Obama 07:The best way to protect our security ..is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops

[Techn0Girl]

Don't like MY opinion on this, you war mongering so called Liberals ?
Well, don't blame me . Talk to President Obama when he said it in Sept. 2007 during his campaign

New York Times... Obama puts forth a plan to remove ALL troops by end of 2008 .

“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops,” Mr. Obama said. “Not in six months or one year — now.”


What a difference a year or so makes...

[Techn0Girl]

1. Ahhh... the Unreccing Crew is out in force :) ... But the Truth will still get out there

[karynnj]

51. Truth - your op is a complete mess

[JuniperLea]

2. Do you know what he's doing in Iraq now? eom

[Oregone]

5. Following Bush's SOFA agreement (until "conditions on the ground change")

[MNDemNY]

40. How about it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7139404

[Oregone]

58. eh, Ive always been more of an invidual

And just like the guy in my avatar, if you pay me enough Id endorse anything, from Cadillac, Victoria's Secret, and especially war (hint hint for MIC corporate sponsors). But in the meantime, Ill gripe about it cynically in a shrilly sweet voice

[MNDemNY]

59. Fair enough!

:thumbsup:

[Cha]

6. Apparently not..this is all about calling people "warmongers" when

the OP has no fucking clue.

[JuniperLea]

8. I don't know about you...

But I'm tired of loud and obnoxious stupidity.

And tell "ignored" I'm not interested....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. I would, but...

it shows up "ignored" here too. :rofl:

[JuniperLea]

11. Hilarious!

That's one great thing about threads like this... it lines 'em up so I can tuck them safely away:)

I don't use ignore lightly... only on those who speak in bumper-sticker with no substance at all.

[MNDemNY]

21. Why don't you pull your a....head out of the sand a tell him yourself?

:P :crazy: :shrug: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :patriot:

[Cha]

25. You're not missing a damn thing..it's the fucking

heckler of DU.

[MNDemNY]

19. Cha, you never fail to disappoint! again, you are the funniest poster on the internets.

Where do you come up with these gems, day after day?:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :patriot:

[dmallind]

3. The mark of a wise man is if he can change his mind given evidence

Here are the monthly totals for US deaths in Iraq. The surge began in Jan 07 and was at maximum strength in May 2007...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

[Oregone]

7. So Bush's brilliant strategic surge worked and should be duplicated elsewhere?

That Bush guy...masterful war technician he was

[dmallind]

66. Whether it was Bush's or not - it obviously decreased US fatalities

As can be seen from the real data. Do you argue that? How? I am no more driven to say everything Bush did was an utter failure (even though on the whole he was) tahn to say everything Obama has done is wonderful (though on the whole he's certainly helping). That's what it's like being rational - you make conclusions based on evidence.

[Cha]

4. Maybe if you weren't using Iraq to make a point about

Afghanistan you wouldn't get your "warmongering" thread unrecd.

[Techn0Girl]

10. Because this war is so much different than that other war?

[JuniperLea]

12. Careful now...

Your ignorance is really showing. You don't know the first thing about either war apparently.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Take some time and read someone besides Kucinich and Moore.

You will quickly learn that this is much, much different. It always has been.

[Techn0Girl]

34. Who do you suggest? Buchannen and O'Reilley?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

54. Ahh, so you really are that ignorant.

On to the list you go.

[blm]

17. Yes...it is. Had Bush commited to crushing Bin Laden/Al Qaeda instead of lipservice to lie us into

Iraq, Afghanistan would be in a healthier and more secure condition right now structurally, financially and politically. So would America.

[Techn0Girl]

28. Hello McFly... Bin Laden is in Pakistan now...

and Al-queda has only a minor presence in Afghanistan, an estimated 100 operatives.

So "al-Queda in Afghanistan" is going to be the new "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

[wileedog]

33. Where do you think they are all going if we up and bolt from Afghanistan?

And why do you think Obama brought up multiple times that the Pakistan army has waged its largest offensives against AQ ever this summer?

The point is to keep them trapped in Pakistan where we can get to them. Or more accurately, where Pakistan and the CIA can.

[Techn0Girl]

36. It's Just like the Domino Theory - But with Afghanis ! (Fail)

[wileedog]

42. No nothing at all like it really

I posted this in another thread, but explain to me how this remotely resembles the Domino theory.

Obama wants to finish the fight with AQ.

AQ is in Pakistan.

We obviously are not invading Pakistan, which is why he mentioned several times in his speech the importance of partnering with them, and how Pakistan military have "launched their largest offensives against AQ ever this summer." Unmentioned is the undoubtedly huge CIA and Intelligence network we will put on the ground in Pakistan.

The extra troops are to help create an environment to train Afghan security forces without pressure from the Taliban insurgents. But more importantly they are to keep AQ penned right where they are.

I'll bet you this right now - we snag Bin Laden, the troop drawdown will start not long after that. Obama's speech showed he has no intention of 'fixing' Afghanistan.

[wileedog]

37. You're right it makes much more sense to just assume

That Obama really actually idolizes Dick Chaney and has invested his book savings into Halliburton.

Screaming FAIL at the top of your lungs is much better than looking at facts too.

[blm]

35. True - and every time Pakistan military closed in on them, they'd retreat to AFGHANISTAN.

Bush didn't give a fuck because he had no intention of defeating Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

You really don't know much about what's going on there historically or now, do you? You hear a few things taken out of context...and post...and fail.

[wileedog]

38. And then put "Fail" on your argument

so you win at the internets

[Techn0Girl]

41. You really don't have an argument do you...

First you went with he domino theory (vietnam)...then you went with The Bush Doctrine (Iraq).

Have you learned nothing at all?

[wileedog]

46. Do you even know what the Domino Theory is?

What does pinning AQ in Pakistan have to do with governments in neighboring countries falling to communism?

Again, for you

Obama wants to finish the fight with AQ.

AQ is in Pakistan.

We obviously are not invading Pakistan, which is why he mentioned several times in his speech the importance of partnering with them, and how Pakistan military have "launched their largest offensives against AQ ever this summer." Unmentioned is the undoubtedly huge CIA and Intelligence network we will put on the ground in Pakistan.

The extra troops are to help create an environment to train Afghan security forces without pressure from the Taliban insurgents. But more importantly they are to keep AQ penned right where they are.

I'll bet you this right now - we snag Bin Laden, the troop drawdown will start not long after that. Obama's speech showed he has no intention of 'fixing' Afghanistan.

[Techn0Girl]

61. I don't know if you are intentionally being dense or not...

Either way you can not be reasoned with or argued with any more than a right-wing teabagger can be argued with.

You're on ignore from now on. You are just not worth spending time with.

[wileedog]

65. LOL

You haven't presented a single argument other than "FAIL!" and some irrelevancy about the domino theory.

At what point did you remotely try to reason or argue with me?

[blm]

52. and you're avoiding the little problem that Pakistan CAN'T do it alone because every time

they make significant advances on Al Qaeda IN Pakistan, AL Qaeda retreats to Afghanistan, as they have been doing for years now.

Ever occur to you that an HONEST Afghanistan mission, led by someone who doesn't WANT the war to grow bigger, and a strengthened Pakistan will to defeat them might result in Al Qaeda being surrounded to the point they can't move forward in Pakistan or Afghanistan?

Or do you want the Bush neglect policy to stay and Pakistan to lose interest in containing Al Qaeda altogether?

[Techn0Girl]

63. Don't you read?

Al queda hasn't had a real presence in Afghanistan in years.
Your chickenhawk reason of "Oh they MIGHT be there someday" is the very same rationale that intelligent people fought against with regard to WMDs that MIGHT be in Iraq.

People like you are why children die in war.

