PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Biden says Iraq war wasn't worth `horrible price'


petegz28
02-14-2010, 10:56 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Joe Biden says the Iraq war hasn't been worth its "horrible price."

He says the war was mishandled from the outset and that the U.S. took its eye off the ball. As a result, he says the U.S. was left in a more dangerous position in Afghanistan, where al-Qaida hatched the Sept 11 attacks.

Biden tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that the war also has cost the United States support from other nations.

Still, Biden predicts Iraq will have successful parliamentary elections next month and he says the U.S. is likely to bring home some 90,000 combat troops by the end of the summer.

More than 4,370 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq since former President George W. Bush ordered the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been wounded or killed.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100214/D9DRV98G1.html

petegz28
02-14-2010, 10:57 AM
Just the other day he said Iraq could be "one of the greatest achievments" for the Obama Admin. LMAO...this guy is a tool

Donger
02-14-2010, 11:04 AM
Didn't Joe vote for invading Iraq in 2003?

petegz28
02-14-2010, 11:05 AM
Didn't Joe vote for invading Iraq in 2003?

I think he was fer it before he was agin' it.

ROYC75
02-14-2010, 11:24 AM
Another comment from a guy know for opening his mouth. Nice work Joe, keep talking about the past you supported to deflect from the current crisis we have in America.

Other words, the blame game continues.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:25 AM
Doesn't this actually align him with most Americans at this point?

How many Americans would tell you that Iraq was worth it these days?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 11:27 AM
Doesn't this actually align him with most Americans at this point?

How many Americans would tell you that Iraq was worth it these days?

How many Americans cast a vote for the war?

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 11:31 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223300

How could he say that about the great accomplishment of this administration. Barry and this clown are an embarrassment that just keeps getting more embarrassing~

petegz28
02-14-2010, 11:33 AM
Doesn't this actually align him with most Americans at this point?

How many Americans would tell you that Iraq was worth it these days?

Wow, from "a great achievment for Obama" to "he is with most Americans". ROFL

Can't make this shit up.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:35 AM
How many Americans cast a vote for the war?

That's different than asking years afterward how Americans feel about the war.

A majority of them probably feel similarly to Biden.

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 11:36 AM
Wow, from "a great achievment for Obama" to "he is with most Americans". ROFL

Can't make this shit up.
Barry would forbid this moron to speak but that would be racist Joe being white and all~

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:37 AM
I don't get it.

Are we supposed to act like wars don't have horrible prices?

That's definition of wars. That's why nobody wants to be in wars.

They have horrible prices.

The day that becomes a controversial thing to say is the day war actually becomes our preferred state of affairs.

Chocolate Hog
02-14-2010, 11:39 AM
That's different than asking years afterward how Americans feel about the war.

A majority of them probably feel similarly to Biden.

Wait so Americans think the war was a success or that it wasn't worth it?

Donger
02-14-2010, 11:43 AM
Doesn't this actually align him with most Americans at this point?

How many Americans would tell you that Iraq was worth it these days?

Worth what, exactly?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 11:44 AM
That's different than asking years afterward how Americans feel about the war.

A majority of them probably feel similarly to Biden.

Then he should resign for having voted our country into a war that wasn't worth it.

Donger
02-14-2010, 11:44 AM
I'll also say that this is a really stupid thing to say while we still have troops in harm's way in Iraq.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:44 AM
Worth what, exactly?

My point exactly.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:45 AM
Wait so Americans think the war was a success or that it wasn't worth it?

Most Americans feel very pessimistic about the war in Iraq.

Polls show they think it wasn't worth it at this point.

Chocolate Hog
02-14-2010, 11:45 AM
Then he should resign for having voted our country into a war that wasn't worth it.

But George Bush gave them bad intell errmmm nevermind in 1998 they voted to liberate Iraq.

Donger
02-14-2010, 11:46 AM
My point exactly.

Worth the cost in loss of life? Worth the cost in money? What was Biden referring to?

Chocolate Hog
02-14-2010, 11:46 AM
Most Americans feel very pessimistic about the war in Iraq.

Polls show they think it wasn't worth it at this point.

It wasn't but the suppose anti-war president really isn't anti-war at all.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:46 AM
Then he should resign for having voted our country into a war that wasn't worth it.

An even better idea would be to vote to bring troops home now.

Donger
02-14-2010, 11:47 AM
An even better idea would be to vote to bring troops home now.

Maybe Biden should discuss the matter with his boss? I was under the impression he was CINC.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 11:47 AM
I'll also say that this is a really stupid thing to say while we still have troops in harm's way in Iraq.

Very stupid. And what a way to piss on those that died over there.

Chocolate Hog
02-14-2010, 11:47 AM
An even better idea would be to vote to bring troops home now.

A declaration of war would be nice but neither side follows the constitution. Democrats wouldn't vote to bring the troops home. They were elected in 2006 to do that and did nothing.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 11:47 AM
I don't get it.

Are we supposed to act like wars don't have horrible prices?

That's definition of wars. That's why nobody wants to be in wars.

They have horrible prices.

The day that becomes a controversial thing to say is the day war actually becomes our preferred state of affairs.

Biden didn't say that it was horrible. Nobody would disagree with the fact that all war is horrible. He said that it wasn't worth it. Maybe he's wrong now. Maybe he was wrong when he voted us into the war. If he believes that he voted us into a war that wasn't worth it, he should resign.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:47 AM
It wasn't.

Biden and I and most Americans agree with you.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:48 AM
Maybe Biden should discuss the matter with his boss? I was under the impression he was CINC.

Maybe he should.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:49 AM
Very stupid. And what a way to piss on those that died over there.

By calling their deaths a horrible price?

I don't get it -- when is dying in a war *not* a horrible price?

Unless you get 72 virgins afterwards, it's a horrible price.

Donger
02-14-2010, 11:49 AM
Maybe he should.

I'm not quite sure how Biden could play another round of "Let's Blame Bush" if he were to do that.

Chocolate Hog
02-14-2010, 11:49 AM
Biden and I and most Americans agree with you.

No Biden is full of shit.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 11:49 AM
An even better idea would be to vote to bring troops home now.

Great. Vote them home and then fall on your sword. If you got thousands of our troops killed and spend billions of our tax dollars for something that wasn't worth it, resigning should be a given.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:50 AM
A declaration of war would be nice but neither side follows the constitution. Democrats wouldn't vote to bring the troops home. They were elected in 2006 to do that and did nothing.

Hey, I'm not the one getting in their way. I want troops home.

Chocolate Hog
02-14-2010, 11:50 AM
Keep in mind Biden is the same asshole who wanted to turn Iraq into Israel.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:51 AM
I'm not quite sure how Biden could play another round of "Let's Blame Bush" if he were to do that.

Me neither, but conversely, I don't give a shit who gets the blame.

I want the troops home.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 11:51 AM
By calling their deaths a horrible price?

I don't get it -- when is dying in a war *not* a horrible price?

Unless you get 72 virgins afterwards, it's a horrible price.

Again...not what he said.

Donger
02-14-2010, 11:51 AM
By calling their deaths a horrible price?

I don't get it -- when is dying in a war *not* a horrible price?

Unless you get 72 virgins afterwards, it's a horrible price.

Sure. Biden voted to send these people into harm's way. Now, he thinks it was a mistake and not worth it. You don't think that our troops in Iraq right now might think, "Wow, so WTF am I doing here?"

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:51 AM
No Biden is full of shit.

k

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:52 AM
Great. Vote them home and then fall on your sword. If you got thousands of our troops killed and spend billions of our tax dollars for something that wasn't worth it, resigning should be a given.

I think that's reasonable.

Chocolate Hog
02-14-2010, 11:53 AM
k

You want the troops home don't you? Thats not what Biden stands for.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:53 AM
Sure. Biden voted to send these people into harm's way. Now, he thinks it was a mistake and not worth it. You don't think that our troops in Iraq right now might think, "Wow, so WTF am I doing here?"

How many of these guys have you talked to?

I've talked to dozens, and "Wow, so WTF am I doing here?" has pretty much been a consistent complaint of theirs for years in Iraq.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:54 AM
You want the troops home don't you? Thats not what Biden stands for.

Well then Biden and I would disagree.

This isn't hard to figure out.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 11:54 AM
A declaration of war would be nice but neither side follows the constitution. Democrats wouldn't vote to bring the troops home. They were elected in 2006 to do that and did nothing.

This is one of the most idiotic things about our Congress. We send real troops over to attack a real country with real bombs, shoot real bullets with real guns and real people really die. Yet somehow we aren't officialy at war.

Nevermind both Bush and Obama have come out saying "we are fighting 2 WARS".

But since no one actually "declared" war, we aren't really at war.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 11:55 AM
Biden is an embarrassment. Heard him interviewed this morning on KCBS. That guy can't give a straight answer to save his life. When forced into a corner he just massively deceives and spins. This administration is going down like a 16 year old on prom night.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 11:55 AM
By calling their deaths a horrible price?

I don't get it -- when is dying in a war *not* a horrible price?

Unless you get 72 virgins afterwards, it's a horrible price.

No, smartass. By saying it wasn't worth it.

Chocolate Hog
02-14-2010, 11:56 AM
This is one of the most idiotic things about our Congress. We send real troops over to attack a real country with real bombs, shoot real bullets with real guns and real people really die. Yet somehow we aren't officialy at war.

Nevermind both Bush and Obama have come out saying "we are fighting 2 WARS".

But since no one actually "declared" war, we aren't really at war.

It's because we could never really fight these never ending bullshit wars.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2010, 11:56 AM
Me neither, but conversely, I don't give a shit who gets the blame.

I want the troops home.

