I'm sorry I meant "phased redeployment".
Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days
I guess she couldn't take it anymore. The liberal side couldn't hidden completely.
I'm sorry I meant "phased redeployment".
Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days
I guess she couldn't take it anymore. The liberal side couldn't hidden completely.
Face it, this war is losing support left and right (intentional double entendre) and will eventually end. Peacetime isn't so bad, really.
Originally Posted by olevetonahill
Re: Clinton Urges U.S. to Cut and Run in 90 days
Rogue,
And exactly WHAT peace will there be? Wasn't there relative "peace" before 9/11? All a pullout will accomplish is to free those who have vowed to destroy us and our way of life to plot, plan, and carry out yet more attacks HERE!
From the moment we leave Iraq to the sorry vermin there will be, in order, the following: A bloodbath of epic proportion, greater influence wielded by Iran, increased efforts to "convert" the few sane and moderate Arab countries to radical Islam, and deadly attacks here in the US.
So, will you let your kids hang out at the mall, knowing that some crazed and determined subhuman, ala the Trolley Mall Shooter, only toting a few pounds of explosive this time, might very well take them to his perverted version of Paradise with him?
Will you book a few flights? Will you ignore that suspicious-looking package lying beside the road or under your subway seat?
The Evil One (AKA Hillary) and her minions are determined to see this great nation go down. At the very least they are so deluded as to believe that appeasement is the answer.
What WOULD appease the radical Muslims anyway? After they weasel their way into local government, ala Hamtramck MI, which is on the verge of a Muslim takeover (all nice and legal) would they demand all liquor stores and bars close? Would they decree that there would be NO sports? (The Taliban in Afghanistan did just that, FYI.) No music...none, especially Christian hymns and Hebrew songs. Of course, you'll still have a form of music, in the form of the caterwauling "Call to prayer" broadcast from loudspeakers several times a day.
Yep, they'll use our own constitution against us, much as the trash from South of the Border is doing, to gain positions of power then enslave us.
Wake up and sniff the Starbucks(TM), my friend.
Kill them THERE! Kill them NOW!
LF
I doubt she's hoping to see our nation go down, or for appeasement. I am, and have been, all for the Global War On Terror. I just don't think that Iraq is, or ever was, the center of it. Sorta like we got diverted on our way to hunt down and kill the terrorists. And Iraq was far from the worst place to stop genocide and dictatorship. The most bang for our buck in terms of hunting down terrorists is, IMO, in Afghanistan and it's bordering countries. The most bang for our buck in terms of humanitarian intervention is Africa.
She's gonna go "Howard Dean" in no time. She just can't help herself.
The only thing that Hillary truly believes in is becoming President. The end justifies whatever means are necessary to accomplish that goal in her eyes.
Yes, this is the Kool-aid leftist position.
You guys "won" the mid-term elections, and now you think congress is Commander in Chief. If the dims had any honesty, they would simply cut funding, as they are allowed to do by law.
Once we cut and run, what would you have Bush do next with the US military?
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
The same thing he and Cheney did when they had the chance to serve, leave it to the experts and stay the hell out of it.
Seriously, as I said in the post you quoted, kill the terrorists where they are and where they train. Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of the other "stans" and Syria.
Or, since you know what I think alreadymaybe you should tell me what else I think.You guys "won" the mid-term elections, and now you think...blah blah blah
It sure is now.
AQ has told us this time and time again, yet no one listens. You should read the letter to Zarqawi from Zawahri sometime. Everyone should actually. Then ask yourself if running away from the people that flew airplanes into our buildings killing thousands is really a smart thing do to.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9666242/Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them. We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us, wherein our lot would be to merely resist their schemes.
As a sort of footnote to my previous post in this thread...
The punk who killed those folks at the Trolley Mall in Utah's first name was Sulieman (sp) and he was from Bosnia. Just how many non-Muslims name their spawn THAT? Was he on a Jihad? Will his mom get a death benefit check from Hezbollah or Hamas? Just wondering.
Rogue, this is just another taste if what will come if we don't destroy the bastadges THERE, regardless of collateral damage and world opinion.
Oh, it's gonna happen here anyway, and on a much grander scale, but at least there'll be fewer of the sorry anthropoids to dance in the streets, as shown on Al-Jazeera.
Hmmmm...Idea! Pre-target the favored "dance venues" and when they're out there gloating and ululating...WHAM! One cruise missile and the dancing stops.
