Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you imagine if he continued his mantra of immediate withdrawal? What a fool he would look like. A losing fool come November.
McCain needs to bludgeon Obama over the head with his poor judgement that would have resulted in a major defeat for the US and Iraq if he got his way.
Barrack Obama won the Democratic nomination by opposing the war in Iraq. He won it by promising to end that war and to bring ALL the troops home within 16 months. That was the central piece of his campaign and the main thing that differentiate him from HillBill. Iraq is why he won and she lost. He cannot go back on his word on Iraq. The people that support him will tolerate some waffling and "move to the center" on other issues such as FISA and guns which he has done. But his support will collapse overnight if he changes his stand on Iraq.
Our soldiers don't slaughter innocent people.[mod edited content] You should turn your anger on the people who deserve it - the terrorists who tried to start a civil war in Iraq by targeting the innocent of all three sects.
Oh god. What do you think war is? A pawn of truly smart-bombs which only hit those we deem to be inhumane? Is that what you thought was occurring in Baghdad during the Gulf War and then during Shock and Awe and the subsequent years that followed? My advice to you is to actually dive into the subject you're attempting to speak about, because the innocent women and children who perished in multiple shelters which were mistakenly thought to be 'terrorist' shelters would disagree with you.
Remember this: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If the shoe were on the other foot, you would fight back too. You probably wouldn't like being fingered a terrorist for protecting your own either.
P.S. You should also know that the civil war in which you speak of is a highly media-driven thesis for why continued violence in the area exists. Sure, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain carved that b$@tch up like nobody's business, but the Shi'ite - Sunni "hatred" is nearly all media driven. Before parading it around, you should probably know that most Iraqi marriages, including many elsewhere in the middle east, are a mixture of Sunni - Shi'a families -- a Sunni marries a Shi'a, etc, etc. The sense of rivalry simply doesn't exist in the manner you're purporting.
Please further your interest and research into the area and whoa on the Faux News and CNN -- Independent research is best. You may best begin by researching Arab newspapers -- all major sources are transcribed into English if you care to expand your interest.
Good luck.
P.P.S. You should also examine the Cause and Effect rule when contemplating the state of Iraq. One can't blame others for acting under chaos more than those who caused the chaos. The vaccum of power which took place following a folly of an idea was surely worse than what was in place before, gasssp, and we put him there too, oh, and supplied him with weaponry (Iraq-Iran War, 1980-88). Sucks sticking up for foreign policy which has continually placed itself in areas it doesn't belong, eh --
Last edited by TnHilltopper; 07-07-2008 at 10:28 AM..
BTW, we started the civil war, their wasn't one before we arrived.
I said they TRIED to start one. The three sects decided to opt out of Al Qaeda's brutal muderous tactics. With our help, they are succeeding in driving them out of the country.
So, you still think a civil war is going on over there?
How do you know? We don't keep track. And you think that when we drop bombs and we only kill terrorists?
We don't target civilians - that's a tactic of the terrorists. In a war, any war, there will be collateral damage and casualties. Always has been. Contrast this war with the bombing runs of WWII Germany - where civilians were fair game.
Can you imagine if he continued his mantra of immediate withdrawal? What a fool he would look like. A losing fool come November.
McCain needs to bludgeon Obama over the head with his poor judgement that would have resulted in a major defeat for the US and Iraq if he got his way.
If General Obama had had his way, none of this progress would have happened. No doubt, Iraq policy was a mess for far too long, but at least there's now a chance to salvage something positive out of it. Obama's cut and run strategy would have assured defeat. I don't know whether that lack of judgment will lose him the election, but it is something the American people will easily understand, and I think despite all his rhetorical skills, he isn't going to weasel out of the fact that he was on the wrong side of this.
We don't target civilians - that's a tactic of the terrorists. In a war, any war, there will be collateral damage and casualties. Always has been. Contrast this war with the bombing runs of WWII Germany - where civilians were fair game.
right, gang bangers don't target children when they pull a drive-by in Lawndale either.
If General Obama had had his way, none of this progress would have happened. No doubt, Iraq policy was a mess for far too long, but at least there's now a chance to salvage something positive out of it. Obama's cut and run strategy would have assured defeat. I don't know whether that lack of judgment will lose him the election, but it is something the American people will easily understand, and I think despite all his rhetorical skills, he isn't going to weasel out of the fact that he was on the wrong side of this.
Iraq would be a stable icountry that kept Iran in check and hated Al-Qaeda if Saddam was still in charge if Obama had his way. And didn't we cut and run in Afghanistan?
but the Shi'ite - Sunni "hatred" is nearly all media driven. Before parading it around, you should probably know that most Iraqi marriages, including many elsewhere in the middle east, are a mixture of Sunni - Shi'a families -- a Sunni marries a Shi'a, etc, etc. The sense of rivalry simply doesn't exist in the manner you're purporting.
It was Al Qaeda trying to provoke a civil war between the factions. The Shia had plenty of reason to complain and look for revenge for the decades under Saddams rule. Of course, there will be tension and in-fighting and violence - there is nothing unusual about that, especially in this area of the world.
But look what is happening now. You can close your ears and mind to all the progress they are making, politically, militarily and socially, but it is real and it is good news. The Iraqi's seem to have rejected the brutal violence of Al Qaeda, which will make our job there much easier.
Face it; the civil war the dems/libs were hoping for has not come to fruition. Exactly the opposite is happening - political reconciliation.
As usual, the dems/libs have stepped in it again since they placed their bets on the side of defeat and surrender - all because of their hatred of "W".
Iraq would be a stable icountry that kept Iran in check and hated Al-Qaeda if Saddam was still in charge if Obama had his way. And didn't we cut and run in Afghanistan?
So..you're one of those that would rather see Saddam still in power - murdering, raping, torturing?
Put aside your hatred of "W" - can you not see the progress that is happening in Iraq? What if in a year, or 2, or 3 Iraq is peaceful, an ally of the US, a wedge against Iran, having free and fair elections, with a growing prosperous country flowing with oil - would it be worth it to you then?
Who ever said it would be easy?
Afghanistan? No. we have not cut and run. Are you truly this dense? We are there fighting as well. Although that area is much more complicated because of Pakistan and the region between the two countries where the bad guys are hiding and plotting. Did anyone say that would be short and sweet as well? Do you really think our military cannot handle this as well? Can you not comprehend this are not conventional battles/wars? We attack, they hide and move and counterattack, we attack them where we find them - in a cave, a village or in another country. Simple.
It was Al Qaeda trying to provoke a civil war between the factions. The Shia had plenty of reason to complain and look for revenge for the decades under Saddams rule. Of course, there will be tension and in-fighting and violence - there is nothing unusual about that, especially in this area of the world.
But look what is happening now. You can close your ears and mind to all the progress they are making, politically, militarily and socially, but it is real and it is good news. The Iraqi's seem to have rejected the brutal violence of Al Qaeda, which will make our job there much easier.
Face it; the civil war the dems/libs were hoping for has not come to fruition. Exactly the opposite is happening - political reconciliation.
As usual, the dems/libs have stepped in it again since they placed their bets on the side of defeat and surrender - all because of their hatred of "W".
Figures. It appears your entire being is to make it a republican-democrat cat fight. You can't even have a debate with someone who believes invading Iraq was a good, altruistic idea and that anyone who abhors the notion is simply "hating W."
Please take my earlier advice in a post you probably didn't even read. Good luck in life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
