crwtom 0 #1 July 19, 2008 BIG difference! Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #2 July 19, 2008 Flipflopping aside, I commend Bush for finally being willing to commit to a date to bring our troops home. Better late than never. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #3 July 19, 2008 Flipflopping aside, I commend Bush for finally being willing to commit to a date to bring our troops home. Better late than never. Quote I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call it flip flopping, its defintely a move in the rght direction though, we do need to start handing over more responsibility to the Iraqis, but doing it on a specific timeline is just stupid. Saying we are going to have troops out by a certain date regardless of whats going on is irresponsible, the milestones for withdrawl need to be based on whats happening on the ground. The Iraqi security forces as well as the Iraqi civilians are doing a lot more to step up and take control of their own situation than they were two years ago. I got to watch several "neighborhood watch" type programs start up last year and they all were incredibly successful. As long as they keep taking responsbility for ensuring the future stability of thir country I think we'll be able to greatly reduce the number of troops in Iraq and move the ones that are left there into a strictly training/advisory role.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #4 July 19, 2008 QuoteFlipflopping aside, I commend Bush for finally being willing to commit to a date to bring our troops home. Better late than never. Quote I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call it flip flopping, its defintely a move in the rght direction though, we do need to start handing over more responsibility to the Iraqis, but doing it on a specific timeline is just stupid. Saying we are going to have troops out by a certain date regardless of whats going on is irresponsible, the milestones for withdrawl need to be based on whats happening on the ground. The Iraqi security forces as well as the Iraqi civilians are doing a lot more to step up and take control of their own situation than they were two years ago. I got to watch several "neighborhood watch" type programs start up last year and they all were incredibly successful. As long as they keep taking responsbility for ensuring the future stability of thir country I think we'll be able to greatly reduce the number of troops in Iraq and move the ones that are left there into a strictly training/advisory role. Makes a mockery of any claim that the Iraqi government is anything but a US puppet when they have to go cap in hand to Bush to get him to agree to a "time horizon".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #5 July 19, 2008 QuoteFlipflopping aside, I commend Bush for finally being willing to commit to a date to bring our troops home. Better late than never. A "time horizon" negotiated with the Iraqi government, not dictated by some hostile, screwball liberals in the US government. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #6 July 19, 2008 >A "time horizon" negotiated with the Iraqi government, not dictated >by some hostile, screwball liberals in the US government. So you advocate letting foreign countries, rather than our government, sway what we do with our troops? Odd. Sounds a bit like appeasement! But whatever. If you want to blame the liberals, or claim victory, or make people little trophies - that's great, knock yourself out. The important thing is that we will be bringing our troops home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #7 July 19, 2008 >but doing it on a specific timeline is just stupid. What he's doing may indeed be stupid, but the outcome (withdrawing troops) is a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #8 July 19, 2008 Quote>A "time horizon" negotiated with the Iraqi government, not dictated >by some hostile, screwball liberals in the US government. So you advocate letting foreign countries, rather than our government, sway what we do with our troops? Odd. Sounds a bit like appeasement! But whatever. If you want to blame the liberals, or claim victory, or make people little trophies - that's great, knock yourself out. The important thing is that we will be bringing our troops home. Read the word "negotiated" very carefully and literally. Hell yeah the Iraqi government should be involved. Don't recall "blaming" anyone for anything. What I stated is quoted verbatim above. You used to be able to read a bit better than Mr. Kallend. What happened? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites auburnguy 0 #9 July 19, 2008 Hippies, quit crying and go back to Berkley"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way." - Homer Simpson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #10 July 19, 2008 Quote>but doing it on a specific timeline is just stupid. What he's doing may indeed be stupid, but the outcome (withdrawing troops) is a good one. I think everyone can agree that taking a definite step in the direction of getting us out of there is the right thing, but how we go about it is going to make or break our future relations with Iraq as well as determine the fate of the Iraqi citizens. As far as a country dictating what we do with our military, you know what, in this situation soldiers are nothing more than a tool to enforce the decisions of our elected officials. We can tell ourselves we're more important than that all we want but look at the beginning