| Apr 8 @ 3:56 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy
|
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 4,901
|
Why is it that NO ONE ever asks Clinton or Obama this simple follow up question after they talk about their policy to surrender to the Islamic terrorists in Iraq?
What do Obama, Clinton and the Democrats plan to do AFTER they surrender in Iraq, the Middle East devolves into chaos, our oil supplies are cut off, the pressure is taken off of the terrorists emboldening them and allowing them to refocus on attacks within the US, and we have to send the troops BACK to fight World War 3 losing who knows how many times more soldiers than we would if we stay there and win NOW?
It's such a simple question. What is their answer? And why are they NEVER asked?
.
|
|
  |
|
| Apr 8 @ 4:11 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy |
|
eastham
Posts: 6,341
|
Johnney could only sing one note and the note he sang was this....
|
| |
|
| Apr 8 @ 4:36 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy
|
|
SensualGemini
Posts: 3,514
|
DR: It's such a simple question. What is their answer? And why are they NEVER asked?
...It is Tuesday, so Hillary will have a different answer than yesterday. Obama will have to ask his speech writer's for the politically correct response. They are both Dem senators in a Dem controlled Congress, so they could bring it to the table right now... the fact remains, they don't have a clue and don't want to test the political waters in an election year.
Oh yes, that represents leadership... 
...If either one of them considers pulling out of the Middle East in the future, as being the correct thing to do, they better start bringing some "alternative energy" plans to the table right now and show their leadership skills, rather than the pork barrel crap they have been doing.
.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 8 @ 6:04 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy |
|
Jankia
Posts: 9,149
|
Whatever the answer is would be for the same reason they want to cut and run all together...to get votes.
The question is never asked because people dont seem to be concerned about the future of what happens in the world,only about stopping whats happening in the present? 
|
| |
|
| Apr 8 @ 6:49 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy
|
|
SensualGemini
Posts: 3,514
|
Jankia: The question is never asked because people dont seem to be concerned about the future of what happens in the world,only about stopping whats happening in the present?
...Yet, they have certainly plundered McCain with the question and he gave them very direct answers, that never waiver and always puts his money where his mouth and convictions are... 2 sons serving in combat.
...Obama loves the Kennedy speaches, but he forgets the parts about:
"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" " Let every nation know... that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." "To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny." John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address
...And I don't think Hillary has a clue...
.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 8 @ 6:55 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy |
|
Always_Striving
Posts: 7,596
|
Hillbama....... that's pretty funny 
|
| |
|
| Apr 9 @ 9:52 AM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy
|
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 4,901
|
Thanks. I kind of like it myself. It's indicative of the fact that there isn't a wit of difference between the two of them. 
I'm sure Obama would "answer" as follows:
"The American people want change."
And Clinton would "answer:"
"I've been fired on by snipers, I know how it feels. I don't think we should be subjecting our troops to that kind of punishment."
And the rest of the Democrats would "answer:"
"George Bush got us into this."
These are THEIR solutions.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 9 @ 10:15 AM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy |
|
steveemac
Posts: 2,336
|
Simple Question Because Simple Minds want to know...
|
| |
|
| Apr 9 @ 1:23 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy
|
|
SensualGemini
Posts: 3,514
|
...Now that was profound...
...For those of us that have served our country, are serving our country, or will serve our country, of course we want to know their intentions, abilities, or lack of for a potential Commander in Chief.
...That would be in addition to what give-away programs they are a promising, what pork they are padding bills with, what taxes they are going to raise to the middle class to pay for their bought votes, etc.
...This is not the Democrat party of yesterday that was for the working middle class, or I would be voting for them.
...And of course, a huge concern, is what are they going to do about border control and Illegal aliens... and that is where McCain is not shining very well.
...Maybe after he becomes President, McCain will have a different plan than the bi-partisan nonsense of another amnesty. As head of the Executive branch, nothing needs to be voted on, as existing laws are there to be enforced as obligated by the oath to carry out and enforce the laws of the land.
===============
East: Johnney could only sing one note and the note he sang was this....
...Yes, you are right and "Johnney" or "Johnie" is a liberal with one note of "give me." 
.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 9 @ 1:58 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy |
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 4,901
|
With respect to the question of who is most qualified to be Commander in Chief, in the current wartime environment, is it really an actual question?
I list the three possibilities here for emphasis.
Barack Hussein Obama
Hillary Clinton
John McCain
If you don't think it's McCain, you are joking right?
Now if we can only get McCain to reconsider his position on Gitmo.
Although I had reservations about McCain from the start -- his positions are too liberal -- I am feeling better and better about him all the time as:
A. Both Clinton and Obama are revealing themselves to be even bigger phonies, liars and hypocrites than they obviously were at the start of the campaigns. Well, I say that, but I am not sure that is exactly what I mean. We knew that Clinton was a two bit lying phonycrat all along. But Obama, who seemed to be a sincere, honest person at first is now a huge disappointment and turns out to be as dishonest and fake as Clinton.
B. McCain understands that he has to move at least a little bit towards the right if he wants to win the election. He's not perfect, but he is by far the most sincere and honest of the three candidates. I am encouraged by the people he is meeting with and know some of them (particularly the economic experts) to be very talented. Just the fact that he seeks advice from these people is a move in the right direction. At the moment I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has moderated some of his views toward the conservative.