Who doesnt want them home. Some of you see giving up as the way to get them home. the rest ofd us see unconditional surrender by the enemy as the rightful end of hostlities. Just as in WW2 we should have only one goal and with no mercy, move forward to attain the surrender as soon as possible.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 11:57 AM
One has to wonder if Biden thinks the horrible price paid in that war we call the Revolutionary War was worth it? I mean, after all, all we got out of it was a representative government and gave people the Right to vote and such.

Oh wait, those were the things he said were great when he called this one of the Obama Admin's "greatest achievments". OOOPS!

Donger
02-14-2010, 11:58 AM
How many of these guys have you talked to?

I've talked to dozens, and "Wow, so WTF am I doing here?" has pretty much been a consistent complaint of theirs for years in Iraq.

Probably a half dozen. And, now, they've got the VPOTUS's vote of disapproval, too.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 11:58 AM
Who doesnt want them home. Some of you see giving up as the way to get them home. the rest ofd us see unconditional surrender by the enemy as the rightful end of hostlities. Just as in WW2 we should have only one goal and with no mercy, move forward to attain the surrender as soon as possible.

If I were President this war would have been over in 3 months. We are scared to fight wars they way they need to be fought. Now Obama is repeating the samething in Afghanistan.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 11:58 AM
No, smartass. By saying it wasn't worth it.

Then by your definition, most of Americans are pissing on those who died over in Iraq, since most Americans, polled time and again, say Iraq wasn't worth it.

Are you ready to make that claim? That most Americans disrespect those who died in Iraq?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 11:59 AM
I think that's reasonable.
Should Obama resign as well? After all, he selected Biden to be his VP.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 12:00 PM
Then by your definition, most of Americans are pissing on those who died over in Iraq, since most Americans, polled time and again, say Iraq wasn't worth it.

Are you ready to make that claim? That most Americans disrespect those who died in Iraq?

Most Americans aren't the VP of the USA who voted to send them over there in the first place. ;)

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:00 PM
Who doesnt want them home. Some of you see giving up as the way to get them home. the rest ofd us see unconditional surrender by the enemy as the rightful end of hostlities.

That is so far from (a.) what is possible, (b.) what we're ACTUALLY trying to do in Iraq, and (c.) boneheadedly shortsighted, that there's really nowhere I can start with that.

You just say these things thinking they mean something, because it's what you hear on Levin.

But it doesn't mean anything. It's just empty phrasing.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:01 PM
One has to wonder if Biden thinks the horrible price paid in that war we call the Revolutionary War was worth it? I mean, after all, all we got out of it was a representative government and gave people the Right to vote and such.

Revolutionary War = Iraq War?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 12:02 PM
Most Americans aren't the VP of the USA who voted to send them over there in the first place. ;)

Exactly.

"I order you to leave your family and risk your life fighting a war thousands of miles from home." Years later..."I know you're still over there fighting because I made you go, but it totally wasn't worth it."

petegz28
02-14-2010, 12:03 PM
Revolutionary War = Iraq War?

They shared the same goal, did they not? A Free People with a Right to elect their own government?

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:03 PM
If I were President this war would have been over in 3 months. We are scared to fight wars they way they need to be fought. Now Obama is repeating the samething in Afghanistan.

Obama is being MORE aggressive than Bush was in Afghanistan.

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 12:04 PM
One has to wonder if Biden thinks the horrible price paid in that war we call the Revolutionary War was worth it? I mean, after all, all we got out of it was a representative government and gave people the Right to vote and such. jezzz h christ WTF BBQ LOL

Since when the fu#K is it our job to bring democracy to Iraq? Who gives a chit about democracy in Iraq? It's not our job to remove all the worlds dictators that tortures their own people. We were told that we had to go to war because Saddam had WMD's. Go to war to prevent a war.

We should not be sacrificing American lifes and transfer our wealth to other countries to remove dictators.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:04 PM
Should Obama resign as well? After all, he selected Biden to be his VP.

Well I don't think that people who voted for the war should have to automatically resign. I just said I think that's a reasonable point of view.

I think the people who voted for the war should be beaten in elections by people who would not have.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 12:04 PM
Obama is being MORE aggressive than Bush was in Afghanistan.

Doesn't mean he is fighting the war correctly. More aggressive doesn't=smarter. Sorry, but that is the fact.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 12:04 PM
Obama is being MORE aggressive than Bush was in Afghanistan.

And what, exactly, is that achieving?

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 12:05 PM
Me neither, but conversely, I don't give a shit who gets the blame.

I want the troops home.

No you want them to go to Afghanistan remember? You and Biden are a good fit. You are nothing more than a shill and apologist for Barry. Poke fun at my nickname all you want but for the life of me I could never come up with a better one for you....Direction misspelled~

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:05 PM
Most Americans aren't the VP of the USA who voted to send them over there in the first place. ;)

Americans vote for these people. Let's not strip ourselves of responsibility. We wanted this war.

Now we think it has been a waste of time and lives.

I'll ask again: do you believe that most Americans are disrespectful of those who died in Iraq?

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:07 PM
Exactly.

"I order you to leave your family and risk your life fighting a war thousands of miles from home." Years later..."I know you're still over there fighting because I made you go, but it totally wasn't worth it."

We all ordered them to do it. You, in all probability, were one of those folks that were pro-invasion.

I don't get how we get to wash our hands of responsibility. I don't get how Americans changing their minds on Iraq's worth isn't pissing on the troops, but our elected officials doing the same thing is.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:08 PM
Doesn't mean he is fighting the war correctly. More aggressive doesn't=smarter. Sorry, but that is the fact.

I just don't remember you complaining about Bush for mishandling Afghanistan, but I have a very clear recollection of how big a pussy Obama is regarding a country he sent tens of thousands of soldiers into.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:09 PM
And what, exactly, is that achieving?

Good question.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 12:09 PM
Americans vote for these people. Let's not strip ourselves of responsibility. We wanted this war.

Now we think it has been a waste of time and lives.

I'll ask again: do you believe that most Americans are disrespectful of those who died in Iraq?

No, most Americans are not. Again, most Americans did are not the VP.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:11 PM
No you want them to go to Afghanistan remember? You and Biden are a good fit. You are nothing more than a shill and apologist for Barry.

Shifting the argument from Iraq to Afghanistan and personal attacks.

If I were on your side of the issue I'd probably want to do the same thing.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2010, 12:11 PM
Obama is being MORE aggressive than Bush was in Afghanistan.

Obama is weak.

He is seen as weak by our enemies. You equate sending troops as power. Its not. What we have today is a man in charge seen by friends and foes as weak and lacking principal.

He is not respected. Iran laughs at his hollow talk, China is telling him who he can meet with, Russia tells him who our allies can be. His political party is leaving him, hios voter base already left. And our enemies see it and hear it every day.

He is weak. He is seen as weak by our allies. That in turn is seen by our enemies as a lack of threat from those who used to be the allies of the US.

Your shallow regurgitation of strength and will as a number of troops on the way is clearly a sign you do not understand nor have any respect for what it takes for a country to be seen as a power or a leader.

We can only hope we dont fall too far before we can replace this guy with someone who knows that a strong powerful vibrant America is the source of our power, not his pretty speeches and apologies.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:13 PM
No, most Americans are not. Again, most Americans did are not the VP.

So you're telling me that if a soldier was sitting in his tent in Iraq, and he sees a story about 70% of Americans now no longer think Iraq has been worth it, he'll find himself less offended than if the VP said the same thing.

I mean, you're welcome to your point of view, but that's kind of a crazy thing to believe.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 12:14 PM
So you're telling me that if a soldier was sitting in his tent in Iraq, and he sees a story about 70% of Americans now no longer think Iraq has been worth it, he'll find himself less offended than if the VP said the same thing.

I mean, you're welcome to your point of view, but that's kind of a crazy thing to believe.

That is exactly what I am telling you. The sooner you realize Biden is the VP the better off you are.

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 12:14 PM
That's different than asking years afterward how Americans feel about the war.

A majority of them probably feel similarly to Biden.

You are going to have to prove that one. Personally I think it was worth the effort. How many people did Saddam kill? More than those killed as collateral damage in the war?

You have a very warped sense of what is right and what was right.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:14 PM
Obama is weak.

He is seen as weak by our enemies. You equate sending troops as power. Its not. What we have today is a man in charge seen by friends and foes as weak and lacking principal.

He is not respected. Iran laughs at his hollow talk, China is telling him who he can meet with, Russia tells him who our allies can be. His political party is leaving him, hios voter base already left. And our enemies see it and hear it every day.

He is weak. He is seen as weak by our allies. That in turn is seen by our enemies as a lack of threat from those who used to be the allies of the US.

Your shallow regurgitation of strength and will as a number of troops on the way is clearly a sign you do not understand nor have any respect for what it takes for a country to be seen as a power or a leader.

We can only hope we dont fall too far before we can replace this guy with someone who knows that a strong powerful vibrant America is the source of our power, not his pretty speeches and apologies.

Ho boy.

You are in Levin mode now, brother.

Let me know when you're back in the fray.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:15 PM
That is exactly what I am telling you.

Alright.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 12:16 PM
Good question.

You support the effort in Afghanistan, do you not? How can you support something if you don't know what it's achieving?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 12:18 PM
So you're telling me that if a soldier was sitting in his tent in Iraq, and he sees a story about 70% of Americans now no longer think Iraq has been worth it, he'll find himself less offended than if the VP said the same thing.

I mean, you're welcome to your point of view, but that's kind of a crazy thing to believe.

If 70% of Chiefs fans in a newspaper poll say that Cassel sucks, it's going to bum him out. If his head coach says that he sucks in an interview, it's going to be a lot worse.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:18 PM
You support the effort in Afghanistan, do you not? How can you support something if you don't know what it's achieving?