[blm]

68. You are clueless - AQ has ALREADY been going back and forth between the two nations for YEARS

because Bush LET them.

Your attacks are childish and absurd. No doubt you never knew one thing about global terror till 9-11. Some of us have followed the problem for two decades and the inhumanity of the Taliban since the mid90s.

Ever heard of CONTEXT?

[Techn0Girl]

71. Some of us have ...

Nice Fox Newspeak there....
The fact is that everyone agrees that al-queda is no longer in Afghanistan. They're in Pakistan, Somilia and Ethiopia

But you argue for war anyway.
Just like poor Teabaggers on Medicare arguing for no public health option, you argue your own best interests. Brilliant.

[blm]

73. You don't have a clue what I'm saying. Your replies prove it.

Bush LET Al Qaeda travel freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Show me where FOX and the RW dare utter that truth.

I am not arguing for war - I'm arguing that Obama's intentions to go after Al Qaeda focusing on the BORDER of Pakistan and Afghanistan are nowhere near to Bush's treasonous use of Afghanistan mission. And, further, that the history of the region and its support of global terror networks reveals BushInc, Saudi and Dubai royals as the networks' main financiers.

You think FOX and teabaggers would dare say that truth? Your posts are completely disconnected from reality.

[HamdenRice]

67. BINGO -- That's the thing that I didn't want to say because it's a bit tin foily, but so true

"Ever occur to you that an HONEST Afghanistan mission, led by someone who doesn't WANT the war to grow bigger, "

The point is that Bush never really was about "winning" -- his tactics were always about perpetual war -- until the establishment stepped in, took his toys away, and implemented the surge.

That's why it made sense to oppose both wars. There is no evidence whatsoever that this administration is in favor of perpetual war.

[mkultra]

69. they exist in both.

and flow back and forth between the two. Unlike your conjecture, this is a fact. It is also the basis for Obama's statement on strategy to provide real assistance to Pakistan will they push north at the same time that we push north as well. Its the only way to flush them out.


The only ideological difference of any plausibility that can exist on this war is wether we should go after AQ or not. If you think we should leave them alone, then i understand your position. Otherwise, your not making any sense.

[high density]

18. I guess you must be...

...one of those people who heard Obama start to give a history lesson last night and then tuned out immediately when he said "9/11." Otherwise you'd understand.

[NYC Liberal]

23. Yes it is.

But you knew that.

[Cha]

27. Gawd the stupidity. And, you're not the only one.

[MNDemNY]

24. ..

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: have you alereted yet??:o :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :patriot:

[phleshdef]

13. Comparing any of this to Iraq makes you look like a complete dumbass

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. +100

[Kahuna]

22. +1000k

[Cha]

43. Yeah, but instead of recognizing it the op is doubling down

in denial.

[high density]

16. (Bill Lumbergh)Umm Yeah,(/Bill Lumbergh) the big problem here is that Afghanistan != Iraq

I can understand Bush being confused between Iran and Iraq, but DUers willfully confusing Afghanistan and Iraq? Tell me it ain't so.

[Techn0Girl]

20. Because THIS war is SO much different...

In this war we are going after Al-Queda
Except al-queda has only about 100 operatives in Iraq.

In this war we are going after the people who assisted 9-11
Except there were NO Afghan planers or terrorists involved in it. 15 of the 19 people on the plane were Saudis


In this war we are going after Bin Laden.
Except he's in Pakistan now.

In this war we aren't following the Bush doctrine of going to war BEFORE there is an actual problem.
Except we are.

Yep this war is so much different.

[high density]

26. Before the problem?

See, that is your issue right there. Obama realizes there is a problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both current and past. The 9/11 plan was arranged by Al Qaeda under the safety of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The specific grunt workers carrying it out could have been anybody, that's not really important because I don't recall Saudi Arabia sending them on this mission.

I recommend that you go back and read the transcript of Obama's speech. The history lesson starts it off and will make it more clear to you about how this is not Iraq.

