20 Jul 07
Originally posted by wittywonkawrong, they do what they believe is right we can appoint the person we may think is with your personal decision.
We are a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. Ever heard of the electorial congress? We vote, and congress (theoretically) votes according to how the people in their district voted.
Also, you are right, we elect leaders to make decisions for us, but they are supposed to make decisions based on what is in our best interests.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaor because your cowards who feel guilty about not being over there so you want to abandon the Iraqi's
Where did I say that I didn't support the troops? Get off your own butt and think before you (speak) type next time.
There's a major difference in supporting our soldiers and supporting the war. Why do you think thousands of Americans, including me, want the troops to withdraw? Because we are just sending more and more troops in there with no plan or reason.
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by ivanhoehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_el_pr/obama_ap_interview_15
Many Americans want the US to withdraw their troops from Iraq.
I am surprised that those in favour of this policy and opposing the Bush administration for not having a good plan to be implemented after the Iraq invasion, do not present a plan for, or at least an analyses of, what will happen to Iraq and the region after the troops have left.
What will ...[text shortened]... g and presenting their ideas on this subject who are in favour of withdrawing the troops ..... )
"Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jul 20, 5:50 PM ET
SUNAPEE, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jul 20, 5:50 PM ET
SUNAPEE, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by wittywonkanot unnecessary death... they know what they're doing and they are making progress. the only trouble they're having is people wanting them to pull out. there was a marine who fought in Iraq and when he came home he retired and moved to Iraq. they don't all hate it there.
So, I am a coward because I don't want to see more unnecessary U.S. troops die in an impossible fight? I thought you cared about the troops...
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by SmiderHe found a nice muslim woman obviously.
not unnecessary death... they know what they're doing and they are making progress. the only trouble they're having is people wanting them to pull out. there was a marine who fought in Iraq and when he came home he retired and moved to Iraq. they don't all hate it there.
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe only problem with Obama's logic here (and zeeblbot's) is that the US didnt create the potential for ethnic genocide in the Congo (the DRC now).
[b]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_el_pr/obama_ap_interview_15
SUNAPEE, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
...you would have 300,000 t ...[text shortened]... s have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said...
The US did however create the potential for ethnic genocide in Iraq, by removing Saddam, and is hence responsible for preventing it.
as an aside, since 1500 AU (african union) peace keeping troops have
taken station in the DRC, the situation has stabilised (no genocides, uprisings or major riots). i think Obama needs to rethink how many soldiers it requires to screw in a light bulb, or maybe which soldiers to use.
21 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by SmiderWhat progress? I'd love to see what so-called progress they have made which you deem worthy of additional soldiers' deaths.
not unnecessary death... they know what they're doing and they are making progress. the only trouble they're having is people wanting them to pull out. there was a marine who fought in Iraq and when he came home he retired and moved to Iraq. they don't all hate it there.
Edit - Also, just in case you didn't realize this, one marine's actions doesn't speak for each and every soldier.
21 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSome relevant article exerpts:
Actually, the generals are asking for more time now. If they think we should stay there I'm willing to support our presence there for a bit.
Two retired senior Army generals, who served in Iraq and previously voted Republican, are now openly endorsing a Democratic takeover of Congress. The generals, and an active-duty senior military official, told Salon in separate interviews that they believe a Democratic victory will help reverse course from what they consider to be a disastrous Bush administration policy in Iraq. The two retired generals, Maj. Gen. John Batiste and retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, first openly criticized the handling of the war last spring, when they called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"The best thing that can happen right now is for one or both of our houses to go Democratic so we can have some oversight," Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, told Salon. Batiste describes himself as a "lifelong Republican." But now, he said, "It is time for a change."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/10/25/generals/index_np.html
Officials tell ABC News a wild card naval aviator, Adm. William Fallon, has been asked to take over Iraq’s Central Command and replace Gen. John Abizaid when he retires in March. The official announcement is expected on Monday.
Fallon currently heads Pacific Command, overseeing U.S. military forces in the Pacific and Indian Ocean areas. The new job would have him taking charge of operations in Afghanistan. While it is highly unusual that a Navy admiral would be called upon to run essentially two ground operations, Bush wants fresh eyes on the situation.
The president is also expected to replace the overall commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey. Officials say Casey’s replacement is expected to be Lt. Gen. David Petraeus who has completed two tours in Iraq—one as a division commander during the invasion and another heading the training of Iraq security forces. He completed that job in 2005.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070104_bush_pushing_out_us_generals_in_iraq/
The problems in Sadiyah show how complex this war is. They also show why many U.S. military officers in Iraq believe they must sustain the troop buildup — despite strong opposition by many in Congress — well beyond September. That is when an important review of the buildup's results is due....
...Accompanying Campbell to Sadiyah was the top Iraqi Army commander for Baghdad, Gen. Abud Qanbar. He said in an AP interview that the area's problems show why it is too early for U.S. troops to leave.
"We need a lot of work to build our forces and make them stronger than they are today," he said through an interpreter. "We need them (U.S. troops) to be around us" for many months to come.
Reminded of the pressure in Congress to pull out troops soon, Abud counseled patience.
"It needs a lot of study before that decision can be made," he said. "Maybe at the beginning of the year or the middle of next year" it will be time to begin pulling out, he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070721/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sectarian_challenge