LF
I really don't want to be in every nation in the middle east. Two is enough for me thankyou very much. Let them come there and get killed. Better there than here, right?
I think all this cut and run BS is evidence that we are finally succeeding in Iraq.
The Democrats are beginning to panic. Everything they are doing now is to ensure defeat in Iraq and the GWOT.
Most of the wimpy a$$ candidates are for quick pull outs.They DO NOT want to have to deal with the issue. They do not want to have to deal with any tough issues. For heavans sake, The first Clinton pretty much swept every tough issue under the rug. I wouldn't expect any more from her.
OBAMA= One Big A** Mistake America!
IMHO, if the donks want to pull the plug on the GWOT, it is within their power to do so. All they have to do is cut off the funding.
I don't think they will, because they fear a backlash of epic proportions if they did so. IMHO, the very reason the donks are considered soft on national security to this day is the lingering legacy of Vietnam where they did some of this pursestring-pulling.
Folks who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In the meantime, under our system of government, the Prez. calls the shots...and I think that chaps some folks in Congress...nevertheless, Constitutional arguments to the contrary are non-starters per well settled case law.
I'll tell you something else, I agree with whoever posted a while back that these family franchises on the White House historically haven't worked too well...with the possible exception of TR and FDR. I say HRC needs to focus on being a good Senator and leave the WH to someone new.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
Oh, I'm not sayin' massive troops on the ground everywhere.
This isn't that type of war where we are trying to occupy any country or region, but the kind where we are tryin' to strike first, stike hard, no mercy sir! It is regional, and in some ways global, guerilla hunting. Iraq is a logical place for a regional base, which seems to be one of our unstated goals since the Sauds have never wanted a US base there for popularity reasons. I still think that the fight in Afghanistan has been severely under-emphasized because of our emphasis in Iraq. And if some genius tries to tell me that the whole idea was to destabilize Iraq and attract the terrorists - save it for some other sucker.
Tuba, are you taking Zawahri and Zarqawi at their word this time or do you think they might be clever enough to want us to think that they want us to leave Iraq. As long as we are pumping our resources into Iraq they can have training camps everywhere else.
Heh, have you actually read this whole thing, or just the parts you think might help you?
Do you understand the context of your quote, which has little to do with them saying that Iraq is the center of the war on terror, and more to do with the fact that they hope that they will be able to take advantage of the inevitable power vacuum that occurs when we leave?
For example, let's take this gem:
What, wait, what what? Is Zawahri saying that the actions Iran is taking in Iraq might have little or nothing to do with attacking Americans, but more to do with supporting Shiites against their enemies?And can the mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that? And why kill ordinary Shia considering that they are forgiven because of their ignorance? And what loss will befall us if we did not attack the Shia? And do the brothers forget that we have more than one hundred prisoners — many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries — in the custody of the Iranians? And even if we attack the Shia out of necessity, then why do you announce this matter and make it public, which compels the Iranians to take countermeasures? And do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting us?
Wait, did he also say that Iran has a hundred Al-Qaeda prisoners, many of whom are leaders?
Clearly, because our enemy says it is so, it must be so, right?
They want to trade for the MEK in IRAQ- If we don't stay expect a regional conflict in the middle east regardless of our involvement- should we not protect our allies from IRAN... they may just take them out swiftly then.
1. Am I reading what you're saying correctly, that the MEK is an ally of ours?
2. We seem to have a regional conflict either way, so I'm not sure that's relevant.
3. About the only clear-cut ally that I see that we have against Iran over there is Israel. There are plenty of "the enemy of my enemy" types over there, but let's remember that the enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my ally, they're just someone who wants to hurt my enemy.Potentially useful, sure, but never confuse them for friends.
we got to fight em there so we don't have to fight em here. kill em all!!! to hell with collateral damage! lets grow a pair and kill em all!!!!! who's with me?!!
no sports!? now they've gone and done it. seriously, these are people elected to office. they didn't exactly "weasel" their way in. and i haven't actually been to this mecca for terrorism, but i doubt these are jihadists in us office. just a guess.
would that be such a bad thing. i mean, christian music sucks soooo bad. deny that.
and i like the starbucks reference. i'll go ahead and finish the rest of that sentence for you.
"wake up and sniff the starbucks, you ivy leage, east (or west) coast, hollywood, elite, cut and run liberal."
did i miss anything? oh, and this is a little off topic, but i do like the word defeatocrat. people took out demo and put in defeato! ha! now me try...headuptheirownasslican! derr, i did it too!
Posting Permissions
