Ten years in Iraq! No wonder the Republicans are tanking. Five years in Iraq is already five years too many. Let's declare victory and go home.

Interesting that it will take until after McCain serves his first term in office before "victory" could be achieved. Reminds me of Nixon's secret plan to deal with the war in Vietnam. It too took his whole first term and couldn't be accomplished until his second term when it was finally revealed......we would fly in planes and helicopters, people get in and we fly away. So brilliant. McCain's plan is just as well thought out. McCain is the worst kind of liar for making a claim like this that he has absolutely no way of honestly predicting. What little respect I had left for him just evaporated.

Victory? I didn't know we were at war with Iraq.

Oh yeah McSame? How?

By allowing corruption to run rampant in the Iraqi government and turn a blind eye towards it?

Face it, McBush has no magical plan for victory because the Iraqi government does not want to accept responsibility for its own actions.

Funny how the party of "personal responsibility" keeps giving the Iraqi government "Get out of Responsibility" Passes left and right.

More hypocrisy in action.

So five more years at a tune of $120 billion per year? How are you gonna pay for it Bagdad John? Gonna set up a thriving E-Bay store where you will resell carpets you buy for $5 in the Green Zone?

Sounds good. Bush should have said this in the beginning, and the people would have had a much different view of the conflict. Well, thinking people would.

Sure we can. All we have to do is decided how to define what winning will look like. You know like parades or tossing of rose water and rice greeting us a liberators.

At least it's not 100 years anymore, right guys?

Right?

*cries*

Seems he pretty clearly specified the victory conditons....

War? Mission Accomplished was a long time ago... Or are we talking about a New, Better War, opening soon near you?

Sheesh, how do you people sleep at night...

"By January 2013. . ."

Let's see, now. That would be . . . at the end of the first term of the next president.

What a coincidence.

Translation:

This war will drag on at least through most of my presidency. And, please, do not pay attention to my use of the word "most" when I speak about how many of our troops will actually be out of Iraq. Thank you for your pavlovian loyalty, my good friends.
Yrs,
John "I Have No Shame" McCain"

Four more years! Four more years! Un-yelliman! Un-yelliman!

There are still 20 million people left in Iraq with plenty of ammunition and explosives. We can all thank Rummy for that. He was determined to occupy on the cheap and failed to secure Saddam's weapons depots.

24 million Iraqis don't want us in their country. Our forces have been unable to stabilize Bhagdad or even their Green Zone. But McCain has figured out that 2013 is the magic number. What a load of shit.

We can't afford to stay there. If we leave Iraq and Iran alone, the price of gasoline will drop precipitously.

"Sounds good. Bush should have said this in the beginning, and the people would have had a much different view of the conflict."

God damned right they would have. The American people would have told him to go fuck himself if they had told them we would be in Iraq for ten years and spend at least 1 trillion dollars.
I'll say it not though, McBush can go fuck himself.
How's that match up with his desire to make the Bush tax cut for the rich permanent. Just how does he thing he is going to pay for five more years????

STay the course!

"Seems he pretty clearly specified the victory conditons...."

OK, I'll bite: What are those "clearly specified" "victory conditions"?

I read the article and didn't see anything even remotely meeting that bar.

"VICTORY??"...Is this old fool losing his mind?? 10 Years for total victory, I wonder how many in King George's Court taught that total Victory over those upstart Americans would end overnight.

People will fight for there Homeland, we will never win a Victory in Iraq until the Iraqis feel that that fight is worth it to them...

Yes Senator McCain that may well take a 100 Years!!!!

Methinks folks like Jonryker post ridiculous stuff just to get a rise out of us libruls.

The Dems should play McCain's "2013" remarks 24/7 in every ad... on the other hand we wouldn't want this dummy to flame out before their convention... they might pick somebody 5 or 10% smarter.

By 2013 the insurgency will be in "the last throes".

McSame as Cheney. Yea, that's even better.

McCain's bloody plan is closer to Obama's, who also won't say when he will start bringing out troops.

Bullshit!!!

Corky. That is just an absurd assertion. Stop with the attacks. Its over.

"McCain's bloody plan is closer to Obama's, who also won't say when he will start bringing out troops.

