Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / Iraq withdrawal, your thoughts?

Iraq withdrawal, your thoughts?

45 posts
  1. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/24/2011 11:10 AM
    It has been kind of bugging me, as I am glad the troops are withdrawing from Iraq. I never was a supporter of this action as it took away from the issue in Afghanistan. Yet when I hear from the republican presidential candidates bashing Obama for pulling out troops it erks me (I know I'm an Obama supporter but I'm willing to ask the questions to get educated about the issue, whether it changes my mind or not is another story).

    For one it really isn't Obama's call, it is Iraq's call in a agreement with former President Bush.

    For two, the bash President Obama for not listening to commanders on the ground, I can't speak for this instance but I thought President Obama has listened to commanders very well during his time in office.

    Three: When debt is a big problem in the country, wouldn't this go to helping fix some of those problems?

    Four: Why continue to put such a burden on the hero's that have sacrificed so much for our country?

    Five: Is this just political rhetoric to sway the masses that don't research or think for themselves on issues to get people to support the republicans?

    I thought Secretary of State Clinton made some good statements on the issue yesterday in my opinion.

    Thanks, Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  2. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/24/2011 3:10 PM
    The response from the Republican Presidential Candidates and the right is predictable and understandable. They want power. Iran is already very well entrenched into Iraq. There is no need for them to attack. They will develop a very good business relationship with Iraq as is. We still have trainers in Iraq, but they will not be active-duty "soldiers". My father was a tank commander in the Korean War. He was a GE executive who they tried to screw out of his pension. He ended up wearing ACU's to work at GE instead of a suit and taught tank gunnery mostly to foreign purchasers of our tanks in a GE produced tank simulator.



  3. Andy Jorgensen
    Andy Jorgensen avatar
    1 posts
    10/24/2011 4:10 PM
    Believe it when I see it.



  4. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    10/24/2011 5:10 PM
    Only time will tell if pulling the troops all out is the right thing to do. I know everyone wants our guys and gals home and out of harms way. I hope and pray it all works out. If something bad develops, it will look like we cut and ran. If it works then history will judge it as a wise move. I look around the mid-east and see nothing good developing for the United States. I see a potential Arab war with Israel and we will have to somehow get involved. Nothing good for the entire world will become of that prediction if it comes true. It appears that the more militant version of Islam is going to rule in most of the countries where leadership has changed. I am not optimistic about what the future holds in that part of the world.



  5. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/24/2011 5:10 PM
    I know I am begging retribution from the usual suspects, but how you can evaluate the Six-Day War and determine there is no God is beyond me.

    [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E63AKJpa1Tk[/youtube">



  6. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    10/24/2011 6:10 PM
    Mel,

    Yeah, the majority of the criticism by the right is just rhetoric. Obama could say the sky is blue and the republican candidates would argue it; same goes the other way too. However, I believe the republicans are not criticizing the withdrawal as much as they are criticizing Obama for, what they claim to be, bad negotiations by the administration with Iraq. No candidate would be foolish enough to argue that we should stay in Iraq without immunity.



  7. Steven Huffstutler
    Steven Huffstutler avatar
    11 posts
    10/25/2011 6:10 AM
    wahlins said: I know I am begging retribution from the usual suspects, but how you can evaluate the Six-Day War and determine there is no God is beyond me.

    [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E63AKJpa1Tk[/youtube">



    The usual suspect, I suspect.

    You are developing a bit of a complex about anybody who happens to disagree with your irrational conclusions, it seems. I promise that I won't respond to any more of your god ramblings from now on, so you may post this nonsense to your hearts desire, but I will say this as my final response:

    It is very difficult to be rational and come to these conclusions, Scott. Your god complex is not rational despite your efforts to make it seem so. You deny reality and your own scientific training on a daily basis which must be difficult for you. Your assertions are the sorts of comments that everybody hates to hear from Muslims, but for some reason, you give yourself a pass.

    With regard to the withdrawal from Iraq, I say great! Leave those people to fight their own battles and kill each other over their interpretations of a bloody, Bronze Age desert religion. The only thing better would be an announcement that we are leaving Afghanistan, as well.

    Regards,

    Steve



  8. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    10/25/2011 7:10 AM
    See Mel, see what you did with that post! lol



  9. Steven Kurta
    Steven Kurta avatar
    2 posts
    10/25/2011 4:10 PM
    6 day war?

    Most definitely the work of God. Scott has proof...I hope.

    Scott, lay it on us. Blow our minds.

