liberals are trying to play word games and call Iraq "welfare" because of the connotation, but it's a stupid thing to say. Anyone who calls it "welfare" should be embarrassed to have been so easily conned. Apples and oranges. The only similarities is that they both cost money. 

Well, the fact that this war is costing us billions weekly.. Im not so sure that it matters that "liberals" are comparing apples and oranges, when the financial cost is so stupendously high.

 

5/5/08 11:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Govnor
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 30280
SirPrize - I agree with CavemanDave.



The Dems were all bitching about getting our of Iraq ASAP. Then... those who started running for President started singing a different tune. Now, instead of "immediate withdrawl", they speak of "phased withdrawl". It's easy for someone to bitch from the sidelines, but a different story when that person might wind up in the driver's seat.



LOL. As far as I can tell they are STILL talking about getting out ASAP. "ASAP" in the scheme of what will have to be pulled out is going to take a while.



5/5/08 11:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jason hornbuckle
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42374
"put the focus back on Al Qaida, who is just as strong now as they were before 9/11"





how could anyone honestly think that?
5/5/08 11:23 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigEyedFish
105 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/02
Posts: 17092
"how could anyone honestly think that? "



I have no idea. It is absolutely absurd to think so..
5/5/08 11:31 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Crazy Zimmerman
398 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 35077

 Guys, last year's National Intelligence Estimate said that Al Qaide has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001."


Are you saying that the NIE is lying?  Or incorrect? 

5/5/08 11:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
attjack
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42698
jason hornbuckle - "put the focus back on Al Qaida, who is just as strong now as they were before 9/11"





how could anyone honestly think that?

That's what all reports say. So to answer your question, if people can and do read, then they would think that.
5/5/08 11:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Govnor
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 30284

 LOL....not a good morning for the Repubs on this board.



5/5/08 11:43 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigEyedFish
105 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/02
Posts: 17094
attjack - 
jason hornbuckle - "put the focus back on Al Qaida, who is just as strong now as they were before 9/11"






how could anyone honestly think that?


That's what all reports say. So to answer your question, if people can and do read, then they would think that.



If 'all the reports' are saying that AQ is as strong as they were prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, then please post a couple of them. Im not sure how anyone could think that when they were in Afghanistan living in plain sight and working side by side with the country's official Government and under their protection, they are just as well off now living in the shadows of that country or operating from the tribal regions in Pakistan after being chased from their country or base.
5/5/08 11:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Crazy Zimmerman
398 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 35081

 BEF, did you see the NIE report quote I posted?  What's your take on that?

5/5/08 11:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigEyedFish
105 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/02
Posts: 17095
I just saw it now...I think that the term "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001" is not a definitive statement. This could simply mean that they have congregated and physically regrouped after being chased from their stronghold - and this is to be expected (after all they are some of history's most resilient fighters). What this statement does not address on its face is the functionality of the organization, nor its safety after shedding its state sponsored support (aka, the Taliban).


I expect that they would regroup. I dont see how they are functionally more potent than they were. It makes no sense. Not that I think that killing all of them is the solution to all this, because it is not.
5/5/08 11:49 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
THAGE
35 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/27/05
Posts: 10146

 LOL, you don't think the huge recruitment that Iraq has caused, which has even been admitted by high ranking military officials, puts Al qaida back on a  strong path?


 


Also, trying to compare the ME to Europe is completely intellectually dishonest. One region has been trying to advance politically & socially for hundreds of years, the other would rather party like its 1999 B.C. living by religious law and stoning those who don't agree.


 


GHIM-so if we don't "abandon" another friend, do you honestly expect america to sustain its current commitment of troop levels and $$$ for even another 5 years? With the impending situation with Iran I don't think its possible to take on another country, sustain our commitment in Iraq, and afghanistan, and survive without a draft and breaking the bank.


You can spin it all you want, but after 5 years Iraq hasn't shown significant progress in taking care of itself. If we continue on the current path It will take at the very least another 5-7 years for them to be able to actually run their own country with limited help from the U.S.

5/5/08 11:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigEyedFish
105 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/02
Posts: 17096
" LOL, you don't think the huge recruitment that Iraq has caused, which has even been admitted by high ranking military officials, puts Al qaida back on a strong path?"


I think that the recruitment boost caused by Iraq is almost entirely irrelovant. There was no Iraq before 9/11. The problem is institutional hatred being taught in the schools and madrassas in the Middle Eastern Region. Without addressing that, nothing will change. And 'putting AQ on a strong path' is not the same thing as saying that they are as functionally strong as they were pre 911. Sorry, but its not.


"You can spin it all you want, but after 5 years Iraq hasn't shown significant progress in taking care of itself."

Has there been enough progress? No. Has there been significant progress? Absolutely.


"If we continue on the current path It will take at the very least another 5-7 years for them to be able to actually run their own country with limited help from the U.S."


5 years if we are lucky.
5/5/08 11:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Isaac298
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/11/03
Posts: 11729
i doubt they will be able to run their country in the next few years. Not without a totalitarian regime in the place which will bring iraq to square one.
5/5/08 12:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
attjack
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42699
BigEyedFish - "There was no Iraq before 9/11."

You're apparently very well informed.
5/5/08 12:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BigEyedFish
105 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/18/02
Posts: 17097
You apparently dont understand what I was saying. Carry on..
5/5/08 12:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
attjack
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42700
And you don't seem to understand much of anything. lol
5/5/08 12:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
attjack
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42701
travenbjj - ^^^^ Why are you no longer a bluename?


I wanted to know how it felt to be a minority.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.