I'm not sure that he has.

He has always been consistent on insisting that 1) the war never should have been authorized or fought, and 2) once we were there, we had to be as careful getting out as we were careful getting in.

He still believes this. He has said that he will have all troops home within 16 months of taking office. That is as quick as you can realistically get them out.

Not sure what waffling you are talking about here.

OUGwave Wrote:I'm not sure that he has.

He has always been consistent on insisting that 1) the war never should have been authorized or fought, and 2) once we were there, we had to be as careful getting out as we were careful getting in.

He still believes this. He has said that he will have all troops home within 16 months of taking office. That is as quick as you can realistically get them out.

Not sure what waffling you are talking about here.

He said earlier that he didn't know if he would be able to get the troops out before the end of his first term. I believe that is what he is talking about.

Ummm....Obama takes the lead in Iowa...Stock market up 62pts...are things looking up?

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Ummm....Obama takes the lead in Iowa...Stock market up 62pts...are things looking up?

Well, I don't have a dog in the Democrat fight, but better someone inexperienced than someone with a hidden agenda and a thirst for power.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Ummm....Obama takes the lead in Iowa...Stock market up 62pts...are things looking up?

Well, I don't have a dog in the Democrat fight, but better someone inexperienced than someone with a hidden agenda and a thirst for power.

Hidden agenda?..Man..If what she is hiding stuff more sinister than what she has proposed...I am now officially worried.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Ummm....Obama takes the lead in Iowa...Stock market up 62pts...are things looking up?

Well, I don't have a dog in the Democrat fight, but better someone inexperienced than someone with a hidden agenda and a thirst for power.

Hidden agenda?..Man..If what she is hiding stuff more sinister than what she has proposed...I am now officially worried.

Someone who promises everything to one group, which will be taken from another group, is not uncommon among the Democrats. However, she has mastered the art of pleasing every one of her constituents all the time. This is an impossibility and one that can only lead to the questioning of the intelligence of her supporters. You can't please everyone all the time. How does she do it? Better question is why. She is doing whatever it takes to get elected, which shows a lack of personal conviction. Her main goal is power. I do believe Obama wants to do what he "thinks" is best for his constituents. I believe Kuninich does as well. I disagree like hell with'em, but those are their convictions. I don't want to see Hillary anywhere near the Oval Office.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Ummm....Obama takes the lead in Iowa...Stock market up 62pts...are things looking up?

Well, I don't have a dog in the Democrat fight, but better someone inexperienced than someone with a hidden agenda and a thirst for power.

Hidden agenda?..Man..If what she is hiding stuff more sinister than what she has proposed...I am now officially worried.

Someone who promises everything to one group, which will be taken from another group, is not uncommon among the Democrats. However, she has mastered the art of pleasing every one of her constituents all the time. This is an impossibility and one that can only lead to the questioning of the intelligence of her supporters. You can't please everyone all the time. How does she do it? Better question is why. She is doing whatever it takes to get elected, which shows a lack of personal conviction. Her main goal is power. I do believe Obama wants to do what he "thinks" is best for his constituents. I believe Kuninich does as well. I disagree like hell with'em, but those are their convictions. I don't want to see Hillary anywhere near the Oval Office.

Im a registered unafilliated voter...I have voted Rep. for pres. everytime in the general election....I can vote in either primary in my state..(one reason Im unafilliated)...When May rolls around Im gonna have to choose between who I support and who I think my candidate can beat..I love that choice...Lots of time before that decision.

RebelKev Wrote:a hidden agenda and a thirst for power.

That would be EVERYONE running.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:a hidden agenda and a thirst for power.

That would be EVERYONE running.

Wrong.

RobertN Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:I'm not sure that he has.

He has always been consistent on insisting that 1) the war never should have been authorized or fought, and 2) once we were there, we had to be as careful getting out as we were careful getting in.

He still believes this. He has said that he will have all troops home within 16 months of taking office. That is as quick as you can realistically get them out.

Not sure what waffling you are talking about here.

He said earlier that he didn't know if he would be able to get the troops out before the end of his first term. I believe that is what he is talking about.

No, he has said (as have all the candidates) that all he can not promise that every soldier will be out of Iraq by the end of his first term.

He hasn't reversed that at all. What he meant by that is that there will still be some troops, probably <1000, still in Iraq serving in protective capacities for our diplomatic mission, serving as military liaisons, etc. But the days of grunts walking the streets will be over within 16 months.

OUGwave Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:I'm not sure that he has.

He has always been consistent on insisting that 1) the war never should have been authorized or fought, and 2) once we were there, we had to be as careful getting out as we were careful getting in.

He still believes this. He has said that he will have all troops home within 16 months of taking office. That is as quick as you can realistically get them out.

Not sure what waffling you are talking about here.

He said earlier that he didn't know if he would be able to get the troops out before the end of his first term. I believe that is what he is talking about.

No, he has said (as have all the candidates) that all he can not promise that every soldier will be out of Iraq by the end of his first term.

He hasn't reversed that at all. What he meant by that is that there will still be some troops, probably <1000, still in Iraq serving in protective capacities for our diplomatic mission, serving as military liaisons, etc. But the days of grunts walking the streets will be over within 16 months.

Dr. Paul is the only candidate that says he will bring them home immediately...but I think that even he set a specific timetable.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Dr. Paul is the only candidate that says he will bring them home immediately...but I think that even he set a specific timetable.

.....and he's a friggin' idiot for saying as much. Any military tactician or leader will tell you this would be an utter failure of military policy.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Dr. Paul is the only candidate that says he will bring them home immediately...but I think that even he set a specific timetable.