Posted by Corky"

Ah, gone on vacation for a week, but I see nothing much has changed around here.


"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." From BarackObama.com

Ten years in Iraq!

By 2013 we will be in some form of war against Iraq for 22 years.

Thinking people still think the Iraq debacle was avoidable - as in, we never should have gone there in the first place. We were lied to about "WMD", we were lied to about the occupation, and we continue to be lied to by every Republican in Congress and the White House. A trillion dollars shat away, and this old Washington insider thinks we'll believe him?

SA - Where'd you go?

*cries*

Posted by crescentwindx


pussy

Well, the way that I see it, another 5 years will cost another $1T+ in spending and at the end of the day, we MAY receive a functioning democracy that MAY be our ally that MAY help lower the price of oil.

That price is too high even if all those 'mays' turn out to be true. The US needs to take that $1T and invest in energy independence so we no longer give a rat's ass about this region. Until we break reliance on oil, the war will never end - be it Iraq, Iran, Saudistan, etc. We need to declare war on oil and gear up the country with the same focus as was applied to the space program. That is the only deficit spending that I support at this point.

Hahahahahahahaha


Now it's only 5 years not a 100?

6 months from the election and Cindy is dumping her investments in Sudan?

What a pair!

pussy

Razor-sharp wit as always, good sir.

Is McCain actully trying to be elected by making statements like that??? Or is he so anxious for retirement that he is secretly working for Barrack??

"Sounds good. Bush should have said this in the beginning, and the people would have had a much different view of the conflict. Well, thinking people would.

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-15 10:07 AM"

Agreed, but in this sense: the US likely wouldn't have gone INTO Iraq if given that kind of upfront assessment (at least that's what the thinking people thought).

If Mr. McCain gets his wish, I wonder what he'll say in 2013.

Danni says: Is McCain actully trying to be elected by making statements like that?

Wait until you hear what he said about health care in the U.S. I listened to him this morning. Stunning. Out of touch.

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.

Too bad Clinton's not going to win, huh?

Also, "immediately" isn't certain enough for you?

"SA - Where'd you go?

Posted by Doc_Sarvis"

Spent a few days in the Black Hills, then over to MT to see the folks. Safe and sound (and 5 pounds heavier) back in Ohio now.

"I wonder what he'll say in 2013.

Posted by TrueBlue"


He'll say "A hundred years, a thousand years, ten thousand years - errraaaaghhh!!!"

You know when you've had flowers in a vase too long and the water starts to stink? That's the scent of Hillary.

All the King's horses and all the King's men...

Could not unscramble what George has got us in...

Nobody can promise anything rock solid as far as cleaning up this mess is concerned, anyone who does is speaking out their ass.

Of all the Hillary slams, some of them creative, most just Libs regurgitating nonsensical Rethug misogynistic slander from the 90's, that last one from "Snark" about water in a vase?

Gives new meaning to the term, "lame".

McCain's bloody plan is closer to Obama's, who also won't say when he will start bringing out troops.


Posted by Corky

Boy, that's terrible! A candidate who actually wants to have all the possible information BEFORE announcing a major step like troop withdrawl. Of Course, HRC would probably order troop withdrawl despite the incoming sniper fire.

SA - You been to Bear Butte? Amazing place.

Iraq was an avoidable folly committed by arrogant dimblebrains, most folks can agree. But we cannot simply leave now. Obama knows that. I do believe, however, that he will prosecute the war -- and eventual withdrawal -- with strength, and intelligence. We must be patient, and understand that the mess created by the small people who have led this country for the past 8 years -- and the smegma that supports them -- goes beyond simply leaving. We are in this for the long haul. Yet, as we slowly, and carefully clean it up, it is imperative that the thugs responsible for the ignoring of the real terrorist threat and this crime against humanity called the invasion of Iraq be held accountable. I mean, isn't accountability the conservative way?

"SA - You been to Bear Butte? Amazing place.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis"

Yes, but not since I was a kid. I love that whole area. BTW, Crazy Horse Monument has a face now.

McBush flip flopping again. He declared victory last month.

