• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011


Here's something worth keeping in mind:


Also:


So when he said "all combat troops out in 16 months," what he actually meant was "most combat troops out in 19 months."

And here's something I found amusing:



Can anyone explain how Obama's timetable is in any way, shape or form different from Bush's? The only difference that I can see is that under Bush's plan, we would have to have every soldier out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Under this proposal, we'll still have 35-50k there on that date.
 
Can anyone explain how Obama's timetable is in any way, shape or form different from Bush's?
Click to expand...

It's obvious isn't it? The troops stationed there will no longer be classified as combat troops.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
It's obvious isn't it? The troops stationed there will no longer be classified as combat troops.
Click to expand...

That was probably my favorite part. "We're removing all combat troops...and then taking some of the remaining people and having them go out on patrols, search for terrorists, etc. But that's not combat!"
 

The difference is it's Obama's Presidency and everything is always tentative.

I'm betting Bush said a lot of that stuff just to make the people happy, and maybe ease the military's fatigue with it all. I'd say a lot of soldier's were relieved they wouldn't have to go over there when they heard the plans.
 

It can't be explained because there is no change or difference in the Bush plan. It is a PR stunt that only the most gullible can fall for. But alas, even his minions of anti-war nut bags see through this as being more of the same and very unhappy with this perpetual campaigner.
 
RightinNYC said:
Can anyone explain how Obama's timetable is in any way, shape or form different from Bush's?
Click to expand...

Under Obama's the soldiers that are still there have Hope? I mean, that's what's important!
 
Khayembii Communique said:
It's obvious isn't it? The troops stationed there will no longer be classified as combat troops.
Click to expand...
Symbolism over substance again. They are soldiers and look like soldiers no matter what the mission.
 
And the sheep keep cooing to anything good. And for now their bleats fend off the wolves. But maybe people are starting to realize the nation's shepherd doesn't care about his flock all too much? Or maybe has a different group in mind as his flock other than all the American people as a whole.
We should have realized that after all the laws and new key wrenching points in our laws where enabled a new leader would be willing to say anything just to intercept all the power that has been set up before him. And should have filtered our candidates more heavily.
 
Last edited:
Sooooo.. Are they taking away all their ammo and letting them patrol the streets non-combat style? :shock:
Or are they going to give them all tazers and let them go LAPD on Iraq? :shock:
Or did America get a lemon? :doh
 
No combat troops was a nice slight of hand. The real magic in todays speech, was more money for veterans, a 21st century G.I. Bill, and a pay raise for the troops!!!

Yep, he included the war funding in his budget, yet he just instructed the Pentagon to cut 10% from the military budget.

Obama just stands there smiling and bull****ting the American people, and the MSM can't jiz on themselves fast enough as they report the bozo's message.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Sooooo.. Are they taking away all their ammo and letting them patrol the streets non-combat style? :shock:
Or are they going to give them all tazers and let them go LAPD on Iraq? :shock:
Or did America get a lemon? :doh
Click to expand...






I vote for the latter! :2wave:
 
RightinNYC said:
So when he said "all combat troops out in 16 months," what he actually meant was "most combat troops out in 19 months."
Click to expand...
Obama qualified his war positions enough that I think a substantial number of people who voted for him would rather he make decisions based on what's realistic rather than what he campaigned on. That is, I don't think he represented himself as someone who be pigheaded about an artificial deadline. Given my impression of your political views, I would think you'd be happy about that.

Now, the whitewashing in this speech is another matter, but nothing unexpected from a politician of any stripe. I'd take it over Bush admin fear mongering any day.

RightinNYC said:
Can anyone explain how Obama's timetable is in any way, shape or form different from Bush's?
Click to expand...
What's different is that actually agreeing to a timetable isn't a first class waffle for Obama. I suppose you swallowed Bush's "aspirational goals" whitewashing?

While I want the US out ASAP, if there is already an agreement to leave, I'm satisfied in fulfilling those obligations as they stand.

My decision to vote for Obama (as opposed to 3rd party) was based on McCain's rhetoric, not Bush's.
 
Under Bush the troops success was recognized, applauded, and celebrated.

Under Obama the troops success is ignored, belittled, and **** on.

That is the primary difference..and it matters more then anything else.
 
cascadian said:
Now, the whitewashing in this speech is another matter, but nothing unexpected from a politician of any stripe. I'd take it over Bush admin fear mongering any day.
Click to expand...

This is fascinating irony considering the Obama Adminstration/Democrat fear mongering of the American public to pass trillions in Government funded programs without a single debate about how to pay for it don't you think?

I am afraid you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Bush Administration was “fear” mongering, but I would be happy to compare Obama’s “fear” mongering to your examples any day of the week. Unless of course you are going to argue that the Clinton Administration and many senior Democrats in the Congress were doing the identical "fear" mongering when they argued for passage of the Patriot Acts and Joint Resolution on Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Triad said:
Under Bush the troops success was recognized, applauded, and celebrated.

Under Obama the troops success is ignored, belittled, and **** on.

That is the primary difference..and it matters more then anything else.
Click to expand...

Of course for one to believe the above trite commentary, one would have to live on planet denial.

The troops were RARELY if ever applauded and celebrated but rather denigrated; let's recap what Liberals, the liberal media and Democrats were saying the last 8 years: The war was mismanaged, we had lost the war, the troops were torturing innocents the troops were "going into Iraqi houses in the dark of night killing innocent Iraqi's,” etc etc etc.

If this is applauding, I certainly am living in a parallel universe from you.
:roll:
 
You didn't read what I said. Or simply misunderstood it.

What you said there I agree with...
What you said is not in contradiction to what I said.
 
Last edited:
Well since you don't think that Bush was fear mongering, it would be interesting to hear you differentiate the Obama administration's tactics vs the Bush admin's railroading to pass TARP before the election.

If you don't believe that government intervention is necessary or prudent, then it will appear as fear mongering to you, but that's not the case with me. Also the financial emergency is real, unlike the supposed threat from Hussein.
 

I like to look at these decisions in the "what would the press have said if Bush did it" filter.

If Bush said what Obama had, promised as Obama had, the press and the Lefties would be tearing him to shreds.

The first line from them would be the good 'ol "Bush is a liar", and they would go on from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…