I do know what it's achieving. I just refuse to pretend it's remotely clear or simple.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:20 PM
If 70% of Chiefs fans in a newspaper poll say that Cassel sucks, it's going to bum him out. If his head coach says that he sucks in an interview, it's going to be a lot worse.

Alright, you keep drawing football analogies to a democracy waging war.

I'll be over here talking with the grownups.

mlyonsd
02-14-2010, 12:21 PM
I think the correct answer right now is we don't yet know if it was worth the price we've paid.

This is just Biden being Biden. A DA.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 12:21 PM
I do know what it's achieving. I just refuse to pretend it's remotely clear or simple.

So I can put you down for a non-answer?

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:22 PM
I think the correct answer right now is we don't yet know if it was worth the price we've paid.

I think we can take an educated guess.

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 12:23 PM
I think we can take an educated guess.

I seriously doubt if you can take that guess.

Your loyality seems to be rooted in something other than America.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 12:24 PM
Alright, you keep drawing football analogies to a democracy waging war.

I'll be over here talking with the grownups.

Yes, that analogy draws no parallel whatsoever. I'm sure that the soldiers don't like hearing that the country is against the war. I'm sure that Vietnam vets didn't like getting spat upon by citizens. It would have been worse if the Vice President was the one hocking loogies on them, though.

Donger
02-14-2010, 12:24 PM
I think we can take an educated guess.

Let's ask Biden:

In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat". He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power."

Mission accomplished.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:25 PM
So I can put you down for a non-answer?

I'm not particularly concerned.

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 12:26 PM
Shifting the argument from Iraq to Afghanistan and personal attacks.

If I were on your side of the issue I'd probably want to do the same thing.

Whatever Direction misspelled don't feed me the I just want the troops home bullshit. When Barry was swelled up on Afghanistan you were all about sending anyone but your own ass over to fight~

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:27 PM
Yes, that analogy draws no parallel whatsoever. I'm sure that the soldiers don't like hearing that the country is against the war. I'm sure that Vietnam vets didn't like getting spat upon by citizens. It would have been worse if the Vice President was the one hocking loogies on them, though.

So that's it, then.

You'll take it one step further than pete, who doesn't believe a majority of Americans disrespect our soldiers in Iraq by thinking the war isn't worth it.

But you do. Any American who believes this war isn't worth it, according to you, is disrespecting our soldiers there. And if that happens to be 70% of Americans, well then so be it, most Americans disrespect our troops.

Right?

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:28 PM
Let's ask Biden:

In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat". He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power."

Mission accomplished.

I don't know what you want me to do with this information.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:29 PM
Whatever Direction misspelled don't feed me the I just want the troops home bullshit. When Barry was swelled up on Afghanistan you were all about sending anyone but your own ass over to fight~

You're out there, RNR. Come back.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 12:32 PM
I don't know what you want me to do with this information.

That is not a surprising response from you at all.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 12:33 PM
So that's it, then.

You'll take it one step further than pete, who doesn't believe a majority of Americans disrespect our soldiers in Iraq by thinking the war isn't worth it.

But you do. Any American who believes this war isn't worth it, according to you, is disrespecting our soldiers there. And if that happens to be 70% of Americans, well then so be it, most Americans disrespect our troops.

Right?

You are completely backwards on this. Americans support the troops but have no real ability to send them there or bring them home. The VP sent them there and has a lot of influence regarding when they can come home.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 12:33 PM
That is not a surprising response from you at all.

I don't understand how "Biden supported the war" translates into, eight years later, Biden must necessarily stick to the idea that the war was always worth it. That line of arugment makes no sense.

Donger
02-14-2010, 12:34 PM
I don't know what you want me to do with this information.

Biden got what he wanted.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 12:36 PM
I don't understand how "Biden supported the war" translates into, eight years later, Biden must necessarily stick to the idea that the war was always worth it. That line of arugment makes no sense.

He should resign, and Obama should resign for selecting him, then.

Donger
02-14-2010, 12:38 PM
I don't understand how "Biden supported the war" translates into, eight years later, Biden must necessarily stick to the idea that the war was always worth it. That line of arugment makes no sense.

Biden is 2003:

Washington -- The ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee says the American people do not fully realize the extent of
the task of bringing stability to Iraq.

In a June 27 speech, Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat of Delaware),
after a trip to Iraq, said he had not found "one reasonable person who
suggests that the United States will not be heavily involved," even
after a transition to a democratic Iraqi government, for at least
three to five years.

"If anybody thinks it is less than that, they are kidding themselves,"
said Biden, " If it is less than that, it will mean we will lose the
peace."

There is still a war going on in Iraq, Biden told colleagues.
"It is more like a guerrilla war but there is a war," he said.
"Our young men and women are being targeted not by some random group
of Islamists who are angry but by professionals, the leftover
fedayeen, the Republican Guard," said Biden.

In the Senate, everyone knows, "whether we say another year or 10,
whether it is 75,000 troops or 160,000, whether it is $1 billion or
$20 billion or $40 billion, we all know it is a lot more than any of
us are telling the American people," Biden said

"It was a worthy goal to take down Saddam Hussein," Biden said.
The Iraqi dictator, he added, was a danger to his own people, killing
at least 300,000 of them.

"Mass graves abound," Biden said, "We did a worthy and noble thing."
But now, he added, the United States "must internationalize" its
effort to stabilize Iraq and bring democracy to that country.

stevieray
02-14-2010, 12:40 PM
I'm starting to think he was chosen for a reason...he's a useful idiot.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 12:41 PM
You're out there, RNR. Come back.

NO he's not. What he said was true.

mlyonsd
02-14-2010, 12:41 PM
I don't understand how "Biden supported the war" translates into, eight years later, Biden must necessarily stick to the idea that the war was always worth it. That line of arugment makes no sense.

If the price of the war wasn't worth it continuing that same war will only make the horrible price increase. You can't reconcile his comment with the administration's current Iraq policy.

Like I said, I just think this was Biden once again opening his mouth and some scrambled words coming out.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 12:43 PM
For what it's worth, I think Biden's right. But I don't blame anyone for holding his political opportuning feet to the fire. You didn't see Ron Paul supporting a war he didn't believe in just because of the politics of it all. Lots of democrats did that though. Nearly all of them.

petegz28
02-14-2010, 01:12 PM
I don't understand how "Biden supported the war" translates into, eight years later, Biden must necessarily stick to the idea that the war was always worth it. That line of arugment makes no sense.

So 3 days ago Iraq was one of the "greatest achievments for the Obama Admin" because the Iraqi people were going to have elections and an representative government. And now, 3 days later, it wasn't worth it??

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 01:19 PM
Let's ask Biden:

In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat". He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power."

Mission accomplished.

I don't know what you want me to do with this information.

That is not a surprising response from you at all.

I don't understand how "Biden supported the war" translates into, eight years later, Biden must necessarily stick to the idea that the war was always worth it. That line of arugment makes no sense.

So 3 days ago Iraq was one of the "greatest achievments for the Obama Admin" because the Iraqi people were going to have elections and an representative government. And now, 3 days later, it wasn't worth it??

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

I find it amusing that direkshun uses puffery to explain his position and when confronted with facts answers "I don't know what you want me to do with this information."

It's obvious direkshun's allegiance is not with America.

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 01:27 PM
You are completely backwards on this. Americans support the troops but have no real ability to send them there or bring them home. The VP sent them there and has a lot of influence regarding when they can come home.They should have never been sent in the first place. There were no WMD's. Iraq was a mistake. We should never have invaded the country. You can't change history nor the facts. We went in and the war had support because we were scared of a dictator having WMD's. He didn't. We were wrong and thousands of Americans died for that mistake. Thousands more are missing arms and legs, families are suffering from the lost of a loved one, the mental anguish that will torture soldiers for years to come was not worth removing a dictator. Democracy in middle east? The American public would not be in favor of a war that cost so many American lives to remove a dictator.

That being said, just because we shouldn't have been there to start with in no way lessens the sacrifices and bravery of our men and women who serve. They are soldiers, their commander in chief says we are going to war, they have no choice. Their efforts are no less noble than if they were fighting in a "popular" war. They sacrificed for the USA, not Iraq and for that they deserve our respect and to be treated with honor.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 01:35 PM
They should have never been sent in the first place. There were no WMD's. Iraq was a mistake. We should never have invaded the country. You can't change history nor the facts. We went in and the war had support because we were scared of a dictator having WMD's. He didn't. We were wrong and thousands of Americans died for that mistake. Thousands more are missing arms and legs, families are suffering from the lost of a loved one, the mental anguish that will torture soldiers for years to come was not worth removing a dictator. Democracy in middle east? The American public would not be in favor of a war that cost so many American lives to remove a dictator.

That being said, just because we shouldn't have been there to start with in no way lessens the sacrifices and bravery of our men and women who serve. They are soldiers, their commander in chief says we are going to war, they have no choice. Their efforts are no less noble than if they were fighting in a "popular" war. They sacrificed for the USA, not Iraq and for that they deserve our respect and to be treated with honor.

I haven't said anything to the contrary. In fact, I've said that Biden should resign. If he believes that this war wasn't worth it, he needs to do the honorable thing and step down.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:15 PM
You are completely backwards on this. Americans support the troops but have no real ability to send them there or bring them home. The VP sent them there and has a lot of influence regarding when they can come home.

We were the reason we invaded Iraq. If the American people don't buy into Iraq, we don't go there. That simple.

Now, getting them home is more complicated, I'll give you that.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:18 PM
Biden got what he wanted.

