Destino Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Comparing our poor economy and the Iraq war pullout are 2 different subjects. President Obama is taking credit for something that was laid out before he was in office that is pretty cut and dry. The difference is one benefits your political preference. You are right it is cut and dry, one said cut and run the other said pull out. Iraq agreed with one of them. But like I said let's pretend we forget that entire "cut and run" debate. Never happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Just another trillion spent by the U.S., outside the U.S.. Which probably created, or saved, more jobs than Obama's stimulus did, inside the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Obama could have come into office and changed everything on Iraq once there. I'm not saying he deserves ALL the credit. I'm just saying he said this would be his path. He's a NWO puppet. He's not coming into office and changing anything unless it's already planned out. His job is to sale the American people on policy, not be the mastermind of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Obama could have come into office and changed everything on Iraq once there. I'm not saying he deserves ALL the credit. I'm just saying he said this would be his path. I see what you’re saying and I agree with that President Obama should get some credit. My problem is that President Obama has been given all of the credit from what I have seen and heard on TV and read in the newspaper so far. The path was set in place before he was in office even though he may have agreed with it or not ultimately he didn't set the timeline it was President Bush decision it President Obama that followed through on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 The difference is one benefits your political preference. You are right it is cut and dry, one said cut and run the other said pull out. Iraq agreed with one of them.But like I said let's pretend we forget that entire "cut and run" debate. Never happened! How does it benefit my political preference it’s the truth regardless President Bush signed off on the 2010 pullout. Though President Obama wanted the troops out by 2010 at the time it was President Bush who agreed on the projected 2010 pullout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Using that logic, then he shouldn't get any credit for the economy being in a ****ty way either. So has nobody blamed the economy on Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 That's just semantics. Those semantics are being used to convey the end of something (US troops participating in combat) that has not ended. As luckydevil said try telling the families of the 50k that combat is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I don't know why people bring up "mission accomplished". There is more than one mission during a war. Our mission of overthrowing Sadam was accomplished. There was nothing wrong with that statement, and it was the end of our full on invasion. I was boots on the ground days after this and our ROE changed a couple of days after we got there, from shoot on sight to only if you come under fire or security reasons.We still have 3 or 4 combat brigades over there, it's just there mission is to train and support. However if the IA gets in trouble we will be there as big brother to hand out ass kickings as needed. In May 2003 Bush said while standing on that aircraft carrier "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." The entire valedictory tone of the speech was a terrible miscalculation. It set up unrealistic expectations. Victory wasn't nearly so clean. "The surge" in Iraq happened in 2007 - FOUR YEARS after the speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 So has nobody blamed the economy on Bush? I was refering to the "its your economy" now folks. point is that there are no "resets" when it comes to an admin turnover. Even if the two President's are opposites. There is a long and sometimes painful transition that can take years of new policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I was refering to the "its your economy" now folks.point is that there are no "resets" when it comes to an admin turnover. Even if the two President's are opposites. There is a long and sometimes painful transition that can take years of new policies. I agree with you. Few people apply that rule very evenly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I was refering to the "its your economy" now folks.point is that there are no "resets" when it comes to an admin turnover. Even if the two President's are opposites. There is a long and sometimes painful transition that can take years of new policies. Yup. The economy still barely reflects Obama's policies. He started in a hole that took 30 years to dig. IMO, the real danger in Iraq is Iran. They have all the incentive in the world to funnel underground support to the Shia Muslims in Iraq, both to drain US resources and to increase the chances of a civil war that could result in a breakaway Shia nation, which would be closely aligned with Iran and would also, I believe, would sit on top most of Iraq's oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 exactly. But as always the right will find a way to make it seem like Obama did something wrong. "He took too long" "He wasn't convincing enough with his speech" etc, etc. so the democrats never do that when the republicans are in power right? I ****ing hate politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted September 2, 2010 Author Share Posted September 2, 2010 so the democrats never do that when the republicans are in power right? I ****ing hate politics. Dude I hate politics too, but it just seems that every damn thing Obama does, he gets burnt for. Ever since he got into office, all everyone has ever done is hate, hate, hate. He could end all the worlds war, achieve world peace and end world hunger and still would get criticized. I know for a fact that no one on the left made an effigy of Bush hanging from a tree after he was elected President. Just sayin. Politics are ****ed up, and the government is about as corrupt as it gets. It's all about media propaganda. They feed bull**** to the ignorant minds of america and of course all of those fools buy into the bull****. I try to stay as far away from that **** as possible. I'm a free-minded individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Partisan politics is so useless and irritating. Our president just delivered good news and a positive message about a war that has been ongoing for almost a decade. Who cares how you want to divide up the credit/blame for this war, the cost, or the casualties. In no uncertain terms, all but 50,000 of our troops are out of harm's way in Iraq. Even those remaining 50,000 should all be back safely (or redistributed) in the next 16 or so months. How is this a bad thing? Why don't we stop tearing every speech apart and bickering about semantics or blaming Obama for taking credit. His job is to deliver these types of messages to the country...he did that. By the way, I was a Bush defender and am not an Obama fan, but this **** gets ridiculous and annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I know for a fact that no one on the left made an effigy of Bush hanging from a tree after he was elected President. Um... you don't remember the aftermath of Bush/Gore? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 In no uncertain terms, all but 50,000 of our troops are out of harm's way in Iraq. Even those remaining 50,000 should all be back safely (or redistributed) in the next 16 or so months. How is this a bad thing? Why don't we stop tearing every speech apart and bickering about semantics or blaming Obama for taking credit. His job is to deliver these types of messages to the country...he did that. How is this a bad thing? Because the terms for the 50,000 are still very uncertain. And which is why the "semantic" argument is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 How is this a bad thing? Because the terms for the 50,000 are still very uncertain. And which is why the "semantic" argument is relevant. Well, why would we assume that they won't be home by the end of 2011? Also, isn't removing all but 50K better than not doing so? I understand that ideally everyone would be home, but I don't think it's realistic to just pull everyone out that quickly...granted, I'm not an expert! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Well, why would we assume that they won't be home by the end of 2011? Also, isn't removing all but 50K better than not doing so? I understand that ideally everyone would be home, but I don't think it's realistic to just pull everyone out that quickly...granted, I'm not an expert! Because even though we aren't calling them "combat troops" anymore they are still involved in what historically has been called "combat operations". That is a dangerous business whether you are a combat troop or a transitional troop. Yes, pulling all but 50k out is better than leaving everyone there. Painting a picture that combat is over for the ones that are still there is misleading in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Well, why would we assume that they won't be home by the end of 2011? I'd bet $100 that there will still be American troops in Iraq in 2012. And 2013. And 2014, and 2015.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted September 2, 2010 Author Share Posted September 2, 2010 Um... you don't remember the aftermath of Bush/Gore? Really? no considering the fact that I was only in 5th or 6th grade at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Because even though we aren't calling them "combat troops" anymore they are still involved in what historically has been called "combat operations". That is a dangerous business whether you are a combat troop or a transitional troop. Yes, pulling all but 50k out is better than leaving everyone there. Painting a picture that combat is over for the ones that are still there is misleading in my opinion. No one is saying these 50K brave soldiers have no chance of being injured or killed. Just that we're not in a full-fledged war. I'd bet $100 that there will still be American troops in Iraq in 2012. And 2013. And 2014, and 2015.... Maybe, maybe not...but they hit this deadline (more or less) didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 No one is saying these 50K brave soldiers have no chance of being injured or killed. Just that we're not in a full-fledged war. Maybe, maybe not...but they hit this deadline (more or less) didn't they? We haven't been in a "full-fledged war" in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 no considering the fact that I was only in 5th or 6th grade at the time. Then how do you know as a fact that it is somehow different now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 no considering the fact that I was only in 5th or 6th grade at the time. Good point. People were bitter. I'd say it was actually worse in some respects, because a very large number of Democrats legitimately thought Bush had lost - and he did, according to the popular vote. Realistically, he may have lost according to the electoral vote as well, because it was so damn close that Gore may have come out on top if we somehow had the ability to know what every voter was truly thinking when they created their hanging chads, dimpled ballots, and confused selections of Pat Buchanan. This was an election that was decided by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court. Either Bush or Gore would have faced a tidal wave of animosity afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Good luck Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.