Either way it's a no brainer. Neither Clinton nor Obama are anywhere near fit to be president. I'd probably vote for Mickey Mouse before I'd vote for either of them.
|
| |
|
| Apr 9 @ 2:52 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy
|
|
Bj864
Posts: 3,118
|
What do Obama, Clinton and the Democrats plan to do AFTER they surrender in Iraq, the Middle East devolves into chaos, our oil supplies are cut off, the pressure is taken off of the terrorists emboldening them and allowing them to refocus on attacks within the US, and we have to send the troops BACK to fight World War 3 losing who knows how many times more soldiers than we would if we stay there and win NOW?
Where is the simple question?
The above makes several assumptions as to what is going to happen when (or if) we leave.
There is no surrender in giving people their country back.
Exactly who do you think it is we would be surrendering to?
The only reason we are still there is to keep some kind of control over the oil and the Iraqi government, so we have some power in the region. Our success on either one of them appears to be getting worse instead of better.
As to Hillary and Obama's plans; if they would tell the truth (along with McCain), they would be talking about the reason I just gave for us being there and they would tell us how they are going to guard the oil and control the government.
None of the 3 are honest about this situation and neither are you.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 9 @ 4:07 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy |
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
Since the Democrats are Hell-bent on losing this war in Iraq, why would anyone ever be interested in siding with these losers?
|
| |
|
| Apr 11 @ 11:50 PM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Obama's plan for withdrawal isn't too far out to lunch and, leaves him a lot of room to waffle when reality strikes. It is based on getting the Iraqis to step up to the plate more by slowly withdrawing troops two brigades at a time. A plan is a plan, not cast in stone. Anyhow, it is based on reality and, sound reasoning.
There are some questions I wonder about though;
ObamaI made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called 'a rash war' in Iraq
Finishing the War in Afghanistan. Interesting. Nobody on this board can answer how that was to be accomplished without causing a possible revolt and capitulation in Pakistan leaving radical Qutbists and or their sympathizers in power so what does he know that we don't?
Second is his c0ontention that there will be no US troops left in Iraq yet, he maintains that there will be a substancial US military presence left in the Middle East to take care of any future problems. Where is he planning on invading next to post those troops if not simply leaving some troops in Iraq as was planned from the very beginning?
Third is that he constantly refers to Al Qaeda while ignoring the other two hundred odd Qutbist terrorist organizations and groups that are operating worldwide. Is he simple or, just doing what Bush does and making it simple for idiots to understand?
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 12:44 AM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy |
|
alivenwell351
Posts: 1,514
|
You know...If Bushie and his chickenhawks had seen fit to wait until the troops were properly trained and adequately equipped, and sent in sufficient numbers to do the job right from the start, taken the time to have had an actual battle plan from the start, let REAL military people run the show from the start, hit em like a ton of bricks from the start (a surge from the start!!)...what has turned into a fkn fiasco with no end in sight run by folks who wouldn't know combat if it hit em up side of the head likely would have been over & done with long ago and all this would have been a moot point.
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 12:51 AM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
The combat went quite well though. In fact, amazingly well and will probably go into history books as absolutely brilliant. It was the peace or occupation that was terrible.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 1:47 AM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy |
|
alivenwell351
Posts: 1,514
|
It was the peace or occupation that was terrible.
True...but handling the inevitable breakout of tribal warfare among people with thousand year old grudges should have been anticipated and planned for before running in there half cocked. It's not like it couldn't have waited until that part of it was thought out.
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 1:58 AM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Actually, the religious violence was unexpected by all including the left who's main concern was Saddam's forces having WMD's to use on American troops along with drawing the same into urban warfare in large cities with the attacks by insurgents of various stripes in seemingly mindless slaughter against their fellow Iraqis totally unexpected once the US troops began to get more battle savy. As an example of the misinformation that some had and continue to have, yourself, even with hindsight as your guide still confuse the religious hatreds between Sunis and Shia as 'tribal' warfare which it definitely is not. .
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 2:12 AM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
The combat went quite well though. In fact, amazingly well and will probably go into history books as absolutely brilliant.
I'm pretty certain that nothing that this administration did will ever be described as "brilliant" by any serious historians. The most frequent adjective I've heard regarding the initial invasion and the overruning of the Iraqi Army, including the Republican guard, was "surprising," as in anyone with any actual strategic intelligence was surprised it didn't turn into a fiasco sooner than it did. Especially since they left all the armories and government installations unguarded and unoccupied. Only the stupidity and cowardice of the Iraqis kept them from going behind us to re-arm and cut our supply lines to our forward troops. I've also heard the initial invasion strategy described as "incredibly lucky." But never brilliant.
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 2:23 AM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy
|
|
Heaveninawildflower
Posts: 15,333
|
Actually, the religious violence was unexpected by all including the left
From why we didn't remove Saddam by Brent Snowcroft and George Bush Sr:in 1998:
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 12 @ 2:47 AM |
Simple Question Regarding Hillbama's Iraq Surrender Policy |
|
alivenwell351
Posts: 1,514
|
the religious hatreds between Sunis and Shia as 'tribal' warfare which it definitely is not. .
You're absolutely right...I misspoke...my mistake...
It's "sectular" warfare...kind of like if the Methodists, Mormons, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses were at each other here...
And some still refer to it as "civil" war!!!
But there's no way it should not have been at least considered a possibility and at least some kind of contingent preparation done for it...hindsight's 20/20, but it seems someone should have considered that the Iraqi army, a large part of which were conscripts, maybe didn't need to be completely disbanded. I agree with NO...there's little, if anything, brilliant about this whole mismanaged mess...
|
| |
|
|