Sure he did, but that's not what we're talking about.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:19 PM
He should resign, and Obama should resign for selecting him, then.

We've already had this discussion.

I'll let you respond to what I last said on the issue before I start going over the exact same arguments again.

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 02:21 PM
They should have never been sent in the first place. There were no WMD's. Iraq was a mistake. We should never have invaded the country. You can't change history nor the facts. We went in and the war had support because we were scared of a dictator having WMD's. He didn't. We were wrong and thousands of Americans died for that mistake. Thousands more are missing arms and legs, families are suffering from the lost of a loved one, the mental anguish that will torture soldiers for years to come was not worth removing a dictator. Democracy in middle east? The American public would not be in favor of a war that cost so many American lives to remove a dictator.

That being said, just because we shouldn't have been there to start with in no way lessens the sacrifices and bravery of our men and women who serve. They are soldiers, their commander in chief says we are going to war, they have no choice. Their efforts are no less noble than if they were fighting in a "popular" war. They sacrificed for the USA, not Iraq and for that they deserve our respect and to be treated with honor.


Are you sure there were no WMD's there? Based on the 'yellow cake' found there were indications there were WMD's there and rumors that they were moved to Syria before the inspectors were allowed in.

Also, sarin gas was found. I was of the understanding it was considered a WMD until it was found and then it was downgraded.

Wether they had them or not does not answer to the fact that Saddam boasted of having them.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 02:21 PM
We were the reason we invaded Iraq. If the American people don't buy into Iraq, we don't go there. That simple.

Does this only apply to wars, or is the health care bill dead as well?

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:21 PM
NO he's not. What he said was true.

It was off topic.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:24 PM
If the price of the war wasn't worth it continuing that same war will only make the horrible price increase.

Not necessarily.

If I engaged in a foolish war that destabilized a region of the planet, than there could be some value in staying long enough to make sure things don't blow up so you don't leave that region on the brink of destruction, despite the fact that the initial invasion wasn't worth it.

Of course, liberals like myself have long been on record saying they should just get out now, because in my opinion that place is just going to blow up whenever we decide to leave. Staying just delays the inevitable.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 02:25 PM
We've already had this discussion.

I'll let you respond to what I last said on the issue before I start going over the exact same arguments again.

We did already have that discussion. You then went right back to an argument that essentially amounted to, "can't a guy change his mind?". I would submit that he can change his mind, but he needs to pay the ultimate political price for the blood that is on his hands.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:29 PM
So 3 days ago Iraq was one of the "greatest achievments for the Obama Admin" because the Iraqi people were going to have elections and an representative government. And now, 3 days later, it wasn't worth it??

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

I'm of the opinion that the Iraq war is a black mark on all of us, so I'm not going to defend the idea that it was a great achievement, period. Nor am I denying Biden's opportunism.

But it's clear from this conversation that Biden being an opportunist isn't what's riling you guys up -- it's the suggestion that war has awful prices, and that by suggesting those prices aren't worth what we're getting out of the deal, you're thereby hating on the troops. I get blasted here in DC by you guys for suggesting the same thing on a regular basis.

Which is dumb. War has consequences that are horrible. And only in the rarest of circumstances are those consequences justified by what we get out of the deal. Iraq does not meet those circumstances IMO, and I'd hope the Obama administration would come around to that.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:31 PM
We did already have that discussion. You then went right back to an argument that essentially amounted to, "can't a guy change his mind?"

Swing and a miss.

That is not where I left the discussion at. I'll give you a chance to correct yourself.

mlyonsd
02-14-2010, 02:34 PM
Not necessarily.

If I engaged in a foolish war that destabilized a region of the planet, than there could be some value in staying long enough to make sure things don't blow up so you don't leave that region on the brink of destruction, despite the fact that the initial invasion wasn't worth it.

Of course, liberals like myself have long been on record saying they should just get out now, because in my opinion that place is just going to blow up whenever we decide to leave. Staying just delays the inevitable.

I don't think you can reconcile his comment with the idea there could be some value in staying. Especially after his comments a few days ago about being a great achievment for the administration for sticking it out.

Its the same as calling the surge a failure before it started and then voting to fund it. It does a great disservice to those still serving there IMO.

If we'll paid too horrible a price already we can only pay more by staying.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:34 PM
Does this only apply to wars, or is the health care bill dead as well?

I would say that it applies only to wars.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 02:35 PM
I'm of the opinion that the Iraq war is a black mark on all of us, so I'm not going to defend the idea that it was a great achievement, period. Nor am I denying Biden's opportunism.

But it's clear from this conversation that Biden being an opportunist isn't what's riling you guys up -- it's the suggestion that war has awful prices, and that by suggesting those prices aren't worth what we're getting out of the deal, you're thereby hating on the troops. I get blasted here in DC by you guys for suggesting the same thing on a regular basis.

Which is dumb. War has consequences that are horrible. And only in the rarest of circumstances are those consequences justified by what we get out of the deal. Iraq does not meet those circumstances IMO, and I'd hope the Obama administration would come around to that.

You keep leaving one critical piece of the puzzle when paraphrasing our arguments. It's not hating on the troops to say that the war wasn't worth it. It is disgraceful, however, to say that the war wasn't worth it when your administration has the ability to get the troops home yet hasn't.

If my wife pisses me off and I beat the hell out of her, it's a bit disingenuous to tell her that I'm sorry for over-reacting while continuing to kick her ass.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:35 PM
I don't think you can reconcile his comment with the idea there could be some value in staying. Especially after his comments a few days ago about being a great achievment for the administration for sticking it out.

Its the same as calling the surge a failure before it started and then voting to fund it. It does a great disservice to those still serving there IMO.

If we'll paid too horrible a price already we can only pay more by staying.

Well I agree with the last part. Get out now. It's what I've said for a few years now.

But again, I'll use my example:

If I engaged in a foolish war that destabilized a region of the planet, than there could be some value in staying long enough to make sure things don't blow up so you don't leave that region on the brink of destruction, despite the fact that the initial invasion wasn't worth it.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:38 PM
You keep leaving one critical piece of the puzzle when paraphrasing our arguments. It's not hating on the troops to say that the war wasn't worth it. It is disgraceful, however, to say that the war wasn't worth it when your administration has the ability to get the troops home yet hasn't.

I'll refer you to the argument I just made to mylonsd:

If I engaged in a foolish war that destabilized a region of the planet, than there could be some value in staying long enough to make sure things don't blow up so you don't leave that region on the brink of destruction, despite the fact that the initial invasion wasn't worth it.

And I'm going to ignore the part of your post where you try to use domestic abuse as a war analogy. In one thread, you've tried to compare war to domestic abuse, healthcare politics, and sports. None of these are good analogies.

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 02:39 PM
I'm of the opinion that the Iraq war is a black mark on all of us, so I'm not going to defend the idea that it was a great achievement, period. Nor am I denying Biden's opportunism.

But it's clear from this conversation that Biden being an opportunist isn't what's riling you guys up -- it's the suggestion that war has awful prices, and that by suggesting those prices aren't worth what we're getting out of the deal, you're thereby hating on the troops. I get blasted here in DC by you guys for suggesting the same thing on a regular basis.

Which is dumb. War has consequences that are horrible. And only in the rarest of circumstances are those consequences justified by what we get out of the deal. Iraq does not meet those circumstances IMO, and I'd hope the Obama administration would come around to that.

But Afgan is worth it right? I mean you were all puffed up ready to send troops there and it will be stable and stay that way right? I mean you balked at consequences and yelled charge (from the saftey of your keyboard) Did you have a change of heart oh great keyboard warrior? Is it give peace a chance now?

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:40 PM
But Afgan is worth it right? I mean you were all puffed up ready to send troops there and it will be stable and stay that way right? I mean you balked at consequences and yelled charge (from the saftey of your keyboard) Did you have a change of heart oh great keyboard warrior? Is it give peace a chance now?

Please. Tons of people have sat at their keyboards and called for war in Iraq when I opposed it, and you didn't mock them.

Donger
02-14-2010, 02:45 PM
Sure he did, but that's not what we're talking about.

No, that's not what you're talking about. Biden got what he wanted and voted for. Why isn't that now worth the 'horrible price' he's talking about?

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 02:47 PM
Please. Tons of people have sat at their keyboards and called for war in Iraq when I opposed it, and you didn't mock them.

I am asking you about Afghanistan which you already know but duck the answer~

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:48 PM
No, that's not what you're talking about. Biden got what he wanted and voted for. Why isn't that now worth the 'horrible price' he's talking about?

I disagree that he got what he wanted and voted for, and just because he said he did doesn't make it so.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:49 PM
I am asking you about Afghanistan which you already know but duck the answer~

You can't swoop into a topic on "A", confront me about topic "B", and then call me chickenshit for not wanting to change the topic.

Or, actually, you can. But it's kind of a dumb way to operate.

If you want to start a topic on Afghanistan, I'll follow you there. But you don't want to talk about Afghanistan, which is why the thread hasn't been started. You just want me to stop talking about Iraq.

Donger
02-14-2010, 02:49 PM
I disagree that he got what he wanted and voted for, and just because he said he did doesn't make it so.

Wow. You can really look at the quotes I provided in this thread from him, and honestly reach that conclusion?

I don't even know what the second part means.

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 02:51 PM
How many of these guys have you talked to?

I've talked to dozens, and "Wow, so WTF am I doing here?" has pretty much been a consistent complaint of theirs for years in Iraq.


That's got to be total bullshit! Those that I've talked to were not crazy about being in harms way but they were never of the WTF was I doing there. They all knew they had a duty to do and did it. Some paid the price so people like you can lie about what they say about their service there.

