"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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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