Returning from his eighth trip to Iraq, McCain didn't back down on his promise to see the war through despite yesterday's tragic milestone of 4,000 deaths. "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground," the Arizona senator insisted a day after a roadside bomb in Baghdad killed four U.S. soldiers and rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone there, and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

Does anybody believe anything this sad old man says? Or is Lokisfur now writing his speeches?

But we cannot simply leave now. Obama knows that. I do believe, however, that he will prosecute the war -- and eventual withdrawal -- with strength, and intelligence.

How will he prosecute the war when the majority of money and votes will be from the anti war left? Not to mention having both Houses of Congress. The underlying agenda of his campaign is removing the troops immediatly. Just like the lies which carried the dems in 2006.Look at the reaction of the special interest groups turning on the current Majority in less than 2 years. Is this his so called change? Cowering to the groups which put him where he is????

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.

Nobody can promise anything rock solid as far as cleaning up this mess is concerned, anyone who does is speaking out their ass.

"By 2013 we will be in some form of war against Iraq for 22 years."

That is truely an amazing statistic. Imagine what could have been accomplished with the money spent.
The name Bush is synonymous with unnecessary war.

Iraq War:


1. Continue and fight till victory.

2. Pull out immediatly and let them kill each other until they get tired of it and REALLY seek peace and cooperation with each other. AND....NOT ONE MORE AMERICAN DEATH.


I choose number two.

Doc Stalksus must be using Vernon's Calculator, not to be able to figure what the date would be 60 days after she took office.

Either that, or he is being, "disingenuous".

Or just plain thick, more like.

And of course we all know from Obama's advisor that his "immediately", is just for political theatre, not something that should be taken seriously or that he could be held to.

Having endured the Clinton approach to reality over the years, I have a feeling that "She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration" might well be spun later as "Well, they're working on it and these things take time."

But pehaps she's being sincere for a change. (Hope springs eternal!) She certainly has a lot to answer for, voting to give someone like George Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq.

And of course we all know from Obama's advisor that his "immediately", is just for political theatre, not something that should be taken seriously or that he could be held to.

Just like her adivsors.... Honey I know you have PMS, but please take off the blinders. The Bullshit meter broke again....

If we have been there 5 years and it's more of a total disaster now than ever... how is another 4 years going to turn it around? it will make it worse, so then he'll want another 4 years there, then another... but we wont last that long! iran will control iraq in no time, then we go to war with iran. thanks bush cheney for starting WWIII.

roflmfao!!

The ol' war vote ploy. Obama used that so much he sounded like Rudy Giuliani parroting "911, 911!!" as an answer to any question, no matter what it was.

Yo Doc, That's a good one right on target!

He follows up "The question is who is to be master, that's all."

How bout that unicorn?

"I don't believe in you either but now that we've met each other, I'll believe in you if you'll believe in me.'

Maybe someone can answer this: Why can't congress simply revoke the presidents authority to use force in Iraq? Then we could call up our boy and tell em to head for the nearest airport and get on a plane. If anything impedes your progress to the airport BURN IT DOWN! We could get em home quick. It sounds naive, but I think the troops and the US people would get behind operation GTFO.

"Gives new meaning to the term, "lame".

Posted by Corky"

Pricked your bubble? Lo siento.

2. Pull out immediatly and let them kill each other until they get tired of it and REALLY seek peace and cooperation with each other. AND....NOT ONE MORE AMERICAN DEATH.

Do you have to work at being an idiot when it comes to international relations, or does it come naturally?

If you think that Sunni and Shia will eventually stand back, say "look at this, look at what we're doing, let's find a peaceful solution" then you're living in a dream world. And that's not even bringing up the whole mess that it becomes when the question of Iranian involvement gets brought into the equation.

I'm against the war and an Obama supporter, but I'm also a realist.

"Why can't congress simply revoke the presidents authority to use force in Iraq?"

Two ways for them to prevent that.

1. Senate fillibuster.
2. Presidential veto.

"The ol' war vote ploy."

Hillary voted to give George Bush a blank check to go to war. She's not an idiot. She read the resolution. (Didn't she?) That's a fact and bringing it up is no ploy. She was just doing her usual pander bear performance, trying to have it both ways.

"One more Crowne Royale and a round of Yuengling for my huntin' buddies, bartender!"