Your biggest concern should be with Afghanistan, the soviets spent 15 +- years fighting a war they could not win, we are in that same country and fighting the same people. The war for them is not about AQ, it's about growing Poppies for the opium.

The exit strategy everyone claims Bush did not have is now being claimed by Obama as well as the outcome of the conflict.

You are on the wrong side of all of the arguments here, my guess is that your biggest worry is that Iran will be next, but don't worry your little pea pickin' brain. Obama doesn't have the nerve to stand up to little crazy people like your favorite president in Iran.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:52 PM
Wow. You can really look at the quotes I provided in this thread from him, and honestly reach that conclusion?

I don't even know what the second part means.

We didn't invade Iraq to give democracy to a country. We invaded it because we were convinced we were in danger.

When it turned out we weren't in danger after all, virtually everybody that voted for the war, Biden included, started changing their tune and acting as if Iraq was first and foremost a humanitarian mission.

It wasn't. It was a move to make us safer, and all it has done is make us less safe.

Biden didn't get what he wanted.

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 02:54 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Joe Biden says the Iraq war hasn't been worth its "horrible price."

He says the war was mishandled from the outset and that the U.S. took its eye off the ball. As a result, he says the U.S. was left in a more dangerous position in Afghanistan, where al-Qaida hatched the Sept 11 attacks.

Biden tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that the war also has cost the United States support from other nations.

Still, Biden predicts Iraq will have successful parliamentary elections next month and he says the U.S. is likely to bring home some 90,000 combat troops by the end of the summer.

More than 4,370 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq since former President George W. Bush ordered the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been wounded or killed.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100214/D9DRV98G1.html

You can't swoop into a topic on "A", confront me about topic "B", and then call me chickenshit for not wanting to change the topic.

Or, actually, you can. But it's kind of a dumb way to operate.

If you want to start a topic on Afghanistan, I'll follow you there. But you don't want to talk about Afghanistan, which is why the thread hasn't been started. You just want me to stop talking about Iraq.

He wasn't changing topics, Afghanistan is part of the whole discussion here. I think it's you that tend to be straying from reality here.

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 02:54 PM
You can't swoop into a topic on "A", confront me about topic "B", and then call me chickenshit for not wanting to change the topic.

Or, actually, you can. But it's kind of a dumb way to operate.

If you want to start a topic on Afghanistan, I'll follow you there. But you don't want to talk about Afghanistan, which is why the thread hasn't been started. You just want me to stop talking about Iraq.

Gee a topic about "war" and you plead just bring the troops home. So I ask you about another "war" you are or were all rah rah about. Wow what a reach! I guess I have to start a new thread to comply with your question rules~

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:56 PM
Gee a topic about "war" and you plead just bring the troops home. So I ask you about another "war" you are or were all rah rah about. Wow what a reach! I guess I have to start a new thread to comply with your question rules~

Do it, and I'll be there.

Donger
02-14-2010, 02:56 PM
We didn't invade Iraq to give democracy to a country. We invaded it because we were convinced we were in danger.

When it turned out we weren't in danger after all, virtually everybody that voted for the war, Biden included, started changing their tune and acting as if Iraq was first and foremost a humanitarian mission.

It wasn't. It was a move to make us safer, and all it has done is make us less safe.

Biden didn't get what he wanted.

WTF?

Biden wanted the perceived threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons removed. As you can see from the quotes I provided, Biden wanted Hussein gone.

He got that, and therefore, he got what he wanted.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:58 PM
WTF?

Biden wanted the perceived threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons removed. As you can see from the quotes I provided, Biden wanted Hussein gone.

He got that, and therefore, he got what he wanted.

Biden wanted Saddam The Threat To America. When we invaded, found no weapons, and ended up with Saddam The Nonthreat To America, Biden and the rest of the idiots who voted for the war pretended that was good enough, consequences be damned.

Everybody who supported invasion changed their rationale after the war. He didn't get what we wanted.

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 02:59 PM
Do it, and I'll be there.

What a fucking joke! You can't ask me that here! You have to start a thread!!!

Donger
02-14-2010, 03:00 PM
Biden wanted Saddam The Threat To America. When we invaded, found no weapons, and ended up with Saddam The Nonthreat To America, Biden and the rest of the idiots who voted for the war pretended that was good enough, consequences be damned.

Everybody who supported invasion changed their rationale after the war. He didn't get what we wanted.

Oh, so Saddam isn't dead? Still in command of his military? Biden DID get what he wanted. But, as it turns out, he didn't like what he wanted.

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 03:02 PM
Biden wanted Saddam The Threat To America. When we invaded, found no weapons, and ended up with Saddam The Nonthreat To America, Biden and the rest of the idiots who voted for the war pretended that was good enough, consequences be damned.

Everybody who supported invasion changed their rationale after the war. He didn't get what we wanted.

They didnt' start the whining about the war for some time after it started. As the political seasons started coming into focus there was wide turncoat supporters that flipped back to the other side. Your perspective is still colored by your lack of allegiance to America.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:02 PM
Gee a topic about "war" and you plead just bring the troops home. So I ask you about another "war" you are or were all rah rah about. Wow what a reach! I guess I have to start a new thread to comply with your question rules~

Just don't use analogies to pick apart his arguments. He gets all pissy about that for some reason.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:05 PM
Everybody who supported invasion changed their rationale after the war. He didn't get what we wanted.

Was that a typo, or are you trying to change it from "Biden didn't get what HE wanted" to "Biden didn't get what WE wanted"?

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:05 PM
Oh, so Saddam isn't dead? Still in command of his military? Biden DID get what he wanted. But, as it turns out, he didn't like what he wanted.

No, we got the guy alright. A guy that we wrongly accused of being a serious threat to America. When it turned out he wasn't really a threat to America, we just pretended like that was good enough so we could sleep better at night.

Biden was one of them. And the whole idea that America has now ended up more endangered from Iraq now than we were before we invaded is the exact opposite of what Biden wanted.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:06 PM
Was that a typo, or are you trying to change it from "Biden didn't get what HE wanted" to "Biden didn't get what WE wanted"?

Ha. I meant he. But I could probably still say we and be accurate.

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 03:07 PM
Just don't use analogies to pick apart his arguments. He gets all pissy about that for some reason.
This is the first time in a long time I have even paid attention to him. He is still the same clown he has always been. I have to start a thread to ask him that question LMAO

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:07 PM
Just don't use analogies to pick apart his arguments. He gets all pissy about that for some reason.

I just don't have time for analogies that make no sense.

"So what you're saying is that if I took this guy out in dodgeball, you're saying winning the game wasn't worth it!?!?"

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:07 PM
Ha. I meant he. But I could probably still say we and be accurate.

Did Bush get what he wanted?

Donger
02-14-2010, 03:08 PM
No, we got the guy alright. A guy that we wrongly accused of being a serious threat to America. When it turned out he wasn't really a threat to America, we just pretended like that was good enough so we could sleep better at night.

Biden was one of them. And the whole idea that America has now ended up more endangered from Iraq now than we were before we invaded is the exact opposite of what Biden wanted.

Well, let's hope the great foreign policy genius you elected VPOTUS does better next time, eh?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:09 PM
I just don't have time for analogies that make no sense.

"So what you're saying is that if I took this guy out in dodgeball, you're saying winning the game wasn't worth it!?!?"

It makes perfect sense. It does no good to acknowledge a horrible, expensive, violent mistake if you don't do anything to stop it from continuing.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:09 PM
Did Bush get what he wanted?

Nope.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:10 PM
Well, let's hope the great foreign policy genius you elected VPOTUS does better next time, eh?

Let's.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:11 PM
Nope.

Did their motives differ in any way? I'm just trying to figure out the antipathy you have displayed towards the previous administration versus your vote for the current one.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:12 PM
It makes perfect sense. It does no good to acknowledge a horrible, expensive, violent mistake if you don't do anything to stop it from continuing.

I'd disagree that they've done nothing to stop the war in Iraq.

I'd like to see them do more, but to argue that they've done nothing is intellectually bankrupt.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:13 PM
Did their motives differ in any way? I'm just trying to figure out the antipathy you have displayed towards the previous administration versus your vote for the current one.

The previous administration campaigned to invade, and invaded Iraq. I opposed that, and I voted against it.

The current administration campaigned to pull out. I supported that, and I voted for it.

I need Glenn Beck's chalkboard.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:15 PM
I'd disagree that they've done nothing to stop the war in Iraq.

I'd like to see them do more, but to argue that they've done nothing is intellectually bankrupt.

If it makes you feel better, you can add the modifier "essentially" in front of "nothing".

RedNeckRaider
02-14-2010, 03:15 PM
Did their motives differ in any way? I'm just trying to figure out the antipathy you have displayed towards the previous administration versus your vote for the current one.

You are going to have to start another thread or he will just keep dick dancing~

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:16 PM
If it makes you feel better, you can add the modifier "essentially" in front of "nothing".

I think that'd be intellectually bankrupt, too.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:18 PM
I think that'd be intellectually bankrupt, too.

Do you think that we will be out of Iraq before Gitmo closes?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:19 PM
What has this administration done differently than the previous one in order to get us out of Iraq?

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:19 PM
Do you think that we will be out of Iraq before Gitmo closes?

I don't know.

I would hope both adventures will have ended before the election of 2012.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:21 PM
What has this administration done differently than the previous one in order to get us out of Iraq?

Oh man. Forget it.

Nothing. They've done nothing.

I'm not going to bother myself with doing your homework for you.

Just tell yourself nothing's happened.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:23 PM
Oh man. Forget it.

Nothing. They've done nothing.

I'm not going to bother myself with doing your homework for you.

Just tell yourself nothing's happened.

I will.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:24 PM
I don't know.