    Because, y'know...proof is good.

    Or was that you using hyperbole?



  10. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/25/2011 4:10 PM
    tuscarora said: 6 day war?

    Most definitely the work of God. Scott has proof...I hope.

    Scott, lay it on us. Blow our minds.

    Because, y'know...proof is good.

    Or was that you using hyperbole?


    The Israelis were surrounded, out manned and out gunned. They were facing incredibly bad odds unless you take faith in God into consideration. Everything in their battle plan went perfectly. They destroyed an air force on the ground, developed low budget used tanks to battle the latest and greatest, developed a means to extend their infantry through hydration and developed a superior weapon for fighting in trenches and tight places. I would call that a blessing. Besides, 6 days? What do you suppose they did on the 7th? I am guessing they gave thanks and rested.



  11. Trevor Monreal
    Trevor Monreal avatar
    5 posts
    10/26/2011 7:10 AM
    I don't understand why we are even still at war with anybody.
    I thought starting back in 2008 was "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"??? and "No red states. No blue states".
    WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?
    Oh yeah...those evil RICH people along with the republicans/obstructionists.
    Anyway, let's bring our men and women home, at the ready, and continue to beef up our intelligence.



  12. Ronald Conard
    Ronald Conard avatar
    4 posts
    10/26/2011 7:10 AM
    wahlins said: I know I am begging retribution from the usual suspects, but how you can evaluate the Six-Day War and determine there is no God is beyond me.


    Are you really pinning a war, with all the accoutrement of death and destruction, on God? If He was picking sides and playing a Hand in the outcome, couldn't He have just as easily intervened before the start of the carnage?



  13. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/26/2011 8:10 AM
    conard said:
    wahlins said: I know I am begging retribution from the usual suspects, but how you can evaluate the Six-Day War and determine there is no God is beyond me.


    Are you really pinning a war, with all the accoutrement of death and destruction, on God? Yes. If He was picking sides and playing a Hand in the outcome, couldn't He have just as easily intervened before the start of the carnage? I would say that is a good question. One of the reasons they call it faith is that we do not know all the answers.



  14. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    3/19/2012 8:03 PM
    How do you feel about pulling out of Iraq? Have they been sufficiently punished for having nothing to do with 9/11?



  15. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    3/20/2012 6:03 AM
    Coming to work this morning.........bombings across Iraq...........46 dead, over 200 wounded.........let'um have it. No mas. I also agree with Sandy, not much good for us or Israel is going to come out of the middle east anytime soon.



  16. Steve Nelson
    Steve Nelson avatar
    0 posts
    3/20/2012 7:03 AM
    Should have left a long time ago. Let this be a lesson for future wars. 1. Do it only if absolutely necessary 2. When it's time to do it then be all in, no holding back 3. When the military's job is over, leave- no nation building 4. Plunder their wealth to pay for it.

    It's really a simple concept. The Vikings had it perfected about a thousand years ago.



  17. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    3/20/2012 11:03 AM
    Steve Nelson, CGCS said: Should have left a long time ago. Let this be a lesson for future wars. 1. Do it only if absolutely necessary 2. When it's time to do it then be all in, no holding back 3. When the military's job is over, leave- no nation building 4. Plunder their wealth to pay for it.

    It's really a simple concept. The Vikings had it perfected about a thousand years ago.


    #3 If you leave creates a power vacuum especially in the middle east. We are seeing that now with our support of Arab spring. Egypt has just declared Israel their #1 enemy, what was thought to be a good thing in Libya, Egypt is being controlled by Muslim Brotherhood.

    #4 I thought thats what Bush was doing there in the first place.

    Im sure not for war but history has shown we are danged if we do danged if we dont.

    I think your statement is right on about no holding back. Give the Commanders full power and let them do their jobs and less journalism access.



  18. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    3/23/2012 5:03 AM
    The reason most of us complain about Obama and the iraq war, is that when the commanders were asking for a surge, the guy sat on it for weeks, because of politics. Then when absolutely necessary only gave the commanders part of what they asked for. Yep, he was really listening to em. I like what Trevor said, Obama was supposed to fix all this stuff and bring us all together to sing koombuyya (sp?). Ever since this guy has been president he has rachited up the rhetoric demonizing the right. Keeps saying its all our fault. Well I dont remember many of these nations in the middle east gettin too far out of line when Bush was in office. Maybe it was the cowboy attitude he had. Since Obama, its falling apart over there, because every arab nation knows that the dems dont have the stomach to stand up to em. Iran has sped up their development of Nukes since Obama took over and they could care less what he says. They know historically that dems dont have a spine when it comes to war and one of their common practices has been reducing the size of our military. Its funny how the dems kept saying our military wasnt big enough to fight two wars, but they sure dont have a problem making it even smaller.