No one in their right mind would filibuster Operation GTFO! The best part is victory would be complete and total; as the objectives would be clearly defined get to the nearest airport and kill anyone and everyone that attempts to impeded your mission. Now if that includes a few politicians or MIC fat cats well I am sure our boys are up to it.

I am half serious here operation GTFO could be the best military success we have since the 1960's

"She was just doing her usual pander bear performance, trying to have it both ways.'

Next you'll be accusing her of flip flopping on NAFTA when we all know she was against it from the start.

Yo Doc, That's a good one right on target!

I have to agree with the Doc. Sorry if that brings you down to my level being a right wing hack that I am.

As for Montana... I had the greatest two weeks of my life driving through the state. From the southern point of Lincoln up to the Eastern Glaciers and back. Best fishing outside of Alaska.

"Operation GTFO" sounds like a plan that could succeed. I'm all for it.

Given the fact McBush has already acknowledged he won't run for a second term, what he's just admitted is he can't finish the war.

I thought he'd at least go after Peace with Honorable Mention.


But he's right-the troops will be home by 2013. Long before 2013, actually.

"As for Montana... I had the greatest two weeks of my life..."

It's a great place, Crispee. Go off the beaten path and that whole Northern Plains area is fantastic. A bit cool come wintertime, though. As a friend who lived in Fargo, ND told me, "Man, that's snot-freezing cold."

Trueblue,

Wouldn't have gone into Iraq if they knew...

Perhaps that would have been true, initially....it's hard to say. Certainly, the appeasers running the Dem Party would have objected......As it was, Bush went for the easy sell, WMD's and managed to get the thing started with lot of Dem support because of the 911 attack. Maybe he thought that was the only way to get people to agree to a war that needed to be started.....I still wish he would have tried the honest approach first....In any case, the need for the war is obvious, as demostrated by the amount of effort AQ and Iran are spending on it.

To all of you quitters...do try to remember, if we'd quit 5 years into the Revolutionary War, we'd still be subjects of the Queen.

To those who think occupations can't succeed...please recall Korea, Germany, Japan, and if those are too far away....everything West of the original 13 colonies...hell the 13 colonies themselves were occupied by varying degrees of hostile people....we have a long history of successful occupations...this will just be another....

If McCain is elected President and wants the troops to stay in Iraq and the Democrats take the House and Senate in Majority, will the Democrats fund the war or finally put an end to the funding?

Since 2006 was supposed to answer "yes" to that question, I'd suspect the troops are staying and the money will flow from Congress.

Why?

Because, like we've been told since 2006, nobody wants to be blamed for our soldiers having no money. They're afraid they'll be blamed instead of the President.

18% approval rating? Watch that drop further.

How long were we in Vietnam anyway? How many times were we told that it would end?

"what he's just admitted is he can't finish the war."

Finish the war?
On my watch?
Never!
Yrs,
John "I Am NOT The Manchurian Candidate, But I Still LOVE the Jack of Diamonds" McCain

PS: What happened to my strawberries?

"But pehaps she's being sincere for a change. (Hope springs eternal!) She certainly has a lot to answer for, voting to give someone like George Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-05-15 12:06 PM"

Funny, she has the exact same voting record on the war as Obama since he assumed office - both voting to fund the war on 13+ occassion. They both have a duty to stop funding the war and they both continue to give Bush a blank check - why do you only focus on Hillary and ignore your Messiah's pro-Iraq war voting record?

To those who think occupations can't succeed...please recall Korea, Germany, Japan, and if those are too far away....everything West of the original 13 colonies...hell the 13 colonies themselves were occupied by varying degrees of hostile people....we have a long history of successful occupations...this will just be another....

I like how you left out Vietnam.

Cresent,

No, that actually makes my point too, I just didn't want to get sidetracked. We left Vietnam just as we'd won it, but we could have won it a lot easier if Johnson and Nixon had actually TRIED to win it...Instead, they were playing politics in Paris with 500,000 pawns...Sort of like we did in the first Iraq War, which, because we half-assed it, we had to come back again to do. Vietnam was a glowing failure, but really didn't have to be. Even so, pretty good record.

Wait a minute, we "won" Vietnam? I seem to remember an incident where Saigon was captured by North Vietnamese forces and the entire South Vietnamese army surrendered.