I would hope both adventures will have ended before the election of 2012.

That seems like an awfully arbitrary date unless, of course, that you are hoping this for purely political reasons and not out of concern for our soldiers in harm's way.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 03:25 PM
I will.

I'm sorry but that's a huge topic with tons of material out there for you to know nothing on it.

I mean geez, man. This is a politics forum.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 03:28 PM
I'm sorry but that's a huge topic with tons of material out there for you to know nothing on it.

I mean geez, man. This is a politics forum.

I'm well versed in the rhetoric. Where are the boots, though?

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 03:38 PM
I don't know.

I would hope both adventures will have ended before the election of 2012.

If you think GTMO is an adventure you really need to get out of the hut more frequently. GTMO sucks, have you ever listened to those that had to guard the terrorists that are being detained? My guess is that you want those people held in our prisions in side our shores. They are war criminals, they are in a place better than they had when at home. They get treated better than the common criminals we have in jails here.

Your point of view about many things are just so hosed up it's not funny. Where do you get the drugs that make your reality so hosed up?

Hog Farmer
02-14-2010, 03:47 PM
In the big picture Bush knew Sadaam was making the ME unstable and had to be removed . Imanutjob will have to be removed also but Obama will not do it. Hopefully we can get a real President in office before Imanutjob detonates a nuc in Israel. But I don't think we have that kind of time.

Yes we,ve lost 4300 men in this war but our kill ratio is what, 1000 to 1. We lost more men than that on D-Day. We've been able to test and use and develop weapons in this war that will keep us the main super power for the foreseeable future (except for the fact that Bin Laden and Obamas goal is to bankrupt us).

This war has also kept a lot of jobs as well as businesses in production. When and if this war ends your gonna see a lot more unemployment and Obama knows that and that's part of the reason he's in a hurry to shut the war down.

Donger
02-14-2010, 03:47 PM
Oh man. Forget it.

Nothing. They've done nothing.

I'm not going to bother myself with doing your homework for you.

Just tell yourself nothing's happened.

Has Obama reduced troop levels in Iraq at all?

orange
02-14-2010, 03:54 PM
Has Obama reduced troop levels in Iraq at all?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf (pg. 14)

Donger
02-14-2010, 03:56 PM
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf (pg. 14)

Thanks orange. So, has this come to fruition or not?

U.S.troops would decline from the February 2009 level of about 140,000 in-country to 35,000 to 50,000 troops by August 31, 2010. In addition, the policy would meet the deadlines set in the January 1, 2009 Security Agreement with Iraq that requires all U.S. combat troops to move outside of cities by the end of June 2009, as recently took place, and that all U.S. troops leave
Iraq by December 31, 2011.

I guess the better question is: What is the present troop level in Iraq?

Donger
02-14-2010, 03:59 PM
Nevermind, just found it. As of December 2009, we still had 112,000 troops in Iraq.

orange
02-14-2010, 03:59 PM
Has Obama reduced troop levels in Iraq at all?

http://www.countdowntowithdrawal.org/

106,000 currently according to these guys - withdrawal advocates.

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 04:12 PM
In the big picture Bush knew Sadaam was making the ME unstable and had to be removed . Imanutjob will have to be removed also but Obama will not do it. Hopefully we can get a real President in office before Imanutjob detonates a nuc in Israel. But I don't think we have that kind of time.

Yes we,ve lost 4300 men in this war but our kill ratio is what, 1000 to 1. We lost more men than that on D-Day. We've been able to test and use and develop weapons in this war that will keep us the main super power for the foreseeable future (except for the fact that Bin Laden and Obamas goal is to bankrupt us).

This war has also kept a lot of jobs as well as businesses in production. When and if this war ends your gonna see a lot more unemployment and Obama knows that and that's part of the reason he's in a hurry to shut the war down.

War has always meant big business. When obot brings home the troops there will be two things that happen, you've pointed out one of them. The economy will tank again, the second will be the drawdown in the armed forces. We are now at one of the lowest levels of manpower we've ever been. With another drawdown we will surely have more unemployed as the soldiers being discharged/denied re-enlistment will be out of work as well. The third thing that will happen is that our National Defense will be weakened even further. It seems like obot and the libs don't really care about that and won't until someone comes to kick in the door and we won't have the ability to respond.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 06:02 PM
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf (pg. 14)

So essentially no change according to those numbers...

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 06:08 PM
http://www.countdowntowithdrawal.org/

106,000 currently according to these guys - withdrawal advocates.

Do you have the countdown to Gitmo's closing on January 22nd of 2010? I'm assuming this graph would be done on a mobius strip.

orange
02-14-2010, 07:15 PM
So essentially no change according to those numbers...

157,800 2008
135,600 2009
-------------
22,200 (14.1% reduction)

This is "no change" in the World According To Saul Good.

:rolleyes:

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:24 PM
Most Americans feel very pessimistic about the war in Iraq.

Polls show they think it wasn't worth it at this point.

Whatever it's worth (and we won't really know that until we see how the next decade or two play out in the middle east), it appears to be worth more after the Bush/Cheney surge than it would have been if we had followed Barack Obama's 2007 prescription for retreat.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:25 PM
How many of these guys have you talked to?

I've talked to dozens, and "Wow, so WTF am I doing here?" has pretty much been a consistent complaint of theirs for years in Iraq.

Did you run into them in BucEyedPea's grocery store?

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 07:29 PM
Whatever it's worth (and we won't really know that until we see how the next decade or two play out in the middle east), it appears to be worth more after the Bush/Cheney surge than it would have been if we had followed Barack Obama's 2007 prescription for retreat.There should never been a need for a surge. Bush/Cheney made one of the biggest blunders of all time. Getting a straegy right after a clusterfu@$ of such epic proportions doesn't mean squat.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:32 PM
You are going to have to prove that one. Personally I think it was worth the effort. How many people did Saddam kill? More than those killed as collateral damage in the war?

You have a very warped sense of what is right and what was right.

Your heart's in the right place, but it was really more about what Saddam might have done in the future than what he'd done in the past. Saddam was a threat to the US who was gradually slipping out of the chains we'd bound him with after the first Gulf War.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:33 PM
There should never been a need for a surge. Bush/Cheney made one of the biggest blunders of all time. Getting a straegy right after a clusterfu@$ of such epic proportions doesn't mean squat.

Whatever. Your guy wanted to surrender.

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 07:41 PM
Whatever. Your guy wanted to surrender.And then he gets elected and increases the troops in Afghanistan 100K and kills 12 out of the top 20 Al-Quaeda leaders in his first year.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:41 PM
They should have never been sent in the first place. There were no WMD's. Iraq was a mistake. We should never have invaded the country. You can't change history nor the facts. We went in and the war had support because we were scared of a dictator having WMD's. He didn't. We were wrong and thousands of Americans died for that mistake. Thousands more are missing arms and legs, families are suffering from the lost of a loved one, the mental anguish that will torture soldiers for years to come was not worth removing a dictator. Democracy in middle east? The American public would not be in favor of a war that cost so many American lives to remove a dictator.

That being said, just because we shouldn't have been there to start with in no way lessens the sacrifices and bravery of our men and women who serve. They are soldiers, their commander in chief says we are going to war, they have no choice. Their efforts are no less noble than if they were fighting in a "popular" war. They sacrificed for the USA, not Iraq and for that they deserve our respect and to be treated with honor.

Our post invasion investigations confirmed that Iraq had retained it's ability and intention to reconstitute it's WMD programs as soon as it could slip free of sanctions. The fact that we didn't find actual stockpiles is of little relevance to the threat that Saddam represented to the long term interests of the US. Thanks to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, that threat has been eliminated. Thanks to their surge, we also left what Joe Biden describes as a stable democracy in our wake instead of the chaos that Barack Obama would have left by retreating before the job was done in 2007.

Was it worth it? Yeah, IMO it was, although we destabilized the region so it remains to be seen whether that will play out to our benefit or not. It would have been a lot easier to see why it was worth it if we hadn't invaded and had instead allowed Saddam to fully realize his ambitions.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 07:42 PM
And then he gets elected and increases the troops in Afghanistan 100K and kills 12 out of the top 20 Al-Quaeda leaders in his first year.

Oh please don't quote him. He's still lying, spinning and twisting.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:42 PM
And then he gets elected and increases the troops in Afghanistan 100K and kills 12 out of the top 20 Al-Quaeda leaders in his first year.

If your point is that he can't be trusted, I'm already all over that.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 07:43 PM
Uh...hmmm.

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 07:44 PM
If your point is that he can't be trusted, I'm already all over that.ROFL

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 07:47 PM
157,800 2008
135,600 2009
-------------
22,200 (14.1% reduction)

This is "no change" in the World According To Saul Good.

:rolleyes:

For a guy who campaigned on ending the war, a 14% reduction after a year while increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan creating a net wash in the total number of troops is a joke.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:49 PM
That's got to be total bullshit! Those that I've talked to were not crazy about being in harms way but they were never of the WTF was I doing there. They all knew they had a duty to do and did it. Some paid the price so people like you can lie about what they say about their service there.

Your biggest concern should be with Afghanistan, the soviets spent 15 +- years fighting a war they could not win, we are in that same country and fighting the same people. The war for them is not about AQ, it's about growing Poppies for the opium.

The exit strategy everyone claims Bush did not have is now being claimed by Obama as well as the outcome of the conflict.

You are on the wrong side of all of the arguments here, my guess is that your biggest worry is that Iran will be next, but don't worry your little pea pickin' brain. Obama doesn't have the nerve to stand up to little crazy people like your favorite president in Iran.

