FOX The News Voice Of The Taliban (McCain, poll, deaths)
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.
Quite obviously it means the same thing as in Iraq, that US troops will not be pulled out if the situation is still chaotic. It's common sense, really.
So, why do you support this scenario in iraq, but not in Afghanistan? It's ok, don't answer. Your hypocricy has already been exposed, so there is no need for you to dance more.
From the speech:
Get it?
Back for more? "Situation on the ground" can mean anything. If the situation is chaotic does that mean 30,000 more troops, 100,000?
Please link the Bush time table.
Last edited by shorebaby; 12-02-2009 at 03:20 PM..
Back for more? "Situation on the groung" can mean anything. If the situation is chaotic does that mean 30,000 more troops, 100,000?.
LOL. You still don't get it. 30K more, or 30K less depends on the situation on the ground. They will review the situation and act accordingly. Is it really that hard to understand ?
See below Bush ordering pull-out and handing back the control of the cities to the Iraqis. Do you see the wording : "The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground". Why aren't you doing your chicken dance over those words since they are almost identical to Obama's words last night?
I am OK with Bush saying those words and I'm OK with Obama saying them. I don't decide whether or not to agree on a statement based solely on the political party of the person saying them. I guess that's the beauty of being independent. You don't seem to have such freedom since you have chosen to defend the words when Bush said them and oppose them when Obama said them.
Quote:
There are currently more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, now that the last of five brigades that Bush ordered to Iraq in a troop "surge" last year have departed.
The White House statement said that Bush and Maliki "agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals — such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces in Iraq. The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground
No, TROLL as someone else pointed out, normally starts a thread, not jumps in and posts just to stir things up, you are closer to a TROLL than anyone else on here. OH well, you have nothing better to do all day, I guess.
Nita
Not necessarily, I would have to say that you would fit the description best, after all, you jump from forum to forum, and whenever you don't like what you see (someone else's opinion) you pull out the hate card. You haven't posted an opinion here yet, you're looking to argue outside of what eveyone else is talking about. But, that's ok, I don't mind it a bit, I'm a liberal and have an open mind, and can take you any way you wish to be. Post whatever you like.
LOL. You still don't get it. 30K more, or 30K less depends on the situation on the ground. They will review the situation and act accordingly. Is it really that hard to understand ?
See below Bush ordering pull-out and handing back the control of the cities to the Iraqis. Do you see the wording : "The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground". Why aren't you doing your chicken dance over those words since they are almost identical to Obama's words last night?
I am OK with Bush saying those words and I'm OK with Obama saying them. I don't decide whether or not to agree on a statement based solely on the political party of the person saying them. I guess that's the beauty of being independent. You don't seem to have such freedom since you have chosen to defend the words when Bush said them and oppose them when Obama said them.
Ok so now you understand the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, there was no time table. Troop draw downs were discussed AFTER the surge worked.
What don't you get, that is not what dear leader said. He said troop withdrawals would begin in 18 months, he in no way indicated more troops would be sent in if needed.
How does this state, imply or otherwise give the impression that we will do anything other than withdrawal or at best status quo?
"Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country."
My goodness still no ability to prove anything I posted was wrong and I continue to school you. Easy but strangely satisfying.
Last edited by shorebaby; 12-02-2009 at 03:53 PM..
US President George W. Bush appealed for support for his step-by-step troop withdrawal plan from Iraq when he met with Iraq war veterans and their families on Tuesday.
But, what's this have to do with faux (not news) speading propaganda?
US President George W. Bush appealed for support for his step-by-step troop withdrawal plan from Iraq when he met with Iraq war veterans and their families on Tuesday.
But, what's this have to do with faux (not news) speading propaganda?
Wow that could not be more dishonest. Please quote the section which outlines the time table.
"Outlined in his speech addressed to the nation last week, Bush plans to retreat about 57,000 troops from Iraq by Christmas and further withdraw about 21,500 by next July, but leaving at least 130,000 in Iraq through the middle of 2008 or longer."
That is not a time table for withdrawal.
Oh and I forgot to add this is all a distraction anyway from the decline of the left. Cap and Tax, Global warming, health care etc. Fail, fail, fail and fail.
Not necessarily, I would have to say that you would fit the description best, after all, you jump from forum to forum, and whenever you don't like what you see (someone else's opinion) you pull out the hate card. You haven't posted an opinion here yet, you're looking to argue outside of what eveyone else is talking about. But, that's ok, I don't mind it a bit, I'm a liberal and have an open mind, and can take you any way you wish to be. Post whatever you like.
Why is this feer mongering and why would you think it is made up? It is called news. This is the really weird thing about the left they make sweeping statements without a shred of evidence behind it. This is a truely facinating pathology.
He said troop withdrawals would begin in 18 months, he in no way indicated more troops would be sent in if needed..
He said in clear English, and I quoted it to you, that the withdrawal depends on the conditions on the ground. Just like Bush, almost word for word. I can't make it any clearer than that, so if you still don't get it, then that's too bad.
Not necessarily, I would have to say that you would fit the description best, after all, you jump from forum to forum, and whenever you don't like what you see (someone else's opinion) you pull out the hate card. You haven't posted an opinion here yet, you're looking to argue outside of what eveyone else is talking about. But, that's ok, I don't mind it a bit, I'm a liberal and have an open mind, and can take you any way you wish to be. Post whatever you like.
I jump from forum to forum, now how would you know that? I think I have posted many opinions on all those forums I jump from...New Mexico, CA and Texas as well as here. Yep, I have connections with all of them as a matter of fact and yes, I do have opinions. Do I start threads? Rarely, I depend on you for that..it is more fun!!! Now put on your smiley face and take away that frown and get back to the issue instead of posting nothing but a personal attack.
Nita
He said in clear English, and I quoted it to you, that the withdrawal depends on the conditions on the ground. Just like Bush, almost word for word. I can't make it any clearer than that, so if you still don't get it, then that's too bad.
Some, make that most, people believe what they want to believe. The facts have little or nothing to do with it.
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.