But hey, what do I know?

Wait a minute, we "won" Vietnam? I seem to remember an incident where Saigon was captured by North Vietnamese forces and the entire South Vietnamese army surrendered.

You're forgetting the part where Stallone went back in a blew everything up.

Funny, she has the exact same voting record on the war as Obama since he assumed office - both voting to fund the war on 13+ occassion. They both have a duty to stop funding the war and they both continue to give Bush a blank check
Posted by Jacque_Strap at 2008-05-15 12:36 PM

How did that work with Vietnam? No so good I think. At least he had the foresight to see it was bad to get in, and he and she both have the hindsight to see defunding isn't the way to get out.

Cresent,

Read again....this time, pay attention...I didn't say we won. I said we left right when we had won.

The VC were liquidated during Tet. Unfortunately, their energy in getting killed was the last straw, and scared everybody off in the process, and that convinced us to leave. Had we seen it for the decisive military victory it was, we could have exploited the situation and, with a large offensive, ended the War with South Vietnam intact....like we did in Korea....We were too panicked to see the opportunity...We're still paying for that panic, because that's the reaction the Islamofascists are expecting....The Dems intend to provide it, as they did before...

"The VC were liquidated during Tet"

Basically, true.

But not the NVA.

"The Dems intend to provide it, as they did before..."

Jon, had we stayed in Vietnam how would the US be better off today???? Did you volunteer to go over there or are you just one more of those Republicans who is brave with other people's lives at stake???

How did that work with Vietnam? No so good I think. At least he had the foresight to see it was bad to get in, and he and she both have the hindsight to see defunding isn't the way to get out.

Posted by bigjohn_1972

Well, if you are for continued funding of the war than you are for the continuation of the war so shut the fuck up about Bush and McCain and Hillary. You no longer havs a right to complain about Iraq if you are not willing to end it - period.

As for Obama - his 'anti-war' stance was simply mimicking the stance of his racist church/pastor so it would have been more courageous, honest and consistent of him to just come out and say he is pro-war so his continued funding of it would at least make sense. But then again, even his racists pastor/mentor says that Obama has no integrity and will say anything to get elected just like all politicians....

Not that your vote's in play, of course.

"The Dems intend to provide it, as they did before...

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-15 12:49 PM |"

I was watching one of the Borg episodes of "Next Generation" last night, and I must say, the Drudge "Jon Ryker" reminds me much more of the Borg than he does of Jon Ryker.

Did you volunteer to go over there or are you just one more of those Republicans who is brave with other people's lives at stake???

As opposed to the anti war Dems demonstrating on the streets, spitting on the soldiers when they returned? Calling them murderers and baby killers? There's some leftist bravado.

As for voting subsequent appropriations for the war, I think both of them should have voted against that. They'd have been destroyed by the Rovians

Yes Doc, better to keep their political positions than their integrity...and $1T and 4000+ US soldiers.

I actually feel the Republicans have more honesty and integrity - some of them actually believe in the cause so they are willing to put their political careers on the line (like McCain, Lieberman) while the Dems know it is the wrong thing but vote for it anyway. They will continue to do that as long as the retarded Dem lock-step voters keep rewarding them.

"As opposed to the anti war Dems demonstrating on the streets, spitting on the soldiers when they returned? Calling them murderers and baby killers? There's some leftist bravado."

Yeah, like John Kerry asshole.

"They will continue to do that as long as the retarded Dem lock-step voters keep rewarding them."

Your refusal to acknowledge what the Democrats in Congress have said about why they continue to fund the troops doesn't in any way diminish the truth of their statements.

I was a Vietnam War protester and most of my friends at the time were Vietnam War veterans who hated the war more than I did.

"As opposed to the anti war Dems demonstrating on the streets, spitting on the soldiers when they returned? Calling them murderers and baby killers? There's some leftist bravado."

Yeah, like John Kerry asshole.
Posted by danni at 2008-05-15 01:13 PM

No John Kerry actually fought in Vietnam. After his deferments ran out. But he did in fact have the balls to go.

I was speaking of the gutless protesters like you and your friends. Who didn't give a rats ass about the soldiers. So when you go and smear people asking them if they volunteered, it proves what kind of person you and company were. Not surprised though.

