|
|
Post by bolverk on May 29, 2008 17:31:26 GMT -5
All of you war protesters, you are aligned with the following organizations who sponsors your point of view: In the US, the "anti-war" protests were organised by International ANSWER / The Workers World Party / Party for Socialism and Liberation. This group, with links to the Soviet Union's KGB, supported Stalin, supported the Soviet crushing of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, supported Mao's democide and the Cultural Revolution, supported China's killing of the Tiananmen Square protesters, supported Libya, supported the butcher Milosevic, supported (and still supports) Castro, and today supports (not just supports appeasement with, but actually supports!) the genocidal tyranny of North Korea. You are all keeping some fine company there, in an effort to prevent Iraqi people from participating in Democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 29, 2008 18:10:41 GMT -5
If you're lumping the 63% of Americans who think it was a mistake to attack Iraq and want our troops out of there now (according to the latest Gallup poll) in with the International ANSWER, The Workers World Party, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, then Obama will win by a landslide in November. Woo Hoo!!
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 29, 2008 18:29:28 GMT -5
i think you missed bolverk's point completely, saunterelle.
you just keep on riding the bandwagon. enjoy the ride but when it crashes don't come knocking at my door asking for any of my provisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on May 29, 2008 19:17:30 GMT -5
If you're lumping the 63% of Americans who think it was a mistake to attack Iraq and want our troops out of there now (according to the latest Gallup poll)quote] And I would submit that is a flawed number based on disinformation by the anti-war peace at any cost crowd abetted by the 527 Media. See Vietnam for a close parallel. Anyone who believes that a unilateral pullout of 100% of our forces from Iraq will constitute a positive step needs to get a better grip on the reality of geo-politics. If you honestly believe that a President Obama is going to yank our guys out of there en masse and not suffer some very serious consequences down the road for doing it, then you are (sorry to say) just as naive as he is. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 29, 2008 19:33:38 GMT -5
Well, you might have a point there. Regarding the President going straight from his gut it is well documented. My favorite explanation why is here: youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s although i didn't find the commentary very demeaning, i also didn't find it very funny. now i know why i don't watch the colbert report. as far as your boy obama, he is tormenting iraqi civilians with his rhetoric. imagine you are an iraqi who is just now beginning to enjoy freedom from tyranny. now you're worried that if america elects this nutball he will somehow pull all troops out who are helping to maintain a degree of stability and you will be left to fend for yourself against thugs like al-sadr and the extreme radicals from syria and iran. wow, what a slap in the face. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 29, 2008 20:51:13 GMT -5
All of you war protesters, you are aligned with the following organizations who sponsors your point of view: In the US, the "anti-war" protests were organised by International ANSWER / The Workers World Party / Party for Socialism and Liberation. This group, with links to the Soviet Union's KGB, supported Stalin, supported the Soviet crushing of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, supported Mao's democide and the Cultural Revolution, supported China's killing of the Tiananmen Square protesters, supported Libya, supported the butcher Milosevic, supported (and still supports) Castro, and today supports (not just supports appeasement with, but actually supports!) the genocidal tyranny of North Korea. You are all keeping some fine company there, in an effort to prevent Iraqi people from participating in Democracy. Not all war protesters are affiliated with any organization/s at all, but quite simply, have an opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by heckheckle on May 30, 2008 0:53:37 GMT -5
Go Get'm Mink.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 30, 2008 13:29:32 GMT -5
Well, you might have a point there. Regarding the President going straight from his gut it is well documented. My favorite explanation why is here: youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s although i didn't find the commentary very demeaning, i also didn't find it very funny. now i know why i don't watch the colbert report. as far as your boy obama, he is tormenting iraqi civilians with his rhetoric. imagine you are an iraqi who is just now beginning to enjoy freedom from tyranny. now you're worried that if america elects this nutball he will somehow pull all troops out who are helping to maintain a degree of stability and you will be left to fend for yourself against thugs like al-sadr and the extreme radicals from syria and iran. wow, what a slap in the face. It would be Afghanistan all over again if Obama pulled out all the troops. Is that what we really want, another unstable country for terrorists to exploit? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 30, 2008 13:30:24 GMT -5
All of you war protesters, you are aligned with the following organizations who sponsors your point of view: In the US, the "anti-war" protests were organised by International ANSWER / The Workers World Party / Party for Socialism and Liberation. This group, with links to the Soviet Union's KGB, supported Stalin, supported the Soviet crushing of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, supported Mao's democide and the Cultural Revolution, supported China's killing of the Tiananmen Square protesters, supported Libya, supported the butcher Milosevic, supported (and still supports) Castro, and today supports (not just supports appeasement with, but actually supports!) the genocidal tyranny of North Korea. You are all keeping some fine company there, in an effort to prevent Iraqi people from participating in Democracy. Not all war protesters are affiliated with any organization/s at all, but quite simply, have an opinion. It does not matter if they just have an opinion, they are aligned with these organizations. It is called guilt by association. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 30, 2008 23:53:13 GMT -5
and that is your opinion, isn't it.
|
|
|
|
Post by iraqvet2003 on Jun 2, 2008 10:58:58 GMT -5
Ok, I think the Pro-War side has done a pretty good job of explaining their position, and the Anti-War side has done a good job of stating they want our troops out. With this in mind, and the fact that we can't turn back time to 2002, I pose the following question:
How do you (all posters on this thread) think Iraq should be handled from here on out?
Disclaimer: Any response saying "We never should've been there in the first place" or "Nuke'em all" is a waste of all our brain cells.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 2, 2008 14:38:22 GMT -5
"How do you (all posters on this thread) think Iraq should be handled from here on out?"
Great idea to focus on this question Iraqvet. Many mistakes have been made up to this point and I am especially bitter, having not supported the war from the beginning. I will try my best to focus on finding the best possible solution from this point forward.
In all honesty, I am pretty conflicted on the issue. I've been somewhat blinded by my bitterness for this war and would like to see us pull out ASAP. But I am also reasonable and realize that this would mean more chaos for the Iraqi people.
But two things are clear:
The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. Our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. And, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.
Military Strain: The military is being severely strained by repeated and lengthy deployments. The Army and Marine Corps are facing a crisis as 40 percent of their equipment is either in Iraq or being repaired. This crisis has led many of our generals to conclude that current demands make our forces unable to rapidly respond to the contingencies we may face in the future.
Thus, for our own safety, I support Barack Obama's approach to ending the Iraq war (from his website):
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
|
|