Obama has an exit strategy in Afghanistan. He apparently plans on withdrawing within a couple of years or so whether we are successful in our efforts there or not. That's how important Afghanistan is in his opinion /sarcasm. It's not as good an exit strategy as victory (which was alway's Bush's exit strategy), but it's an exit strategy.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:51 PM
We didn't invade Iraq to give democracy to a country. We invaded it because we were convinced we were in danger.

When it turned out we weren't in danger after all, virtually everybody that voted for the war, Biden included, started changing their tune and acting as if Iraq was first and foremost a humanitarian mission.

It wasn't. It was a move to make us safer, and all it has done is make us less safe.

Biden didn't get what he wanted.

What a fairy tale. LOL

It turns out we were, in fact, in largely the same danger we believed we were in. Biden and his fellow turncoats changed their tune because an election was looming.

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 07:55 PM
It would have been a lot easier to see why it was worth it if we hadn't invaded and had instead allowed Saddam to fully realize his ambitions.here we go.........the Bush doctrine. Lets killl them before they can threaten us. You have any idea how many people/countries are plotting to kill Americans? Hurt us? How can we declare war on them all? We would need to be fighting 10 wars all at once, forever. Lunacy.

One problem with that...wellll besides it being a really stupid plan, If we don't start a war with these people that haven't attack us, they will. The American people won't send their sons, daughter, hubby's, wives etc off to die to save us from a possible threat. It has to be an imminent threat.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:59 PM
157,800 2008
135,600 2009
-------------
22,200 (14.1% reduction)

This is "no change" in the World According To Saul Good.

:rolleyes:

Isn't the question whether Obama has withdrawn more men than Bush had already planned to withdraw?

patteeu
02-14-2010, 08:02 PM
here we go.........the Bush doctrine. Lets killl them before they can threaten us. You have any idea how many people/countries are plotting to kill Americans? Hurt us? How can we declare war on them all? We would need to be fighting 10 wars all at once, forever. Lunacy.

One problem with that...wellll besides it being a really stupid plan, If we don't start a war with these people that haven't attack us, they will. The American people won't send their sons, daughter, hubby's, wives etc off to die to save us from a possible threat. It has to be an imminent threat.

Unlike most of those other people/countries, Iraq had a source of vast income to finance their ambitions, they had a relatively advanced technology base, they had a history of armed conflict with the US, AND they had regularly attacked us over the previous several years. Iraq was unique whether you want to admit it or not. Now if you want to claim that Iran was an even greater threat, I could be persuaded, but Iraq was low hanging fruit compared to Iran.

orange
02-14-2010, 08:04 PM
Isn't the question whether Obama has withdrawn more men than Bush had already planned to withdraw?

The literal question I was answering was:

Has Obama reduced troop levels in Iraq at all?

As for whether this was more than Bush had planned, I posted something on that early last summer. I think Obama's withdrawal pace was about double the Bush plan, with a much smaller end force.

[edit] Here is that discussion:

December 145,000
January 142,000
February 140,000
March 135,000

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20090424.pdf (page 24)

No data for April-May-June yet. Most of the reduction from Dec. through Feb. was on Bush's timeline - didn't come close to his promised 8000. The 5000 actual reduction was matched in one month in March. And beyond?

Happy now?

So, does that mean that Obama has reduced it from 137,000 to 135,000 since you posted "Bush's announcement means that the U.S. will withdraw about 8,000 combat and support troops by February"?

Except that he - Bush - DIDN'T MEET HIS ANNOUNCED TARGET as you can plainly see. 142,000 in January. 140,000 in February. Why are you touting some phantom number announced five months earlier instead of reality?

Obama took office Jan. 14. The January and most of February reductions were BEFORE HIS POLICIES WERE IMPLEMENTED.

I can't disagree with that and I am really not siding with Bush other than he started the ball rolling and BO hasn't really pushed the ball any faster like he said he would.

5000 reduction in one month - March - that's considerably faster. And of course we can't tell yet what has taken place since, but Bush's announcement didn't go beyond February so there is no benchmark to compare to - except Obama's stated plan to be out before 2011.

I'll correct myself here - the Bush plan ended up (after negotiations without Iraq) having almost all combat troops out in three years, so there is another benchmark to compare to.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5843877&highlight=withdrawal#post5843877

patteeu
02-14-2010, 08:18 PM
Looking at that Brookings document, I'm not sure where you're getting double the Bush rate from.

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 08:18 PM
Unlike most of those other people/countries, Iraq had a source of vast income to finance their ambitions, they had a relatively advanced technology base, they had a history of armed conflict with the US, AND they had regularly attacked us over the previous several years. Iraq was unique whether you want to admit it or not. Now if you want to claim that Iran was an even greater threat, I could be persuaded, but Iraq was low hanging fruit compared to Iran.Iraq was not unique. It was a huge stupid mistake that cost 1,000's of Americans their lives. We had to invade because Saddam had WMD's and could use them against us soon. Quit trying to re-write history.

So according to your justifucation for war before we are even attacked, we should be invading these countries....
North Korea
Iran
China
Russia
Libya
Syria
etc etc

orange
02-14-2010, 08:22 PM
Looking at that Brookings document, I'm not sure where you're getting double the Bush rate from.

Bush ~ 5000 in two months (Dec-Feb)
Obama ~ 5000 in one month (Feb-Mar)
-------------------------------
Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Considering I just called that "double the rate" from memory of rough numbers eight months ago, I'm more than happy with it.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 08:24 PM
Iraq was not unique. It was a huge stupid mistake that cost 1,000's of Americans their lives. We had to invade because Saddam had WMD's and could use them against us soon. Quit trying to re-write history.

So according to your justifucation for war before we are even attacked, we should be invading these countries....
North Korea
Iran
China
Russia
Libya
Syria
etc etc

Those countries have repeatedly attacked us in recent years? Wouldn't that have been on the news?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 08:27 PM
Bush ~ 5000 in two months (Dec-Feb)
Obama ~ 5000 in one month (Feb-Mar)
-------------------------------
Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

So if Bush hadn't brought any home and Obama brought one home, that would have been an increase of infinity. It's fun using multiples and percentages to compare negligible amounts.

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 08:29 PM
Those countries have repeatedly attacked us in recent years? Wouldn't that have been on the news?Since when has attacking American be a requirement for the Bush doctrine?

orange
02-14-2010, 08:30 PM
So if Bush hadn't brought any home and Obama brought one home, that would have been an increase of infinity. It's fun using multiples and percentages to compare negligible amounts.

Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.


...ad infinitum...

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 08:32 PM
Since when has attacking American be a requirement for the Bush doctrine?

Unless patteeu is George W. Bush, I think you just pulled a switcheroo.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 08:35 PM
Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.


...ad infinitum...

So you're banking on something that hasn't materialized, then. You've got a lot of faith considering this administration's track record when it comes to making predictions. I guess they're just due to get one right. After all, they couldn't be as wrong on this one as they were on the unemployment numbers following the stimulus or the closing of Gitmo in February of this year could they?

patteeu
02-14-2010, 08:55 PM
Iraq was not unique. It was a huge stupid mistake that cost 1,000's of Americans their lives. We had to invade because Saddam had WMD's and could use them against us soon. Quit trying to re-write history.

So according to your justifucation for war before we are even attacked, we should be invading these countries....
North Korea
Iran
China
Russia
Libya
Syria
etc etc

Iraq was definitely unique. For example, none of the other countries you listed have been regularly targeting and attacking our aircraft over the past several years.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 08:57 PM
Bush ~ 5000 in two months (Dec-Feb)
Obama ~ 5000 in one month (Feb-Mar)
-------------------------------
Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Considering I just called that "double the rate" from memory of rough numbers eight months ago, I'm more than happy with it.

The question isn't what did Bush do in Dec-Feb vs what did Obama do in Feb-Mar. The question is what did the agreement reached between Bush and Iraq say we'd be doing in Feb-Mar vs what did Obama do in Feb-Mar.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 08:58 PM
Since when has attacking American be a requirement for the Bush doctrine?

Did you forget what we were talking about?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 08:59 PM
Iraq was definitely unique. For example, none of the other countries you listed have been regularly targeting and attacking our aircraft over the past several years.

Well said Mr. President.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 09:00 PM
Did you forget what we were talking about?

Sometimes I think I'm schizophrenic and you are my alter ego (who happens to have the exact same thoughts as my first ego).

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 09:01 PM
The previous administration campaigned to invade, and invaded Iraq. I opposed that, and I voted against it.

The current administration campaigned to pull out. I supported that, and I voted for it.

I need Glenn Beck's chalkboard.

So which state do you represent senator?

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 09:04 PM
So which state do you represent senator?

I have to assume he meant at the ballot box.

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 09:07 PM
Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.

Bush total withdrawal in ~ 32 months
Obama total withdrawal in ~ 16 months.


...ad infinitum...

So, according to your train of thought we will have all 100 K + soldiers home by the end of may eh? When that doesn't happen what will the next estimate of withdrawl be? another 16 months?

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 09:08 PM
I have to assume he meant at the ballot box.From the ballot box we don't vote to send people to war, nor to bring them home. Action to do such things is done by the senate and congress.

Also, Bush didn't campaign to go to war in Iraq in 2000, we went to Iraq in 2003m we were at war in 2004 so that wasn't the vote either. The only thing he may have gotten right is that he voted for Obot and his handlers in 2008.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 09:09 PM
From the ballot box we don't vote to send people to war, nor to bring them home. Action to do such things is done by the senate and congress.

Also, Bush didn't campaign to go to war in Iraq in 2000, we went to Iraq

I'm not pretending it makes any sense.

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 09:11 PM
I'm not pretending it makes any sense.