of the Iraq war, we're nothing more than pawns for the politicians to use as they please. Now when you consider the fact that Iraq is now an ally of the US we have a responsibility to support them, shortly after 9-11 all the NATO countries enacted a new policy stating that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us, and so long as Iraq is falling under terrorist attack we have an obligation to support them. We expected all of our allies to support us in Afghanistan, now its our time to step up to the plate and support Iraq until their security is at a level that they can maintain without our support. We ultimately have the final say in when our troops come home, but considering we started this little endeavor in Iraq its only reasonable that we see it through until the Iraqis feel they are capable of handling it on their own, pullng out before we have left them with a sfae and secure country would be a shameful act of cowardice and irresponsibility on our part.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #11 July 19, 2008 >Don't recall "blaming" anyone for anything. Other than the "hostile, screwball liberals." Perhaps you just forgot you wrote that. >Read the word "negotiated" very carefully and literally. I did. It's funny. Any suggestion of letting another country influence our withdrawal from Iraq, had it come from a democrat, would have had every conservative on here screaming their heads off, shrill voices yelling in unison "APPEASEMENT! EMBOLDENING THE ENEMY! DEFEATOCRAT! CUT AND RUN!" Heads would be exploding. Rush Limbaugh would get the vapors. Conservative blogs would be listing which democrat loves Osama bin Laden more. But now that Bush has done what you have been condemning for the past five years, you support it 100% - and see absolutely no hypocrisy in your position. Like I said, that's fine. Tell yourself whatever you like. The important part is getting our troops home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #12 July 19, 2008 And perhaps all the chickenhawks posting here can screw their courage up just a bit and ship out to Afghanistan, where they could use your help. It's a little more scary than posting angry diatribes on the Internet, to be sure. But people might take their flag-waving ramblings a bit more seriously if they could find it in themselves to walk the walk, instead of just talking the talk. Or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #13 July 19, 2008 QuoteIt's funny. Any suggestion of letting another country influence our withdrawal from Iraq, had it come from a democrat, would have had every conservative on here screaming their heads off, shrill voices yelling in unison "APPEASEMENT! EMBOLDENING THE ENEMY! DEFEATOCRAT! CUT AND RUN!" Heads would be exploding. Rush Limbaugh would get the vapors. Conservative blogs would be listing which democrat loves Osama bin Laden more. Doesn't have FA to do with my post. READ. ----- QuoteBut now that Bush has done what you have been condemning for the past five years, you support it 100% - and see absolutely no hypocrisy in your position. Please point to any posts that I have made in re this subject in the past. DO IT, PLEASE. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,148 #4 July 19, 2008 QuoteFlipflopping aside, I commend Bush for finally being willing to commit to a date to bring our troops home. Better late than never. Quote I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call it flip flopping, its defintely a move in the rght direction though, we do need to start handing over more responsibility to the Iraqis, but doing it on a specific timeline is just stupid. Saying we are going to have troops out by a certain date regardless of whats going on is irresponsible, the milestones for withdrawl need to be based on whats happening on the ground. The Iraqi security forces as well as the Iraqi civilians are doing a lot more to step up and take control of their own situation than they were two years ago. I got to watch several "neighborhood watch" type programs start up last year and they all were incredibly successful. As long as they keep taking responsbility for ensuring the future stability of thir country I think we'll be able to greatly reduce the number of troops in Iraq and move the ones that are left there into a strictly training/advisory role. Makes a mockery of any claim that the Iraqi government is anything but a US puppet when they have to go cap in hand to Bush to get him to agree to a "time horizon".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #5 July 19, 2008 QuoteFlipflopping aside, I commend Bush for finally being willing to commit to a date to bring our troops home. Better late than never. A "time horizon" negotiated with the Iraqi government, not dictated by some hostile, screwball liberals in the US government. