Hrc: Her Iraq and Iran policy unknown - Page 2

BillCosby · 05-03-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

pretty much the same as Obama.
But she wants to covenes the Joint Chiefs first before any timetable,
Pledges to start withdrawls

On Iran? haven't heard too much of it.
Containment of the Shite Cresent thru Iran's Proxies. Pretty standard stuff.

That would seem to differ from Obama in that he has stated he will set the time tables & he will give the orders & they will execute them.. Her wants seem to be more like bush than Obama.......

He is know letting the general make the decisions. Petrius is the commander & chief. @ least there..........

Rigged · 05-03-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by julia

It's simply not true.

That is another Hrc talking point: they are so much the same.

If Americans support the troops shouldn't they be better informed on this issue since soldiers are dying in Iraq

Let me remind you that AQ attacked us on 9/11 b/c we had bases in Saudi Arabia.

Obama says 2 divisions out a month.

Hrc wants to leave support staff, advisors and a rapid action force in Iraq.
That means bases, ppl.

Please explain why we should stay in Iraq? All the shoddy excuses this admin has used have been exhausted.

Whoa there. NO... that is not why we were attacked on 9/11. A factor to be sure, but not the rudimentary purpose of the attacks.

Look, we are calling the cards before all the bets are on the table here. Obama cannot be certain that he can do any of this yet, nether can HC be sure.

Now, the general policy that both candidates have *seemed* to be behind is leaving Iraq within a certain timetable.

They will probably do what is best depending on the conditions on the ground and taking into account the changes over the next couple of months. Obama can't say ANYTHING with certainty, anymore than HC can. In my business its called "hearsay," and we don't like that kind of evidence b/c its unreliable and generally non-admissible. I will keep the conclusions to a minimum until I know who the next president is and policy in regards to Iraq is announced officially.

* seemed* = meaning we don't know they WILL do, just what they SAY they will do, keeping in mind this is voting season during a unpopular war, what would Nixon do?

guest1234567 · 05-03-2008, 02:45 PM

Not for nothin' but constantly comparing Hillary's vote on the Iraq war to Obama's non-vote-at-all is disingenuous at best. He didn't vote against the war either, but he has voted to fund it.

There is only one person still actively running for president that actually did vote against the war.

2008 Green Party Presidential Nomination Delegate Count
The current vote totals are:
Ball (6); Hawkins (8); Johnson (4); McKinney (86); Mesplay (12); Nader (8); NOTA (0); Swift (3); Uncommitted (6)

If you really want change, you would all vote for someone who actually stood by her principles and get rid of the same old government of the corporation, for the corporation and by the corporation.

BillCosby · 05-03-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rigged

They will probably do what is best ((FOR US)) depending on the conditions on the ground and taking into account the changes over the next couple of months.

Success has never been defined so by what criteria could we leave???

Rigged · 05-03-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillCosby

Success has never been defined so by what criteria could we leave???

Your asking the wrong person. What I said, is rhetorical language for:

"we dunno what the fuck is going on until we look at all the facts in hand, and then based on that and recommendations from advisor's make a decision and hope it works out."

No one knows what the hell there doing because we don't have any experience in subjigation of large foreign populations. You would think Bush being such good Butt-buddies with Blair he would have told him the best way to make it work. Who better to ask than the English? lol.

Rigged · 05-03-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guest1234567

Not for nothin' but constantly comparing Hillary's vote on the Iraq war to Obama's non-vote-at-all is disingenuous at best. He didn't vote against the war either, but he has voted to fund it.

There is only one person still actively running for president that actually did vote against the war.

2008 Green Party Presidential Nomination Delegate Count
The current vote totals are:
Ball (6); Hawkins (8); Johnson (4); McKinney (86); Mesplay (12); Nader (8); NOTA (0); Swift (3); Uncommitted (6)

If you really want change, you would all vote for someone who actually stood by her principles and get rid of the same old government of the corporation, for the corporation and by the corporation.

Right ho

BillCosby · 05-03-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rigged

Your asking the wrong person. What I said, is rhetorical language for:

"we dunno what the fuck is going on until we look at all the facts in hand, and then based on that and recommendations from advisor's make a decision and hope it works out."

No one knows what the hell there doing because we don't have any experience in subjigation of large foreign populations. You would think Bush being such good Butt-buddies with Blair he would have told him the best way to make it work. Who better to ask than the English? lol.

I am asking your opinion..............

julia · 05-03-2008, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by julia

It's simply not true.

That is another Hrc talking point: they are so much the same.

If Americans support the troops shouldn't they be better informed on this issue since soldiers are dying in Iraq

Let me remind you that AQ attacked us on 9/11 b/c we had bases in Saudi Arabia.

Obama says 2 divisions out a month.

Hrc wants to leave support staff, advisors and a rapid action force in Iraq.
That means bases, ppl.

Please explain why we should stay in Iraq? All the shoddy excuses this admin has used have been exhausted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rigged

Whoa there. NO... that is not why we were attacked on 9/11. A factor to be sure, but not the rudimentary purpose of the attacks.

Look, we are calling the cards before all the bets are on the table here. Obama cannot be certain that he can do any of this yet, nether can HC be sure.

Now, the general policy that both candidates have *seemed* to be behind is leaving Iraq within a certain timetable.

They will probably do what is best depending on the conditions on the ground and taking into account the changes over the next couple of months. Obama can't say ANYTHING with certainty, anymore than HC can. In my business its called "hearsay," and we don't like that kind of evidence b/c its unreliable and generally non-admissible. I will keep the conclusions to a minimum until I know who the next president is and policy in regards to Iraq is announced officially.

* seemed* = meaning we don't know they WILL do, just what they SAY they will do, keeping in mind this is voting season during a unpopular war, what would Nixon do?

One of the reasons AQ gave for attacking us 9/11 was b/c the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. Well guess what? We longer have any bases there.

If you don't believe me, look it up.

Fine, whatever. It just really seems like politics lite when you don't know your candidate's position on Iraq (and Iran) and you seemly repeat her talking points "they're both the same, etc" rather than have a thought-out opinion.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode