Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
84 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In 2016 I will vote for whomever promises to get OUT OF IRAQ. (Original Post) elehhhhna Jun 2014 OP
I presume you did the same thing in 2008 and 2012 as well tularetom Jun 2014 #1
We re-invaded Iraq? Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #3
Must be a secret invasion sharp_stick Jun 2014 #5
We're not out of Iraq are we? tularetom Jun 2014 #8
How many US troops have died from IED explosions in Iraq in the last 3 months? Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #10
None yet but putting Americans in a war zone certainly increases the chances of neverforget Jun 2014 #13
I didn't say anything about IED's either tularetom Jun 2014 #14
Actions of our military only count as actions if one of ours dies. morningfog Jun 2014 #15
+1. Sad isn't it, the lengths one goes to in defense of anything Obama, even when they know better. SammyWinstonJack Jun 2014 #75
3 Months?????? Wow, short term view I see! nt Logical Jun 2014 #33
When was the last one? Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #48
We have redeployed. And we are set to conduct air and/or drone strikes. morningfog Jun 2014 #12
and 2004 PowerToThePeople Jun 2014 #45
Oh, you mean something like "peace with honor," like Nixon promised in '68? . . . Journeyman Jun 2014 #2
what are you talking about? elehhhhna Jun 2014 #4
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought most people knew that tawdry period of American history. . . Journeyman Jun 2014 #7
That's a bit harsh. Maedhros Jun 2014 #9
If intentions were concrete outcomes... Chan790 Jun 2014 #21
Withdrawal from needless conflicts in the Mideast is not some Gordian Knot Maedhros Jun 2014 #22
We already withdrew. This is the start of a new morningfog Jun 2014 #30
Again? kentuck Jun 2014 #6
Shouldn't we wait to see BainsBane Jun 2014 #11
We should not "wait and see." We should be in the streets now in opposition of Obama entering morningfog Jun 2014 #16
That isn't what the OP is about BainsBane Jun 2014 #17
Right. We should work now to prevent it from being an issue in 2016. morningfog Jun 2014 #18
No, that is not what I said BainsBane Jun 2014 #19
I guess I don't understand what you meant by: morningfog Jun 2014 #20
I agree with that BainsBane Jun 2014 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author bigtree Jun 2014 #23
Hi, this is Rand Paul BootinUp Jun 2014 #24
Cause we all know damn well that won't be Hill's position. morningfog Jun 2014 #26
As someone else pointed out up thread BootinUp Jun 2014 #27
Here's a really easy coherent one: don't go in. morningfog Jun 2014 #28
You think you a candidate would be trusted with that pablum? BootinUp Jun 2014 #29
It's not our responsibility to accept. I'm surprised morningfog Jun 2014 #31
The Bush Doctrine has nothing to do with my question. BootinUp Jun 2014 #34
I guess it depends on how you define invade. morningfog Jun 2014 #36
Oh? BootinUp Jun 2014 #38
Are we the beck and call military of every civil war? morningfog Jun 2014 #39
I'll tell you what I think BootinUp Jun 2014 #47
Does that include Rand Paul ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #32
I think all potential Dem candidate would be wise morningfog Jun 2014 #35
Does opposing intervention mean that person is a Rand Paul supporter? neverforget Jun 2014 #37
Get in line, neverforget! With us or against us. morningfog Jun 2014 #40
I've seen some "with us or against us" type posts today and it really concerns me neverforget Jun 2014 #43
I've never seen so many "Democrats" willing to ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #54
So am I to assume that you, too ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #52
Fuck Rand Paul. morningfog Jun 2014 #53
Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #55
Why didn't I leave it at the first line? morningfog Jun 2014 #60
If you're going to recount the order of events ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #61
LOL, nice try. It is all there for anyone to read. morningfog Jun 2014 #63
Yes it is ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #64
The first mention of Rand Paul was another poster but you continued it. neverforget Jun 2014 #68
No ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #71
Do you understand the concept of context ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #50
you make it sound as if ONLY Rand Paul is against going neverforget Jun 2014 #57
No ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #58
just stop throwing Rand Paul around as the big bad boogey neverforget Jun 2014 #65
Only when others stop throwing him around as some kind of truth teller instead BootinUp Jun 2014 #66
Who are these DUers that you speak of who do that? neverforget Jun 2014 #67
What??? ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #70
Try reading it a fourth time. You are getting there. morningfog Jun 2014 #77
No thank you. eom. 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #78
OP here. wtf does rand paul have to do with anything? elehhhhna Jun 2014 #72
Well clear it up OP ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #73
Yeah, that's what I meant, obviously elehhhhna Jun 2014 #80
Well, I'll just take a you at your word ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #82
Um , no, but thanks for playing elehhhhna Jun 2014 #83
So not saying what you mean is not playing? ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #84
It's the "whomever".... Deuce Jun 2014 #74
Are you talking about the 2016 Iraqi elections? frazzled Jun 2014 #41
We have about 150 special operation troops there now, plus 275 defending the embassy. morningfog Jun 2014 #44
I don't think we'll be in Iraq Alex P Notkeaton Jun 2014 #42
Three weeks, three months, tops! That sounds familiar. morningfog Jun 2014 #46
I would still hope it is our goal to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan before the end of the year davidpdx Jun 2014 #49
You know, that is how we got Nixon! CBGLuthier Jun 2014 #51
I thought we were responsible for what happened there treestar Jun 2014 #56
And walk away from all that US oil? whatchamacallit Jun 2014 #59
What if he has a god-awful rug? KamaAina Jun 2014 #62
Well, by then, we won't be in Iraq anyhow. MineralMan Jun 2014 #69
Wow! A future seer! morningfog Jun 2014 #76
Probably a safe bet, but then I never thought we would invade in 2003. BootinUp Jun 2014 #79
There won't be an Iraq in 2016. roamer65 Jun 2014 #81

