• 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!

US troops coming home? Obama to say on Wednesday

[/B]
And yet every elected democrat and world intel agency believed Iraq under Saddam was in fact a threat and the only reason you have the ability to lob accurate tosses from your armchair is because Bush actually acted instead of passing yet another 17 UN resolutions 'demanding' compliance. We know what we know ONLY because Bush acted. Fact...reality...deal with it.

The fact and reality is that you are incorrect. More Congressional Democrats voted against the war Iraq than voted for it

Here are the totals:Oct. 2002 Congressional Votes Authorizing the President to Use Military Force Against Iraq - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

......"deal with it"
 
The Taliban were never a threat to us, they are still there, and they will be there when we are gone. I agree with your position on the post-ops in Afghanistan. Iraq is another matter. We should never have waged war on one of the most defenseless countries on the planet after the Persian Gulf war and 10 years of sanctions. Anyone involved with the Persian Gulf war and the effects of a decade of Sanctions should have known Iraq was of no threat to us or its neighbors.

Then why the peace talks with the Taliban?
 
False, factually inaccurate. few believed Saddam was the threat Bush claimed him to be. Even fewer believed he had active programs.

Yet the democrats said he had WMD's and voted to let Bush go to war in Iraq
 
Yet the democrats said he had WMD's and voted to let Bush go to war in Iraq

More Democrats voted against the war in Iraq than voted for it. Can you make the same claim of the GOP??? :sun
 
More Democrats voted against the war in Iraq than voted for it. Can you make the same claim of the GOP??? :sun

You did not answer my question. Is that the first vote? Or is it the second vote the democrats demanded?
 
You did not answer my question. Is that the first vote? Or is it the second vote the democrats demanded?

"On Oct. 10 and 11, 2002, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, respectively, voted on HJRes 114, the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

If you have differing results, reference them as I did.
 
"On Oct. 10 and 11, 2002, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, respectively, voted on HJRes 114, the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

If you have differing results, reference them as I did.

What about the senate?
 
I think withdrawal of troops should be a decision made on the ground, if he consulted the generals and can pull back 10k troops safely I'd say why not.
 
I think withdrawal of troops should be a decision made on the ground, if he consulted the generals and can pull back 10k troops safely I'd say why not.

He did not follow what the generals said.

Blog: Obama's Afghan troop withdrawal not among options presented by his generals

Yesterday in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lt. General John Allen, slated to be the new top commander in Afghanistan, contradicted an (anonymous) administration spokesman, and stated under direct questioning that the troop withdrawal program announced by President Obama was not among the options presented to him by his generals.

In other words, President Obama came up with the plan on his own. His top commanders did not present it to him as one of the options they offered for him to choose among.
 
False, factually inaccurate. few believed Saddam was the threat Bush claimed him to be. Even fewer believed he had active programs.

You have seen the statements by elected democrats from Clinton to Hilary to Pelosi and yet you continue to just ride along with your head out the window and your tongue out. La la la...

Clinton sat on his thumb for 8 years. The UN just kept passing resolution after resolution...obviously he never complied with the 17...they kept passing them...the evidence on the worlds position re Saddam and WMDs is clear. Well...for anyone that isnt 100% invested in NOT seeing.
 
More Democrats voted against the war in Iraq than voted for it. Can you make the same claim of the GOP??? :sun

Why would anyone make the claim re the GOP when they supported the war? So did this guy...

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 and...

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

and

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 (Uberliberal supreme)

and on and on and on...
 
you haven't a clue
as is evident by your pointing to conventional warfare as a comparison when what we are fighting is an asymmetrical conflict

the enemy will always possess the will to wage war until we quit doing those things which motivated them to wage war against the world's most powerful conventional military power
only a fool would believe that our presence diminishes the will of the terrorists who hate us to no longer have the will to oppose us
the war you failed to note which closely resembles what we are engaged in in afghanistan is vietnam. how did that work out when we declared victory and ran the hell away
santayana was right ...


the reason you keep seeing this question "what would victory look like" is because no one is able to answer it
so, do that for us. tell us what victory will look like in afghanistan
and if you stand on 'when the opposition no longer has the will to fight', tell us how we will know when they have lost that will, and why they will not simply wait us out and then return with a willingness to resume the fight after we have left


you have made it easy for yourself - to evade the question
so, use your 'reverse engineering' and describe for us what victory looks like in afghanistan so we will know when we have 'won'

The wars that I listed weren't conventional wars. They were all conflicts, with one side using guerrilla tactics. Guerrilla tactics were invented on the Iberian peninsular. It's a Spanish term.

Perhaps I'm not the one that doesn't have a clue? :lamo
 
That could have been done with invading. And we could and can deal with that with nation building. So,are you sure that was the job? If so, we should come home now.

I agree with you 100%.
 
If we were fighting the government of Afghanistan, had they attacked us,you might have a point. However, that is not the case.

The government in Afghanistan--The Taliban--aided and protected the org that did protect us. That made the Taliban a target, too.
 
The Taliban were never a threat to us, they are still there, and they will be there when we are gone. I agree with your position on the post-ops in Afghanistan. Iraq is another matter. We should never have waged war on one of the most defenseless countries on the planet after the Persian Gulf war and 10 years of sanctions. Anyone involved with the Persian Gulf war and the effects of a decade of Sanctions should have known Iraq was of no threat to us or its neighbors.

Iraq was such a non-threat, that we spent billions of dollars and ten+ years, enforcing a no-fly zone in Iraq. It was all because they weren't a threat.
 
Iraq was such a non-threat, that we spent billions of dollars and ten+ years, enforcing a no-fly zone in Iraq. It was all because they weren't a threat.

That was to protect his own people; not us. Not his neighbors.
 
The government in Afghanistan--The Taliban--aided and protected the org that did protect us. That made the Taliban a target, too.

However, did not attack us. Best to get the one responsible and not spend so much on nation building. The Taliba had no interest is us.
 
You have seen the statements by elected democrats from Clinton to Hilary to Pelosi and yet you continue to just ride along with your head out the window and your tongue out. La la la...

Clinton sat on his thumb for 8 years. The UN just kept passing resolution after resolution...obviously he never complied with the 17...they kept passing them...the evidence on the worlds position re Saddam and WMDs is clear. Well...for anyone that isnt 100% invested in NOT seeing.

And I've also shown those statements are taken out of context, some even before they declared the threat over. Dishonest efforts really don't help you as much as think.

And in those Clinton years, Iraq did nothing. Squat. So, what would justify the expense and loss of life?
 
Back
Top Bottom