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #6 July 19, 2008 >A "time horizon" negotiated with the Iraqi government, not dictated >by some hostile, screwball liberals in the US government. So you advocate letting foreign countries, rather than our government, sway what we do with our troops? Odd. Sounds a bit like appeasement! But whatever. If you want to blame the liberals, or claim victory, or make people little trophies - that's great, knock yourself out. The important thing is that we will be bringing our troops home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #7 July 19, 2008 >but doing it on a specific timeline is just stupid. What he's doing may indeed be stupid, but the outcome (withdrawing troops) is a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #8 July 19, 2008 Quote>A "time horizon" negotiated with the Iraqi government, not dictated >by some hostile, screwball liberals in the US government. So you advocate letting foreign countries, rather than our government, sway what we do with our troops? Odd. Sounds a bit like appeasement! But whatever. If you want to blame the liberals, or claim victory, or make people little trophies - that's great, knock yourself out. The important thing is that we will be bringing our troops home. Read the word "negotiated" very carefully and literally. Hell yeah the Iraqi government should be involved. Don't recall "blaming" anyone for anything. What I stated is quoted verbatim above. You used to be able to read a bit better than Mr. Kallend. What happened? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites auburnguy 0 #9 July 19, 2008 Hippies, quit crying and go back to Berkley"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way." - Homer Simpson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #10 July 19, 2008 Quote>but doing it on a specific timeline is just stupid. What he's doing may indeed be stupid, but the outcome (withdrawing troops) is a good one. I think everyone can agree that taking a definite step in the direction of getting us out of there is the right thing, but how we go about it is going to make or break our future relations with Iraq as well as determine the fate of the Iraqi citizens. As far as a country dictating what we do with our military, you know what, in this situation soldiers are nothing more than a tool to enforce the decisions of our elected officials. We can tell ourselves we're more important than that all we want but look at the beginning of the Iraq war, we're nothing more than pawns for the politicians to use as they please. Now when you consider the fact that Iraq is now an ally of the US we have a responsibility to support them, shortly after 9-11 all the NATO countries enacted a new policy stating that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us, and so long as Iraq is falling under terrorist attack we have an obligation to support them. We expected all of our allies to support us in Afghanistan, now its our time to step up to the plate and support Iraq until their security is at a level that they can maintain without our support. We ultimately have the final say in when our troops come home, but considering we started this little endeavor in Iraq its only reasonable that we see it through until the Iraqis feel they are capable of handling it on their own, pullng out before we have left them with a sfae and secure country would be a shameful act of cowardice and irresponsibility on our part.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #11 July 19, 2008 >Don't recall "blaming" anyone for anything. Other than the "hostile, screwball liberals." Perhaps you just forgot you wrote that. >Read the word "negotiated" very carefully and literally. I did. It's funny. Any suggestion of letting another country influence our withdrawal from Iraq, had it come from a democrat, would have had every conservative on here screaming their heads off, shrill voices yelling in unison "APPEASEMENT! EMBOLDENING THE ENEMY! DEFEATOCRAT! CUT AND RUN!" Heads would be exploding. Rush Limbaugh would get the vapors. Conservative blogs would be listing which democrat loves Osama bin Laden more. But now that Bush has done what you have been condemning for the past five years, you support it 100% - and see absolutely no hypocrisy in your position. Like I said, that's fine. Tell yourself whatever you like. The important part is getting our troops home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #12 July 19, 2008 And perhaps all the chickenhawks posting here can screw their courage up just a bit and ship out to Afghanistan, where they could use your help. It's a little more scary than posting angry diatribes on the Internet, to be sure. But people might take their flag-waving ramblings a bit more seriously if they could find it in themselves to walk the walk, instead of just talking the talk. Or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #13 July 19, 2008 QuoteIt's funny. Any suggestion of letting another country influence our withdrawal from Iraq, had it come from a democrat, would have had every conservative on here screaming their heads off, shrill voices yelling in unison "APPEASEMENT! EMBOLDENING THE ENEMY! DEFEATOCRAT! CUT AND RUN!" Heads would be exploding. Rush Limbaugh would get the vapors. Conservative blogs would be listing which democrat loves Osama bin Laden more. Doesn't have FA to do with my post. READ. ----- QuoteBut now that Bush has done what you have been condemning for the past five years, you support it 100% - and see absolutely no hypocrisy in your position. Please point to any posts that I have made in re this subject in the past. DO IT, PLEASE. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
