american soldiers want to leave iraq!....

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
226
63
"the bunker"
'Surrendering' to who, if I might ask?

Who would we be surrendering to?

Seemingly a very, very simple question. Strangely, it's never been answered.

he`s already committed to a pull out itinerary BEFORE he even went to iraq and talked with general petraeus.....

sort of should be the other way around,wouldn`t you think?....go see it for yourself,talk to YOUR commanders in the field and THEN STRATEGIZE....

BUT,THE EXTREME LEFT WING OF THE PARTY..THE FUNDRAISERS,WON`T HAVE ANY OF IT....

but,the extreme left wing of the party(the fundraisers) won`t have any of it....

and thats extremely sad....

and ain`t it amazing to see oil dropiing like a turd from a tall cow`s ass....

unfortunately,we might not see the adjustment at the pump....

i do believe that you`re happy to hear that the violence in iraq is way ,way down.......unlike some others in the forum...
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
he`s already committed to a pull out itinerary BEFORE he even went to iraq and talked with general petraeus.....

sort of should be the other way around,wouldn`t you think?....go see it for yourself,talk to YOUR commanders in the field and THEN STRATEGIZE....

BUT,THE EXTREME LEFT WING OF THE PARTY..THE FUNDRAISERS,WON`T HAVE ANY OF IT....

..

Lets examine some of your idiotic comments. The idea that Bush listen to the generals and let the generals shape the policy is absolutely fiction. Those that disagreed with him before the war got pushed out like General Shinseki and John Abizaid during the surge. Then there was General Fallon who called Petreyus a kiss ass. Fallon again another guy who got pushed out. To think that BUsh let the generals in the field dictate what course to go is once again another thing you made up in that dreamy world of yours. You are a pigeon that gets plucked over and over again.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
he`s already committed to a pull out itinerary BEFORE he even went to iraq and talked with general petraeus.....

sort of should be the other way around,wouldn`t you think?....go see it for yourself,talk to YOUR commanders in the field and THEN STRATEGIZE....

BUT,THE EXTREME LEFT WING OF THE PARTY..THE FUNDRAISERS,WON`T HAVE ANY OF IT....

but,the extreme left wing of the party(the fundraisers) won`t have any of it....

and thats extremely sad....

and ain`t it amazing to see oil dropiing like a turd from a tall cow`s ass....

unfortunately,we might not see the adjustment at the pump....

i do believe that you`re happy to hear that the violence in iraq is way ,way down.......unlike some others in the forum...

Again, a simple unanswered question, no?

Who would we be 'surrendering' to?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
226
63
"the bunker"
Lets examine some of your idiotic comments. The idea that Bush listen to the generals and let the generals shape the policy is absolutely fiction. Those that disagreed with him before the war got pushed out like General Shinseki and John Abizaid during the surge. Then there was General Fallon who called Petreyus a kiss ass. Fallon again another guy who got pushed out. To think that BUsh let the generals in the field dictate what course to go is once again another thing you made up in that dreamy world of yours. You are a pigeon that gets plucked over and over again.

then i guess you`re giving BUSH credit for the surge and the success that resulted from it?.....

well how `bout that!....

welcome aboard:yup
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Kosar I never looked at it that way but you make a good point. Who do we surrender to? I guess the 250000 trained policeman we have put in place to take care of there country. So were not needed anyway. How ever we do need to go back with some of these troops and secure afghan. Small detail Bush been over looking. I also get a charge of folks that think you need to go to Iraq to have a understanding of what to do. Stupid thinking.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
then i guess you`re giving BUSH credit for the surge and the success that resulted from it?.....

well how `bout that!....

welcome aboard:yup

The main goal of this so called surge was mainly to help and get some political peace. Well the Sunnis till this day still don't participate and the Kurds walked out yesterday. Also is this surge over? From what I hear it is. Now we had 132 thousand troops before the surge. 160 thousand during the surge and now we are down to 150 thousand. All this surge was is a troop escalation and noting else. And of course the dirty secret is that we with our tax dollars, have bribe the Sunni militia to stop killing us. Will my tax dollars be going to these Sunni militia's who were killing our troops just a short year ago continue, and for how long? What happens when those bribes stop? The only thing this surge did was bring down violence which is good but look how they did it and if we don't keep on bribing the Sunni militia then what? Weasy if Obama gets in there and miraculously cleans house and everything is back to normal I I won't be high fiving or knuckle bumping. I will still be pissed off because we didn't belong there in the first place.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
226
63
"the bunker"
but we do agree to agree that it`s a great thing for americans and the troops and the war effort that the surge was so effective in reducing violemce to an unprecedented level........

am i right in saying that you`re happy about that?...

spongy?...
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
but we do agree to agree that it`s a great thing for americans and the troops and the war effort that the surge was so effective in reducing violemce to an unprecedented level........

am i right in saying that you`re happy about that?...

spongy?...