Go back and re-read, there was a fat finger going on and it posted before I finished.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:16 PM
Sometimes I think I'm schizophrenic and you are my alter ego (who happens to have the exact same thoughts as my first ego).

I wonder how many people would think it was funny if a person created two accounts and then posted everything twice.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 09:20 PM
Go back and re-read, there was a fat finger going on and it posted before I finished.

I get what you're saying. I was referring to his post not making much sense, not yours.

Saul Good
02-14-2010, 09:21 PM
I wonder how many people would think it was funny if a person created two accounts and then posted everything twice.

I'd rather just have an entourage of posters who follow every post that I make with fawning praise. Maybe hamas jenkins will loan me billay for a day.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:24 PM
I'd rather just have an entourage of posters who follow every post that I make with fawning praise. Maybe hamas jenkins will loan me billay for a day.

Hey, me too! ;)

orange
02-14-2010, 09:27 PM
The question isn't what did Bush do in Dec-Feb vs what did Obama do in Feb-Mar. The question is what did the agreement reached between Bush and Iraq say we'd be doing in Feb-Mar vs what did Obama do in Feb-Mar.

US Commits to Iraq Withdrawal by 2011, But Could Seek Extension
Pentagon 17 November 2008

U.S. officials say the agreement to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq in three years, signed in Baghdad Monday, is a firm commitment. But they say it could be renegotiated in the future, depending on security conditions. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

At a news conference Monday, the top U.S. military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, responded "yes" when asked whether the agreement signed in Baghdad earlier in the day requires all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, regardless of the security conditions. But he also called the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, "adequate for what we need now."

"Three years is a long time," said Admiral Mullen. "Conditions could change in that period of time. And, if we get to a point where this SOFA is agreed to, and have a relationship with the government of Iraq tied to it, that we will continue to have discussions with them over time, as conditions continue to evolve."

At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino also hedged on the withdrawal date, sticking to the label "aspirational" that she and other officials have used in the past.

"When you work with a partner on a negotiation, you have to concede some points," said Dana Perino. "One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates."

Speaking from Baghdad shortly after signing the agreement with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told VOA's Kurdish Service it is too soon to say whether any extension of the American military presence beyond 2011 might be negotiated. He also said he expects Iraq's parliament to approve the agreement within 10 days. It will replace a U.N. Security Council mandate that expires at the end of the year.

The U.S. decision to agree to a firm withdrawal date is a distinct change from previous policy. Senior military officers and Bush Administration civilian officials have always said troop reductions should be based only on security conditions and should not be bound by timetables.

Admiral Mullen indicated Monday that current conditions and trends in the insurgency and in the competence of Iraqi security forces give him hope that the new timetable and the security conditions will not be in conflict by the time the last U.S. soldier is scheduled to leave Iraq.

"Conditions continue to improve in a way where we are allowed to withdraw forces, and we've done that very specifically," he said. "And, as I've said for a significant period of time, I am hopeful that conditions will continue to improve, so we can continue to do that."

Admiral Mullen said a full withdrawal of the approximately 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, along with their equipment, would in any case take two to three years. He also said the agreement's requirement for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year is possible, but it will be "a big challenge" to securely remove U.S. troops from Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul by then.

The top U.S. military officer said he is "comfortable" that the agreement provides "adequate...authorities and protections" for U.S. troops to do their jobs. Reports from Baghdad say the agreement increases Iraqi authority over coalition military operations and allows for the prosecution of U.S. troops in Iraqi courts in extreme cases.

Asked whether the United States could withdraw its troops from Iraq even more quickly than the agreement requires, as President-elect Barack Obama has indicated he would like to do, Admiral Mullen said he recognizes there are "other options" for U.S. policy.

"Should President-elect Obama give me direction, I would carry that out," said Admiral Mullen. "I mean, that's what I do as a senior member of the military. What President-elect Obama has also said is that he would seek the counsel of myself and the Joint Chiefs before he made any decisions. And so, I look forward to that discussion, look forward to the engagement."

Admiral Mullen would not say what advice he will give Mr. Obama, but he said he believes security conditions should continue to be considered as the new president charts his Iraq policy.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2008-11-17-voa66-66734617.html

Three years - or longer. Three "aspirational" years.

vs. 16 months

What's hard to understand?

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:30 PM
Three years - or longer. Three "aspirational" years.

vs. 16 months

What's hard to understand?

Are we talking about apples and oranges here. Total withdrawal versus withdrawal of all combat troops?

orange
02-14-2010, 09:58 PM
Are we talking about apples and oranges here. Total withdrawal versus withdrawal of all combat troops?

Combat troops. It was always about combat troops. Both Obama and Bush (and McCain) have envisioned leaving "residual troops." Compare:


Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality
Published: December 3, 2008

WASHINGTON — On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that “residual force,” a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=2&em



Bush agrees to 'horizon' for pullout

The concession, tied to conditions on the ground, may help ease talks on a long-term security pact with Iraq.

July 19, 2008|Julian E. Barnes and Paul Richter, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — President Bush has agreed to a "general time horizon" for withdrawals of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, the White House announced Friday in a marked softening of his long-standing opposition to deadlines for reducing the American presence.

Administration officials portrayed the shift, which was announced a day after a video conference between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, as an evolution in policy rather than a fundamental change. They emphasized that withdrawals still would be tied to improvements in security conditions.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/19/world/fg-usiraq19




There's been a lot of sloppy reporting and hedging, but all three have been in constant agreement that Obama's withdrawal was going to be much faster. I'm not sure why it's even debatable.

June 29, 2009

Cheney Worried That Iraq Withdrawal Will ‘Waste’ The Sacrifice By U.S. Troops

Tomorrow is the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq, a date Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is calling a “great victory.” But in a new interview with Washington Times radio, Vice President Cheney was still pushing the U.S. to stay in Iraq, saying that withdrawal would “waste” the sacrifice of U.S. troops:

Mr. Cheney told The Washington Times’ America’s Morning News radio show that he is a strong believer in Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and that the general is doing what needs to be done.

“But what he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks.

“I hope Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own. But I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point.“

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/29/cheney-waste-iraq/


Generals Seek To Reverse Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Decision
Inter Press Service | Gareth Porter | February 2, 2009 09:26 AM


WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/generals-seek-to-reverse_n_163070.html


Republicans trying to claim credit for the withdrawal are just as ridiculous as Democrats trying to claim credit for the Surge.

go bowe
02-14-2010, 10:08 PM
I think the correct answer right now is we don't yet know if it was worth the price we've paid.

This is just Biden being Biden. A DA.yes, biden can be a dumbass, particularly when he's talking to the media...

but i've loved watching him stick his foot in his mouth over the years because it is so entertaining...

he has always been plainspoken and too blunt for his own good, but he's got the stones to lay his opinion right out there even if it doesn't always make a lot of sense...

i love the guy. he beats the heck out of dick the dick in terms of pure entertainment value...

go bowe
02-14-2010, 10:19 PM
I'm starting to think he was chosen for a reason...he's a useful idiot.egg-sact-ly!

go bowe
02-14-2010, 10:22 PM
If the price of the war wasn't worth it continuing that same war will only make the horrible price increase. You can't reconcile his comment with the administration's current Iraq policy.

Like I said, I just think this was Biden once again opening his mouth and some scrambled words coming out.also egg-sact-ly!

go bowe
02-14-2010, 10:32 PM
I find it amusing that direkshun uses puffery to explain his position and when confronted with facts answers "I don't know what you want me to do with this information."

It's obvious direkshun's allegiance is not with America.are you serious?

not a loyal american because his views are more or less consistent with an administration duly elected by the american people?

not a loyal american because you disapprove of his views?

ok, you are just kidding direction, right?

nevermined...

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 10:35 PM
are you serious?

not a loyal american because his views are more or less consistent with an administration duly elected by the american people?

not a loyal american because you disapprove of his views?

ok, you are just kidding direction, right?

nevermined...If you don't believe as I do you are a traitor to America?:LOL:

Norman Einstein
02-14-2010, 10:47 PM
are you serious?

not a loyal american because his views are more or less consistent with an administration duly elected by the american people?

not a loyal american because you disapprove of his views?

ok, you are just kidding direction, right?

nevermined...

If you don't believe as I do you are a traitor to America?:LOL:


Let's just say I don't agree with your point of view. Neither of you have consistantly dissed America on a daily basis, nor have either of you displayed the flag of Iran as your avatar.

I don't think he is being anything but loyal to his flag.

I'm not prejudiced, but I do not feel the basis of his disdain for America is feigned, I believe it to be a mindset of the country he seems to be from.

I never once said he was a trator, I doubt his citizenship.

patteeu
02-15-2010, 07:00 AM
Combat troops. It was always about combat troops. Both Obama and Bush (and McCain) have envisioned leaving "residual troops." Compare:




There's been a lot of sloppy reporting and hedging, but all three have been in constant agreement that Obama's withdrawal was going to be much faster. I'm not sure why it's even debatable.




Republicans trying to claim credit for the withdrawal are just as ridiculous as Democrats trying to claim credit for the Surge.

Your articles don't verify your claims. None of these articles describe both the type of troops being discussed and the withdrawal plan.

Here is what the Status of Forces Agreement (pg 20) (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/SE_SOFA.pdf) worked out between the Bush administration and the Iraqis says:

1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.

2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.

So it looks to me like the Bush plan and Obama's actual withdrawal are in fact compatible. The difference is that Obama seems to be intent on withdrawal regardless of the consequences and Bush was always clear that the consequences meant more than the timetable.

To the extent that conditions on the ground justify a withdrawal, George W. Bush and his supporters deserve a ton of credit for it. To the extent that the withdrawal is premature in terms of the conditions on the ground, it's all Obama's baby and you can't blame Bush for it.