"No John Kerry actually fought in Vietnam. After his deferments ran out. But he did in fact have the balls to go.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-05-15 01:25 PM"

Kudos to Crispee for acknowledging what many of his compatriots still can't bring themselves to admit.

Nullifidian,

Yeah, I had you for a "New Treck" fan....

Danni,

Well, I was one year old when Tet hit, so nobody really asked my opinion back then....

DAnni,

Would we be better off if we'd stayed in Vietnam?

Well, if it worked out like Korea, Germany, and Japan....yes, we'd be WAY better off....As it is, it made us look weak and led the Islamofascists to believe that we're so fat and lazy we won't stand up to anything....In the case of the Dems, their correct, as the VC were in 'Nam....

"some of them actually believe in the cause so they are willing to put their political careers on the line (like McCain, Lieberman)"

No flip-flopping from that pair, no sirree.

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.

Posted by Corky

Obama has said Immediately. Sounds like his date is going to be January 09.


So how many troops did Hillbillary commit to pull out 1%, 5%, 1000, 10,000, 100,000?

What date is she commited to?

A few days ago she said:
The United States' security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda," she said. "It is right in the heart of the oil region," she said. "It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests."

so Tell us Hillary's grand plan to end the war in Iraq.

Nah your just a stupid fuck who will fall for her bullshit troop reduction of a few percent and call it a day, no real change. cause your a chump, a blind ass retarded chump.

but hey prove me wrong

Back your sh!t up Douchebag!

You don't want me to continue sending it to your PO Box?

Would we be better off if we'd stayed in Vietnam?

Well, if it worked out like Korea, Germany, and Japan....yes, we'd be WAY better off....As it is, it made us look weak and led the Islamofascists to believe that we're so fat and lazy we won't stand up to anything....In the case of the Dems, their correct, as the VC were in 'Nam....

Posted by jonryker


Well then if it such a noble cause, bring back the draft instead of sending disabled vets for their 3rd and 4th tours.

That way at least the odds would be a little more balanced that everyone capable of serving this nation in our almighty struggle against the boogeyman will have a chance to earn their keep.

Well then if it such a noble cause, bring back the draft instead of sending disabled vets for their 3rd and 4th tours.

Posted by 726 at 2008-05-15 02:28 PM |

Thanks for showing your knowledge about being a soldier. Because if you did you would know most of those on their 3rd or 4th tours are there because they want to be there. They want to stay until it is resolved or until orders come to withdrawal. See thats what goood soldiers do. They understand much more than you or I in the Sates. They know what kind of outcome they want.

As candidates get closer to the GE, they are provided with summaries of briefings on all sorts of domestic, military and international matters that the executive branch gets on a daily basis, partly so that they don't say things that run contrary to established US policy during the campaign, partly so that they can correctly couch answers in debates, press conferences and public appearances and partly so that they get a head start on the 75 days of "education" that they undergo while naming a cabinet and making appointments prior to Jan 20, 2009.

This, in part, is what you are seeing now with the three remaining candidates, and their "soft" responses to the question of when troops will be out of Iraq.

All this sturm and angst is entertaining, but what do the candidates really mean with their promises?

"Because if you did you would know most of those on their 3rd or 4th tours are there because they want to be there."

Howsaboutalinkonthat????

Here's a little context (which is oft times sorely lacking here on the DR) into each candidate's promises on Iraq:


Obama: He will start "immediately" (which logistically means that troops will start moving out within 90-120 days after he "orders" their withdrawl) and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. A combat brigade numbers 3,500 troops. Simple math says that within 16 months he will have withdrawn between 36,000 and 49,000 troops out of 150,000, leaving over 100,000 troops still in Iraq.

Obama "will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq", which is easy to do since they are already built. He "will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats;" which is what the permanent bases that he didn't build are for, and "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." See above.

Basically, what Obama is promising to do is exactly what Petreaus said was his tentative plan at the last congressional briefing...start drawing down combat brigades in early '09, and hope to have them out by spring '10, or approximately 18 months. Barry is basically promising to chop 2 months off that timetable.

Because if you did you would know most of those on their 3rd or 4th tours are there because they want to be there."

