Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Clinton: U.S. out of Iraq by January '09
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar
Johnny Guitar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 226
Location: San Rafael, California
I wonder if she's sincere?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070128/ap_ ... linton2008

_________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton: U.S. out of Iraq by January '09
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:31 am 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:16 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: Mass.
prayforpeace wrote:


Hillary Clinton...sincere? :lol:

I do like this blurb from the article:

"The White House condemned Clinton's comments as a partisan attack that undermines U.S. soldiers."

Damn right.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton: U.S. out of Iraq by January '09
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 19477
Location: Brooklyn NY
LeninFlux wrote:
prayforpeace wrote:


Hillary Clinton...sincere? :lol:

I do like this blurb from the article:

"The White House condemned Clinton's comments as a partisan attack that undermines U.S. soldiers."

Damn right.


The Democrats hate our troops

_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton: U.S. out of Iraq by January '09
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:27 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:34 am
Posts: 12029
glorified_version wrote:
LeninFlux wrote:
prayforpeace wrote:


Hillary Clinton...sincere? :lol:

I do like this blurb from the article:

"The White House condemned Clinton's comments as a partisan attack that undermines U.S. soldiers."

Damn right.


The Democrats hate our troops


bush said the democrats were cut and run before he said they weren't cut and run.

_________________
durdencommatyler wrote:
I'm a big fan of every invention post I've read.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:34 am 
Offline
User avatar
Interweb Celebrity
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am
Posts: 46000
Location: Reasonville
that's a pretty bold statement and i'm not sure how cool am i with it yet.

_________________
No matter how dark the storm gets overhead
They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge
What about us when we're down here in it?
We gotta watch our backs


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:35 am 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:16 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: Mass.
Image


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar
Interweb Celebrity
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am
Posts: 46000
Location: Reasonville
i can't say i agree there but stuff like this makes me doublethink hillary clinton.

_________________
No matter how dark the storm gets overhead
They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge
What about us when we're down here in it?
We gotta watch our backs


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:51 am 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:16 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: Mass.
corduroy_blazer wrote:
i can't say i agree there but stuff like this makes me doublethink hillary clinton.


See, this is the problem I have with the Democrats' position re: Iraq. Let's set a date certain for total withdrawal. While it would be great to bring all of our troops home in the fastest time possible, it's just not realistic. The Democrats don't answer an essential question - what do we leave behind if we set a date and pull out by said date. Now, I'm not advocating staying for the next 100 years. But even if we pulled back to periferal areas and kept Iran and Saudi Arabia from getting involved, this is a better option than getting out altogether. Pulling out in 6 months or a year or whatever else comes from the Democrats is avoiding serious consequences...and Senator Clinton's "plan" is no different. Just more of the same cut-and-run bullshit with total disregard of the consequences.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:53 am 
Offline
User avatar
Interweb Celebrity
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am
Posts: 46000
Location: Reasonville
LeninFlux wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
i can't say i agree there but stuff like this makes me doublethink hillary clinton.


See, this is the problem I have with the Democrats' position re: Iraq. Let's set a date certain for total withdrawal. While it would be great to bring all of our troops home in the fastest time possible, it's just not realistic. The Democrats don't answer an essential question - what do we leave behind if we set a date and pull out by said date. Now, I'm not advocating staying for the next 100 years. But even if we pulled back to periferal areas and kept Iran and Saudi Arabia from getting involved, this is a better option than getting out altogether. Pulling out in 6 months or a year or whatever else comes from the Democrats is avoiding serious consequences...and Senator Clinton's "plan" is no different. Just more of the same cut-and-run bullshit with total disregard of the consequences.


i don't want a firm deadline. but i want a firm guarantee it'll stop if it doesn't improve within a reasonable time frame.

however, has the war reached that point? i'm not sure. maybe it is time for a firm deadline...

_________________
No matter how dark the storm gets overhead
They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge
What about us when we're down here in it?
We gotta watch our backs


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:55 am 
Offline
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:16 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: Mass.
corduroy_blazer wrote:
LeninFlux wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
i can't say i agree there but stuff like this makes me doublethink hillary clinton.