  19. Larry Allan
    Larry Allan avatar
    0 posts
    3/23/2012 6:03 AM
    Well I dont remember many of these nations in the middle east gettin too far out of line when Bush was in office. Maybe it was the cowboy attitude he had

    huh?



  20. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    3/23/2012 7:03 AM
    Dropping the twin towers was not "too far out of line" for you? I can't read your stuff anymore.



  21. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    3/23/2012 12:03 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: Dropping the twin towers was not "too far out of line" for you? I can't read your stuff anymore.


    9 months into his administration and what did he do about it? Flexed a little bit of american muscle, reduced the impact of the taliban in afghanistan, and took out a known supporter of terrorism who gased his own people. Remember you libs coined the term cowboy, i was just bringing it back to light. Bushes policies were the undoing of most of the Al Qaeda network. Even Iran wasn't saying much when he was in office, because they knew we were right next door in Iraq. We were able to make the evil people of this world at least question whether they were next or not. With Obama, they know with certainty that he isnt going to do anything. Thats why Iran ramped up their nuclear program when Bush left. They knew they had four years to do whatever they wanted.



  22. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    3/23/2012 12:03 PM
    Larry Allan said: Well I dont remember many of these nations in the middle east gettin too far out of line when Bush was in office. Maybe it was the cowboy attitude he had

    huh?


    i guessed you lefties lost your sense of humor and forgot that you used to call Bush a cowboy and say that he was recless with his cowboy attitude. My gosh how soon people forget what comes out their own political party



  23. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    3/23/2012 1:03 PM
    As I recall the Taliban was very much in control in Afghanistan when Bush left office, al Qaeda was well entrenched in Iraq, which was a first and Bush made it clear that he was not looking to kill bin Laden. What a difference three years makes!



  24. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    3/23/2012 3:03 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: As I recall the Taliban was very much in control in Afghanistan when Bush left office, al Qaeda was well entrenched in Iraq, which was a first and Bush made it clear that he was not looking to kill bin Laden. What a difference three years makes!


    Bushes policies made it possible to get the intel that led to bin ladens death, it just would have been nice for Obama to credit those policies. The Taliban was not in control of afghanistan when Bush left, but they since have made a resurrgence. Al Qaeda was in iraq before the war, remember they had training camps. The dispersement of Al Qaeda is much thinner now and they have less organization throughout the region and many of their leaders have been killed, weaking their whole structure



  25. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    3/23/2012 6:03 PM
    Dennis Cook said:
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: As I recall the Taliban was very much in control in Afghanistan when Bush left office, al Qaeda was well entrenched in Iraq, which was a first and Bush made it clear that he was not looking to kill bin Laden. What a difference three years makes!


    Dennis, You should really try another news source besides Fox. Might I suggest the BBC or Al Jazeera?Bushes policies made it possible to get the intel that led to bin ladens death, it just would have been nice for Obama to credit those policies.You are really living in a dream world. If Bush had figured it out, why didn't he kill bin Laden? The Taliban was not in control of afghanistan when Bush left,We had them right where we needed them until we refocused on Iraq. Once our direction changed that gave the Taliban time to rebuild in Afghanistan. but they since have made a resurrgence. Al Qaeda was in iraq before the warNobody (except you) says this!, remember they had training camps. The dispersement of Al Qaeda is much thinner now and they have less organization throughout the region and many of their leaders have been killedBecause of Obama! Talking to conservatives is just so tiring!, weaking their whole structure



  26. Stephen Okula
    Stephen Okula avatar
    3 posts
    3/24/2012 1:03 AM
    "Bushes policies made it possible to get the intel that led to bin ladens death, it just would have been nice for Obama to credit those policies. The Taliban was not in control of afghanistan when Bush left, but they since have made a resurrgence. Al Qaeda was in iraq before the war, remember they had training camps. "

    Everything in this paragraph is blatantly false, but the most egregious of these preposterous assertions is the implication that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had a working relationship. Al Qaeda is a radical religious organization made up of mainly Shiite Muslims. Their goal is to institute an Islamic fundamentalist rule the world over by whatever means possible, and indiscriminate violence seems to be their first choice.