Howsaboutalinkonthat????

Posted by danni at 2008-05-15 02:44 PM |


Don't need a link. I have first hand knowledge. Something you will never, ever know. Nor will you ever have that feeling of a soldier thanking you for thanking them and supporting their wishes to end this. Whether it be at a funeral, or at the bar directly below the recruiting center, I get the same reacion and answers. When is the last time you thanked a soldier? As opposed to telling a soldier your feelings about the CiC and their failed mission for oil???

726,

Not noble. Killing people isn't noble....practical....However, draft armies are impractical when confronting terrorists...people who are drafted are not as trainable and tend to not do difficult jobs and tend to snap under high-discipline, civilian-infested combat....Nope, need professionals for that kind of stuff...

Trueblue,

I did live through it, and I've had to live with the results of that fuck-up....I just was too old to dodge the draft like you....

Was something I said about Tet inaccurate? Superficial? Ignorant? About what? You know, when you accuse someone of that, if you want to be convincing, you might want to make specific, fact-based objections to what I'm saying, rather than general ranting...

Hillary:

She "would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration." She is a little more honest about how long it will take for the Pentagon to get their shit together, but it will still take 90-120 days for the first troops to come home. She has also made it clear that she is going to first withdraw "combat brigades", just like Barry, and "would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq". Basically, no difference, about 100K troops would be in Iraq for a while.

Hillary "will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region." Sound familiar?

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.

Posted by Corky



No surprise you cant back up your words Corky

Even the simplest realities elude you, no wonder you fell for the Clinton tripe.

Reality is asking a lot from a troll like you.

And who, does she think, would flow into the vacuum created by those exiting combat bridages?

McCain:

As hinted in the article, McCain lays out a scenario where the Military commanders will drawdown combat troops as conditions on the ground dictate, with the hope that Iraqi troops can shoulder the brunt of the heavy lifting increasingly through '09 and into '10. After the "combat brigades" are withdrawn in conjuction with this rise in Iraqi troop strength, "U.S. troops would still be present, but those soldiers would not play a "direct combat role" because Iraqi forces would be capable of providing order." Over the next couple of years, troops would be further drawn down until there was "a troop presence aimed at maintaining stability, like the U.S. presence now in Japan, South Korea and Germany."

Stripping away the rhetoric, not much different then Hillary or Barry.

Repugnant,

Actually, I'd think that yes, good soldiers, being good at killing the other guy, probably wouldn't get killed so often....certainly, they don't become junkies, frag their officers, and impregnate half of the women in the country they're fighting in....

As to the suicides, that's pretty shaky evidence to start with, though.

Are you actually saying that this army in ineffective? If so, you'd better come up with a better one.....

Are you actually saying that this army in ineffective?



I'm saying the leadership of this army is ineffective for the goals of the American citizens.


If so, you'd better come up with a better one.....

Don't worry we'll be doing that in November, we have to clean up the mess you Neocon imbeciles made.

maintaining stability, like the U.S. presence now in Japan, South Korea and Germany.

I think you forgot about 150 other countries we are policing from here to eternity.

To bad our own borders aren't secure though.

Do good soldiers also commit suicide at a higher rate than they die in combat.

This is your idea of a functional military, you buffoon!

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 03:01 PM


Like yourself, you have to have some screws loose to contemplate suicide. Only a fucking tool would use the suicide angle as an exapmle to tarnish the troops.

Repugnant,

So, what's the leadership got to do with voluntary vs a draft army? See, that's what you were talking about....Do I have to carry both sides of this debate? FOCUS!

...certainly, they don't become junkies, frag their officers, and impregnate half of the women in the country they're fighting in...


you are talking about the US Army right?

Being forced to grunt out 3-4 tours over what you originally signed up for leads to depression, addiction, senseless killing and other social disorders.

Lets get real here..many of these soldiers are smart enough to know they were conned by Bush.

Lets get real here..many of these soldiers are smart enough to know they were conned by Bush.

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 03:32 PM

I couldn't have said it better.

John Kerry

BTW thanks so much for living up to your handle.

Only a fucking tool would use the suicide angle as an exapmle to tarnish the troops.