See, this is the problem I have with the Democrats' position re: Iraq. Let's set a date certain for total withdrawal. While it would be great to bring all of our troops home in the fastest time possible, it's just not realistic. The Democrats don't answer an essential question - what do we leave behind if we set a date and pull out by said date. Now, I'm not advocating staying for the next 100 years. But even if we pulled back to periferal areas and kept Iran and Saudi Arabia from getting involved, this is a better option than getting out altogether. Pulling out in 6 months or a year or whatever else comes from the Democrats is avoiding serious consequences...and Senator Clinton's "plan" is no different. Just more of the same cut-and-run bullshit with total disregard of the consequences.


i don't want a firm deadline. but i want a firm guarantee it'll stop if it doesn't improve within a reasonable time frame.

however, has the war reached that point? i'm not sure. maybe it is time for a firm deadline...


I agree with the assertion that we shouldn't "stay the course" in Baghdad if it becomes obvious that it is a lost cause. To that extent, pulling out of the country entirely (as the Democrats propose) is unrealistic. We will have troops in that country for at least 4-6 more years...as a presence to safeguard outside interference and to make sure that terrorists establish a base in the country. It's going to take years for the Iraqi government and it's military/police to become effective in maintaining order. It's not going to happen in 6 months or a year, and setting a date certain (i.e. we are out of here by 'x') will do nothing. That being said, I do believe that we need to "push" the Iraqi government to move faster and make the difficult decisions necessary because we have no interest in policing the country indefinitely.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
Smoke and mirrors. '09 is probably what looks best via polling data for the Hillary camp at this point.

Fact of the matter is: If Hillary is president, and things don't get better, she will not pull the troops out of Iraq in 09.

You're just not gonna see anybody taking any sort of solid formidable stance on Iraq for this election. Nor will you see anybody bring forth any sort of drastic plan that's necessary to complete and finish the mission.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
A buddy of mine in the Army is in a Striker division thats just starting to be organized. Apparently they'll be operational in '09, so if they aren't going off to Iraq I know not what they'll be doing. Thats not to say that the world revolves around Iraq, but I'd imagine the military is planning for prolonged occupation.

LW, what are your thoughts on the Striker?


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
simple schoolboy wrote:
A buddy of mine in the Army is in a Striker division thats just starting to be organized. Apparently they'll be operational in '09, so if they aren't going off to Iraq I know not what they'll be doing. Thats not to say that the world revolves around Iraq, but I'd imagine the military is planning for prolonged occupation.

LW, what are your thoughts on the Striker?


Dunno. Never seen one. Know nothing about them. I know our humvees really suck. That's all.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
LittleWing wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
A buddy of mine in the Army is in a Striker division thats just starting to be organized. Apparently they'll be operational in '09, so if they aren't going off to Iraq I know not what they'll be doing. Thats not to say that the world revolves around Iraq, but I'd imagine the military is planning for prolonged occupation.

LW, what are your thoughts on the Striker?


Dunno. Never seen one. Know nothing about them. I know our humvees really suck. That's all.


I'm guessing Djibouti isn't the number one priority for up-armored Humvees. Luckily for you the Ethiopians are doing most of the shooting in your neck of the woods these days, eh?


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
We have up armored humvees. The problem is probably the armor. They take a humvee, add two tons of armor to it to make it invincable, but they don't adjust anything else. Therefore, engines don't last as long, don't accelerate like they should, have lower top speed, horrible fuel economy. The suspensions are always bottomed out, and it adds much more stress to the suspension so we're always breaking parts. Then you have the doors. We have latches for 25 pound doors on 500 pound doors. All of our interior latches suck ass. It's little things like that that make our day to day job more tedious than anything else.

As a side note. We took a window that was already broke out to the range. Shot that bitch 35 times and not one round penetrated that glass.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar
The Decider
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am
Posts: 5575
Location: Sydney, NSW
LittleWing wrote:
Smoke and mirrors. '09 is probably what looks best via polling data for the Hillary camp at this point.

Fact of the matter is: If Hillary is president, and things don't get better, she will not pull the troops out of Iraq in 09.

You're just not gonna see anybody taking any sort of solid formidable stance on Iraq for this election. Nor will you see anybody bring forth any sort of drastic plan that's necessary to complete and finish the mission.


This is pretty much on the money.

_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Fri Jan 09, 2026 6:17 pm