    Hussein was nominally a Sunni Muslim, a group notoriously at odds with the Shiite sect. In reality he was a secular fascist, whose only goal was to cling to power in Iraq and whatever territory he might be able to grab. He viewed the fundamentalists with fear and loathing, because they were a threat to his own power. No way would he ever cooperate with them. If Al Qaeda had training camps in Iraq, they were there to overthrow Hussein, not to support him. Remember, Al Qaeda operatives involved in the 9/11 attacks had their flight training in the U.S., by your logic then Bush actually allied himself with them.



  27. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    3/24/2012 12:03 PM
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: "Bushes policies made it possible to get the intel that led to bin ladens death, it just would have been nice for Obama to credit those policies. The Taliban was not in control of afghanistan when Bush left, but they since have made a resurrgence. Al Qaeda was in iraq before the war, remember they had training camps. "

    Everything in this paragraph is blatantly false, but the most egregious of these preposterous assertions is the implication that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had a working relationship. Al Qaeda is a radical religious organization made up of mainly Shiite Muslims. Their goal is to institute an Islamic fundamentalist rule the world over by whatever means possible, and indiscriminate violence seems to be their first choice.

    Hussein was nominally a Sunni Muslim, a group notoriously at odds with the Shiite sect. In reality he was a secular fascist, whose only goal was to cling to power in Iraq and whatever territory he might be able to grab. He viewed the fundamentalists with fear and loathing, because they were a threat to his own power. No way would he ever cooperate with them. If Al Qaeda had training camps in Iraq, they were there to overthrow Hussein, not to support him. Remember, Al Qaeda operatives involved in the 9/11 attacks had their flight training in the U.S., by your logic then Bush actually allied himself with them.


    No Bush just let Bin Laden go this whole time covered it up... Of course his policies helped kill him! Maybe al-qaeda wasnt there who knows. Bush lied, maybe, but more than him had access to intelligence. What will history write about Obama and aiding the over throw of Mubarek, Gadafi and opening it up to the peaceful hands of the muslim brotherhood..?? We all know Obama lied about dumping Bin Laden at sea what next?



  28. Stephen Okula
    Stephen Okula avatar
    3 posts
    3/24/2012 1:03 PM
    Jon Gansen said:
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: "Bushes policies made it possible to get the intel that led to bin ladens death, it just would have been nice for Obama to credit those policies. The Taliban was not in control of afghanistan when Bush left, but they since have made a resurrgence. Al Qaeda was in iraq before the war, remember they had training camps. "

    Everything in this paragraph is blatantly false, but the most egregious of these preposterous assertions is the implication that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had a working relationship. Al Qaeda is a radical religious organization made up of mainly Shiite Muslims. Their goal is to institute an Islamic fundamentalist rule the world over by whatever means possible, and indiscriminate violence seems to be their first choice.

    Hussein was nominally a Sunni Muslim, a group notoriously at odds with the Shiite sect. In reality he was a secular fascist, whose only goal was to cling to power in Iraq and whatever territory he might be able to grab. He viewed the fundamentalists with fear and loathing, because they were a threat to his own power. No way would he ever cooperate with them. If Al Qaeda had training camps in Iraq, they were there to overthrow Hussein, not to support him. Remember, Al Qaeda operatives involved in the 9/11 attacks had their flight training in the U.S., by your logic then Bush actually allied himself with them.


    No Bush just let Bin Laden go this whole time covered it up... Of course his policies helped kill him! Maybe al-qaeda wasnt there who knows. Bush lied, maybe, but more than him had access to intelligence. What will history write about Obama and aiding the over throw of Mubarek, Gadafi and opening it up to the peaceful hands of the muslim brotherhood..?? We all know Obama lied about dumping Bin Laden at sea what next?


    Obama lied about throwing bin Laden into the ocean? I had no idea. Tell me, what really happened and how do you know?

    Also, in point of style for correct English, "Bush" and "intelligence" are never used in the same sentence.



  29. Wallace Jeffrey V
    Wallace Jeffrey V avatar
    3/24/2012 4:03 PM
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said:
    Jon Gansen said:
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: "Bushes policies made it possible to get the intel that led to bin ladens death, it just would have been nice for Obama to credit those policies. The Taliban was not in control of afghanistan when Bush left, but they since have made a resurrgence. Al Qaeda was in iraq before the war, remember they had training camps. "

    Everything in this paragraph is blatantly false, but the most egregious of these preposterous assertions is the implication that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had a working relationship. Al Qaeda is a radical religious organization made up of mainly Shiite Muslims. Their goal is to institute an Islamic fundamentalist rule the world over by whatever means possible, and indiscriminate violence seems to be their first choice.