Posted by crispee_oc

It not to tarnish the troops, its tarnishing the poor planning that kept our soldiers in combat years after they were supposed to come home to their families.

Whether you want to admit it or not - its had a negative impact on the troops.

Keep yer fucking head in the sand, we'll tell you when its safe to come up with your tail between your legs.

what's the leadership got to do with voluntary vs a draft army? jonryker



Seriously, are you that stupid?

Repugnant,

I was talking about the DRAFTED US Army as it performed in Vietnam as opposed to the VOLUNTEER one now. Strangely, you seem to prefer the former model, which did not work in a long-term, frontless war....

So I'm wondering why you prefer the draft army and how it is you think the volunteer army got snookered into volunteering? What do you think they were volunteering to do, have bake sales? Why do they keep reenlisting? Why are they exceeding recruiting targets across all branches?

When exactly was Vietnam winnable? We never had control over the countryside. The SV govt. was continuously corrupt and not trusted by the SV people.
Let review:
On March 1, 1968 Clifford succeeded McNamara as Secretary of Defense. Clifford, who had entered office as a staunch supporter of the Vietnam commitment and who had opposed McNamara's de-escalatory views, turned against the war. According to Clifford: "The simple truth was that the military failed to sustain a respectable argument for their position." Between the results of Tet and the meetings of the group that bore his name, he became convinced that deescalation was the only solution for the United States. He was convinced that the troop increase would lead only to a more violent stalemate.

On March 22, at Clifford's suggestion, Johnson called a conclave of the "Wise Men". With few exceptions, all of the members of the group had formerly been accounted as hawks on the war. The group was joined by Rusk, Wheeler, Bundy, Rostow, and Clifford. The final assessment of the majority stupefied the group. According to Clifford, "few of them were thinking solely of Vietnam anymore. All but four members called for disengagement from the war.

According to the U.S. State Department, the NLF "made pacification virtually inoperative. In the Mekong Delta the NLF was stronger now than ever and in other regions the countryside belongs to the VC."

The horrendous losses inflicted on NLF units struck into the heart of the irreplaceable infrastructure that had been built up for over a decade. From this point forward, Hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the NLF's ranks with North Vietnamese troops. However, this change had little effect on the war, since North Vietnam had little difficulty making up the casualties inflicted by the offensive. Some Western historians have come to believe that one insidious ulterior motive for the campaign was the elimination of competing southern members of the Party, thereby allowing the northerners more control once the war was won.

Mostly from Wikipedia (yep, lazy again).

The biggest shame is that if we could admit that we failed there, we could draw reality-based conclusions from our experience there. And avoid repeating it.

Keep yer fucking head in the sand, we'll tell you when its safe to come up with your tail between your legs.


Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 03:36 PM

I will pull my head out of the sand when you pull yours out of your ass. Because only a fucking clown would try and claim they know what is going on with the troops mindset and why they decide to re-up. From your cozy little shithole no less.

Why do they keep reenlisting?


I joined for several reasons. 19, no job skills, bored with life in the town I was living in. Lack of good jobs at the time


or

A friend of mine double dog dared me to join.
I had to do it or he would have thought I was a pu$$y.

or

Where else at eighteen could I jump out of a plane, shoot things, and blow up stuff . . . and get paid for it

From your cozy little shithole no less.

Posted by crispee_oc


Where are you now OC?

From your cozy little shithole no less.



or were you referring to the Alabama National Guard?

Where else at eighteen could I jump out of a plane, shoot things, and blow up stuff . . . and get paid for it

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 03:44 PM

I guess you never got into the whole honor and respect thing did you repug?

"Don't need a link. I have first hand knowledge."

You have first hand knowledge of the desires of every soldier on third or fourth tours...bull shit you do. You don't have a clue.

"Why are they exceeding recruiting targets across all branches?"

Wouldn't have anything to do with bonuses would it?
All these kids are joining because the believe in the mission in Iraq...riiiiight....most of them can't find Iraq on a map. Most of them don't know anything about Iraq or why we are there.
The thing about a draft army is that lunatics like Bush can't use a draft army as he sees fit because the wealthy and powerful can't keep their kids out of harms way and thus are much more cynical about politicians sending them off to war. Had we had a draft army, we would not be in Iraq now.