[Techn0Girl]

31. Hello ... Bin Laden is in Pakistan now ...

and Al-Queda has only a minor presence in Afghanistan now.

I got a newsflash for 'ya on those Iraqi WMDs they were talking about some time ago too...

[blm]

45. Those in Pakistan have been retreating back to Afghanistan at will for years.

You hear something...you take it out of context...you post...and fail.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. no one went into Iraq to fight AlQueda, or to catch bin Laden- the f--d up

rationale that was used was that Saddam had WMD's-

or did you miss that???

[ShortnFiery]

29. Now that he's President, Obama has dusted off his Orwell and claims "Occupations make us safer."

"In fact, escalating one of the TWO occupations will make American Citizens DoublePlusSafe." :crazy:

[high density]

30. You guys feeling against Obama here need to work on your Orwell references

The ones in the last two days about the war... They really don't make any fucking sense at all.

[Techn0Girl]

32. Everything makes sense in NewSpeak though...

So just keep on using it.

[MNDemNY]

44. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7139404

[ShortnFiery]

64. Thank-you.

:hi: :thumbsup:

[Bluerthanblue]

39. Iraq and Afghanistan are two different countries- and two distinctly

different wars.

But then, I'm sure you know that-

Did you miss his speech in March of this year? You might want to read this- it spells things out pretty clearly.

http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/March/20090327121221xjsnommis0.1558496.html&distid=ucs

Did you oppose his strategy as loudly then? can you link to any posts of yours from then?

[Cha]

48. Ah, more facts coming to light on this stupid canard that

PO wanting to get out of Iraq is the same as Afghanistan.

[MNDemNY]

49. >

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Bluerthanblue]

53. his words in March are pretty clear- and should have prepared

everyone for what was said last night.

Was there such outrage after his speech in March? I don't recall it. But I could be wrong.

:hi:

[Cha]

55. No there was no outrage then..just now

with a bunch of poutragers who still can't deal in facts..only subterfuge.

:hi:Bluerthanblue

[karynnj]

50. Ummm, that was Iraq - and the plan was what he was asking BUSH to implement

It was actually a variation on Kerry/Lieberman, which had the same features and asked BUSH to set a deadline and be out in 12 months. That was in July 2006. Obama ran on that plan, speaking more generally of getting all the troops out in 16 months. When he took office, he extended that to about 18 months and now is on track to getting out of Iraq by summer 2010.

That is NOT what he said about Afghanistan. There he spoke of Bush needing to ADD resources. Now, I would have preferred a different, less aggressive plan, but your post is really mixing apples with oranges.

[Cha]

56. Thank you, Karyn, for bringing some reality to the OP.

[Undercurrent]

57. Funny stuff!

Of course, I laughed my ass off at McCain's not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia too.

Good times.

[Dr Robert]

60. someone explain to Techn0girl that Iraq and Afghanistan are 2 separate countries...

[Techn0Girl]

62. and is your rationale? New Country so war is OK?

Obama was talking about pulling in the troops to increase National Security.
Same rationale holds today.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

74. No. My argument is that Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different security situations

The fact that you're an idiot is just a coincidence

[KakistocracyHater]

75. I'd rather wait for them to come near our borders & THEN deal with them

terrorists, drug dealers, pimps; we have the laws & the power to deal with these already. Had Clinton succeeded in reinforcing cockpit doors in 1996 the Neocons never would have gotten their new Pearl Harbor they so fervently prayed for; THIS is what I kept thinking when the Right babbled nonsense about Dem's pre-nono nonsense. Bill's silence was deafening & irritating. Bomb sniffing dogs are superior to any profiling, facial recognition crap.

[Orsino]

77. You don't get it.

Death and misery in Afghanistan are different from death and misery in Iraq, so the former should be prolonged.

[Jennicut]

76. The quote is about Iraq, not Afghanistan.

He was always consistent on Afghanistan, even if I don't agree with him on it.