Of course im happy about it but how long will this bandage hold? We can't keep pissing away money over there.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
We just have to send old John back with a company of men. And a copter gun ship over head for security. He can tell us how safe it is. And now we can go home.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
226
63
"the bunker"
Again, a simple unanswered question, no?

Who would we be 'surrendering' to?


we "surrender" by precipitously pulling out before the iraqi army and police have a firm grip on security.....we leave them vulnerable at the very point in which things are swinging our way...

re-opening the door to the baathists/iranians/al qaeda....all those that want to see iraqi`s democratic autonomy undermined......


we don`t want to arbitrarily leave because nobama feels beholding to moveondot org and codepink...

like it or not,iran is at war with us....right now.... they have been funding those killing american men and women in iraq....manufacturing and smuggling ieds into iraq....

so,broadcasting a withdrawal date....prior to assessing the situation in person...and talking with those in the trenches,can only be judged a stunt to appease the hard left, pacifist wing of the party....


we sacrifice so much to get to this point and then arbitrarily throw it all down a rathole so you guys can crow about being right?...

i don`t believe you feel that way for a second....f-ck the politics...
 

jer-z jock

Blow $$ Fast
Forum Member
Jun 11, 2007
4,564
3
0
We just have to send old John back with a company of men. And a copter gun ship over head for security. He can tell us how safe it is. And now we can go home.

Fine, but whatever we do dont give him the controls to the fighter jet, or he will cost us millions or billions more, directly....ontop of if he lands in enemy territory after crashing the plane and is captured regardless of the military rule is about only giving rank and name, he may give up the whole defensive lineup for the Cowboys, Coach Wade Phillips wants to keep it on the hush until opening day, or was it the Redskins he told them about:mj07: :142smilie :mj07:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,432
132
63
Bowling Green Ky
'Surrendering' to who, if I might ask?

Who would we be surrendering to?

Seemingly a very, very simple question. Strangely, it's never been answered.

Let me see if I can give you a hint--

Does any of these quotes from A-Q leaders give you any indication of who they think they are trying to defeat and who we are trying to defeat-
would the word surrender/withdraw/retreat have anything to do with their objectives????????


"We remember the cold brutality of the enemy who inflicted this harm on our country -- an enemy whose leader, Osama bin Laden, declared the massacre of nearly 3,000 people that day -- I quote -- "an unparalleled and magnificent feat of valor, unmatched by any in humankind before them."
They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks -- in his words -- "a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous? [Caliphate]."This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. We know this because al Qaeda has told us. About two months ago, the terrorist Zawahiri -- he's al Qaeda's second in command -- declared that al Qaeda intends to impose its rule in "every land that was a home for Islam, from [Spain] to Iraq. He went on to say, "The whole world is an open field for us."
Secondly, along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Osama bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in Afghanistan in 2002. In it, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to "[launch]," in his words, "a media campaign? to create a wedge between the American people and their government." This media campaign, bin Laden says, will send the American people a number of messages, including "that their government [will] bring them more losses, in finances and casualties

Bin Laden and his allies are absolutely convinced they can succeed in forcing America to retreat and causing our economic collapse. They believe our nation is weak and decadent, and lacking in patience and resolve. And they're wrong. (Applause.) Osama bin Laden has written that the "defeat of... American forces in Beirut" in 1983 is proof America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He's declared that "in Somalia? the United States [pulled] out, trailing disappointment, defeat, and failure behind it." And last year, the terrorist Zawahiri declared that Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet."
These terrorists hope to drive America and our coalition out of Afghanistan, so they can restore the safe haven they lost when coalition forces drove them out five years ago. But they've made clear that the most important front in their struggle against America is Iraq -- the nation bin Laden has declared the "capital of the Caliphate." Hear the words of bin Laden: "I now address? the whole? Islamic nation: Listen and understand? The most? serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War? [that] is raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He says, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." For al Qaeda, Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America -- it is the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle will be decided.

Here is what al Qaeda says they will do if they succeed in driving us out of Iraq: The terrorist Zawahiri has said that al Qaeda will proceed with "several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of Caliphate? The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. And the fourth stage: ?the clash with Israel."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-4.html
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Let me see if I can give you a hint--

Does any of these quotes from A-Q leaders give you any indication of who they think they are trying to defeat and who we are trying to defeat-
would the word surrender/withdraw/retreat have anything to do with their objectives????????


I see. So we would be surrendering to Al-Queda if we leave Iraq? Is that what you're actually saying?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
That can't be right. Last count there are less then 1000 in Iraq. They all went back to Afgan. And Obama got THAT RIGHT. Lets go finish job.
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
then i guess you`re giving BUSH credit for the surge and the success that resulted from it?.....

well how `bout that!....

welcome aboard:yup

Putting most of the soldiers in one city and claiming the whole country safe, is stupid. Why not change Baghdad's name to Iraq. Did the same in Afghan.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top