    Hussein was nominally a Sunni Muslim, a group notoriously at odds with the Shiite sect. In reality he was a secular fascist, whose only goal was to cling to power in Iraq and whatever territory he might be able to grab. He viewed the fundamentalists with fear and loathing, because they were a threat to his own power. No way would he ever cooperate with them. If Al Qaeda had training camps in Iraq, they were there to overthrow Hussein, not to support him. Remember, Al Qaeda operatives involved in the 9/11 attacks had their flight training in the U.S., by your logic then Bush actually allied himself with them.


    No Bush just let Bin Laden go this whole time covered it up... Of course his policies helped kill him! Maybe al-qaeda wasnt there who knows. Bush lied, maybe, but more than him had access to intelligence. What will history write about Obama and aiding the over throw of Mubarek, Gadafi and opening it up to the peaceful hands of the muslim brotherhood..?? We all know Obama lied about dumping Bin Laden at sea what next?


    Obama lied about throwing bin Laden into the ocean? I had no idea. Tell me, what really happened and how do you know?

    Also, in point of style for correct English, "Bush" and "intelligence" are never used in the same sentence.


    Jon,

    I think the problem here is your statement that we "all" know that Obama lied. "My" sources tell me that bin Laden lied about not being able to swim. Then some guy sends an email saying "remains on the way to White House", followed by another email saying, "Psych!"

    Kids....driving aircraft carriers....what are ya gonna do? So now, we're left with conflicting reports. And since "I" have no idea if he floated, or sank, or was flown, or hitched a ride on that carrier, means that "all" of us do not know.

    I guess the bottom line is, "who cares?" Did our President lie to "you" about exactly where the bullet entered bin Laden's head? He told me that it was about a half inch above his left eye. But he was probably just yanking my chain, because I'm not on the "need to know" list. That's okay. And it probably wasn't even him.....the call just showed up as "White House switchboard". I didn't even know they still had switchboards.

    The day that the CIC of our military forces tells the world "exactly" what happened on any given op, is the day that I will decide to vote him/her out of office.



  30. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    3/25/2012 7:03 PM
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said:
    Jon Gansen said:
    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: "Bushes policies made it possible to get the intel that led to bin ladens death, it just would have been nice for Obama to credit those policies. The Taliban was not in control of afghanistan when Bush left, but they since have made a resurrgence. Al Qaeda was in iraq before the war, remember they had training camps. "

    Everything in this paragraph is blatantly false, but the most egregious of these preposterous assertions is the implication that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had a working relationship. Al Qaeda is a radical religious organization made up of mainly Shiite Muslims. Their goal is to institute an Islamic fundamentalist rule the world over by whatever means possible, and indiscriminate violence seems to be their first choice.

    Hussein was nominally a Sunni Muslim, a group notoriously at odds with the Shiite sect. In reality he was a secular fascist, whose only goal was to cling to power in Iraq and whatever territory he might be able to grab. He viewed the fundamentalists with fear and loathing, because they were a threat to his own power. No way would he ever cooperate with them. If Al Qaeda had training camps in Iraq, they were there to overthrow Hussein, not to support him. Remember, Al Qaeda operatives involved in the 9/11 attacks had their flight training in the U.S., by your logic then Bush actually allied himself with them.


    No Bush just let Bin Laden go this whole time covered it up... Of course his policies helped kill him! Maybe al-qaeda wasnt there who knows. Bush lied, maybe, but more than him had access to intelligence. What will history write about Obama and aiding the over throw of Mubarek, Gadafi and opening it up to the peaceful hands of the muslim brotherhood..?? We all know Obama lied about dumping Bin Laden at sea what next?


    Obama lied about throwing bin Laden into the ocean? I had no idea. Tell me, what really happened and how do you know?

    Also, in point of style for correct English, "Bush" and "intelligence" are never used in the same sentence.


    That is what wiki claims has happened thru leaked e-mail.. Kinda crazy aint it, how I get the the fifth grade mentality out of you( how do you know) but everything you throw out is gospel. My Point being is just like Jeff said we know only what they want us to know. Bin Laden may be alive and hopefully being water boarded for intelligence. Nah POTUS wouldnt allow that its torture.



View or change your forums profile here.