.....and he's a friggin' idiot for saying as much. Any military tactician or leader will tell you this would be an utter failure of military policy.

Im not going to get in pissing contest with you...but...So far, the only idiots I see are the military tacticians and leaders that planned this fiasco and put our warriors in peril with the policy of nation building ...I blame Donald Rumsfeld the most for underestimating the enemy. I hope nightmares of dead servicemen haunt him until he dies.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im not going to get in pissing contest with you...but...So far, the only idiots I see are the military tacticians and leaders that planned this fiasco and put our warriors in peril with the policy of nation building ...I blame Donald Rumsfeld the most for underestimating the enemy. I hope nightmares of dead servicemen haunt him until he dies.

Yeah, let's pull out and dishonor all those men and women that died in a war that was authorized by both Republicans AND Democrats. Yeah, that'll win us over. You can ask anyone on this f'n site, I wanted to take out Iraq when Clinton was in office. Islamic radicals aren't going away unless we ******* make'em go away. Are you prepared to fight'em in North Carolina? 'Cause the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams 1, 2, 3, and 4 are. As well as every other BCT. Hell, with they way we're capitulating and pandering to these *******, you might get your chance. I can see Shar'ia being accepted within a decade for "religious tolerance" with the way we're heading. Most of the military knows why they fight. It's why they enlisted. Yeah, I've met some guys, even other combat vets, that are Dems. Even had one tell me he was voting for someone because they would pull'em out of both places. My assumption? ****** shouldn't have joined in the first place. He wanted the money and none of the responsibility of being a GDamn soldier.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im not going to get in pissing contest with you...but...So far, the only idiots I see are the military tacticians and leaders that planned this fiasco and put our warriors in peril with the policy of nation building ...I blame Donald Rumsfeld the most for underestimating the enemy. I hope nightmares of dead servicemen haunt him until he dies.

Yeah, let's pull out and dishonor all those men and women that died in a war that was authorized by both Republicans AND Democrats. Yeah, that'll win us over. You can ask anyone on this f'n site, I wanted to take out Iraq when Clinton was in office. Islamic radicals aren't going away unless we ******* make'em go away. Are you prepared to fight'em in North Carolina? 'Cause the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams 1, 2, 3, and 4 are. As well as every other BCT. Hell, with they way we're capitulating and pandering to these *******, you might get your chance. I can see Shar'ia being accepted within a decade for "religious tolerance" with the way we're heading. Most of the military knows why they fight. It's why they enlisted. Yeah, I've met some guys, even other combat vets, that are Dems. Even had one tell me he was voting for someone because they would pull'em out of both places. My assumption? ****** shouldn't have joined in the first place. He wanted the money and none of the responsibility of being a GDamn soldier.

The dishonor of our soldiers has already occured by sending warriors into battle with a totally botched battle plan that caused thousands of unnessary deaths and casulties. I praise and honor every soldier in the theater for his or her valor under fire...I spit on the leaders that sent them into this undeclared war(which btw..I was in favor of at the time). Little did we know just how incompetent these guys were.

I hope you are correct...That we can actually defeat these radical Islamists. It is my hope we can leave Iraq a better place for its people...but Im afraid that after we have sacrificed the loss of life and untold billions of taxpayers dollars to accomplish this mission of nation building...That very shortly after we leave(and I dont think personally that we EVER will) that Iraq will explode into civil war between the two factions...and the fight for control of Iraq will continue just as it has for centuries.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:a hidden agenda and a thirst for power.

That would be EVERYONE running.

Wrong.

Wow. What an amazing rebuttal.

..So far, the only idiots I see are the military tacticians and leaders that planned this fiasco and put our warriors in peril with the policy of nation building ...I blame Donald Rumsfeld the most for underestimating the enemy. I hope nightmares of dead servicemen haunt him until he dies.

The same goes double for King George and Darth Cheney.

Yeah, let's pull out and dishonor all those men and women that died in a war that was authorized by both Republicans AND Democrats.

Unless your extremely ignorant, you should know that all our brave men and women are fighting for is

1) oil and who controls it

2) To make Haliburton, the western owned oil companies, war profiteers and mercenaries like Blackwater rich.

All this blather about spreading democracy and human rights is crap and a smoke screen.

Never should have redeployed troops from Afghanistan until that job was done with Bin Laden captured or killed and the Taliban/Al Qaeda destroyed with a functioning democracy in place.

Than Iraq could have been dealt with effectively and likely w/o invasion, but that was never part of King George and the Project for the New American Century's plan.

onlinepole Wrote:Yeah, let's pull out and dishonor all those men and women that died in a war that was authorized by both Republicans AND Democrats.

Unless your extremely ignorant, you should know that all our brave men and women are fighting for is

1) oil and who controls it

2) To make Haliburton, the western owned oil companies, war profiteers and mercenaries like Blackwater rich.

All this blather about spreading democracy and human rights is crap and a smoke screen.

Never should have redeployed troops from Afghanistan until that job was done with Bin Laden captured or killed and the Taliban/Al Qaeda destroyed with a functioning democracy in place.

Than Iraq could have been dealt with effectively and likely w/o invasion, but that was never part of King George and the Project for the New American Century's plan.

Hey...how dare you come on this board and make any sence!

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Hey...how dare you come on this board and make any sence!

How did he make any sense? All I heard was "Halliburton, War Profits, Dick Cheney is the Devil, blah, blah, blah". Yeah, he received his marching orders and carried'em out like a good little lib.

I'm not a big fan of Bush, but Iraq SHOULD have had their asses dealt with in the 90's, and anyone on this board, I.e., Mach, etc., will tell you that's been my stance from the get go.