1969912 0 #5 July 19, 2008 QuoteFlipflopping aside, I commend Bush for finally being willing to commit to a date to bring our troops home. Better late than never. A "time horizon" negotiated with the Iraqi government, not dictated by some hostile, screwball liberals in the US government. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #6 July 19, 2008 >A "time horizon" negotiated with the Iraqi government, not dictated >by some hostile, screwball liberals in the US government. So you advocate letting foreign countries, rather than our government, sway what we do with our troops? Odd. Sounds a bit like appeasement! But whatever. If you want to blame the liberals, or claim victory, or make people little trophies - that's great, knock yourself out. The important thing is that we will be bringing our troops home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #7 July 19, 2008 >but doing it on a specific timeline is just stupid. What he's doing may indeed be stupid, but the outcome (withdrawing troops) is a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #8 July 19, 2008 Quote>A "time horizon" negotiated with the Iraqi government, not dictated >by some hostile, screwball liberals in the US government. So you advocate letting foreign countries, rather than our government, sway what we do with our troops? Odd. Sounds a bit like appeasement! But whatever. If you want to blame the liberals, or claim victory, or make people little trophies - that's great, knock yourself out. The important thing is that we will be bringing our troops home. Read the word "negotiated" very carefully and literally. Hell yeah the Iraqi government should be involved. Don't recall "blaming" anyone for anything. What I stated is quoted verbatim above. You used to be able to read a bit better than Mr. Kallend. What happened? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
auburnguy 0 #9 July 19, 2008 Hippies, quit crying and go back to Berkley"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way." - Homer Simpson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #10 July 19, 2008 Quote>but doing it on a specific timeline is just stupid. What he's doing may indeed be stupid, but the outcome (withdrawing troops) is a good one. I think everyone can agree that taking a definite step in the direction of getting us out of there is the right thing, but how we go about it is going to make or break our future relations with Iraq as well as determine the fate of the Iraqi citizens. As far as a country dictating what we do with our military, you know what, in this situation soldiers are nothing more than a tool to enforce the decisions of our elected officials. We can tell ourselves we're more important than that all we want but look at the beginning of the Iraq war, we're nothing more than pawns for the politicians to use as they please. Now when you consider the fact that Iraq is now an ally of the US we have a responsibility to support them, shortly after 9-11 all the NATO countries enacted a new policy stating that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us, and so long as Iraq is falling under terrorist attack we have an obligation to support them. We expected all of our allies to support us in Afghanistan, now its our time to step up to the plate and support Iraq until their security is at a level that they can maintain without our support. We ultimately have the final say in when our troops come home, but considering we started this little endeavor in Iraq its only reasonable that we see it through until the Iraqis feel they are capable of handling it on their own, pullng out before we have left them with a sfae and secure country would be a shameful act of cowardice and irresponsibility on our part.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #11 July 19, 2008 >Don't recall "blaming" anyone for anything. Other than the "hostile, screwball liberals." Perhaps you just forgot you wrote that. >Read the word "negotiated" very carefully and literally. I did. It's funny. Any suggestion of letting another country influence our withdrawal from Iraq, had it come from a democrat, would have had every conservative on here screaming their heads off, shrill voices yelling in unison "APPEASEMENT! EMBOLDENING THE ENEMY! DEFEATOCRAT! CUT AND RUN!" Heads would be exploding. Rush Limbaugh would get the vapors. Conservative blogs would be listing which democrat loves Osama bin Laden more. But now that Bush has done what you have been condemning for the past five years, you support it 100% - and see absolutely no hypocrisy in your position. Like I said, that's fine. Tell yourself whatever you like. The important part is getting our troops home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #12 July 19, 2008 And perhaps all the chickenhawks posting here can screw their courage up just a bit and ship out to Afghanistan, where they could use your help. It's a little more scary than posting angry diatribes on the Internet, to be sure. But people might take their flag-waving ramblings a bit more seriously if they could find it in themselves to walk the walk, instead of just talking the talk. Or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #13 July 19, 2008 QuoteIt's funny. Any suggestion of letting another country influence our withdrawal from Iraq, had it come from a democrat, would have had every conservative on here screaming their heads off, shrill voices yelling in unison "APPEASEMENT! EMBOLDENING THE ENEMY! DEFEATOCRAT! CUT AND RUN!" Heads would be exploding. Rush Limbaugh would get the vapors. Conservative blogs would be listing which democrat loves Osama bin Laden more. Doesn't have FA to do with my post. READ. ----- QuoteBut now that Bush has done what you have been condemning for the past five years, you support it 100% - and see absolutely no hypocrisy in your position. Please point to any posts that I have made in re this subject in the past. DO IT, PLEASE. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