neverforget

(9,433 posts)
13. None yet but putting Americans in a war zone certainly increases the chances of
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:20 PM
Jun 2014

combat casualties doesn't it?

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
15. Actions of our military only count as actions if one of ours dies.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:53 PM
Jun 2014

I think that is the rule. We can kill thousands of innocent people and until one US solider is wounded or killed, it doesn't count.

At least as long as Obama is the Commander in Chief.

Journeyman

(14,991 posts)
2. Oh, you mean something like "peace with honor," like Nixon promised in '68? . . .
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:29 PM
Jun 2014

Or are you looking for just any promise that makes you feel better about yourself?. . .

Journeyman

(14,991 posts)
7. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought most people knew that tawdry period of American history. . .
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:19 PM
Jun 2014

a debased time when the public clamored for resolution without specifics, unethical politicians promised whatever others wanted to hear, and the machine wound-up to ground-up more than anyone had ever imagined in the preceding years.

History. You may consider reading some before you make even more foolhardy promises.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
9. That's a bit harsh.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:23 PM
Jun 2014

Taking a swipe at Vietnam War protesters and the OP, when both had very good intentions.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
21. If intentions were concrete outcomes...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:22 PM
Jun 2014

I'd have been a billionaire at 12.

It may be harsh but making the ideal the enemy of the viable got a lot of people killed in Vietnam and will get a lot killed in the Middle-East...that's a whole lot harsher.

If your voting agenda can be summarized in a soundbite like "a peace with honor" or "promises to get out of Iraq" without detail on what that means and how you intend that they effect that...you're part of the problem. I can run and promise to make real-wages double and end all US military actions abroad but if I haven't got a plan for how to make real wages double and withdraw from every current US military action abroad...I'm a fucking liar making promises I have no clear intention to keep and you're a fool to vote for me.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
22. Withdrawal from needless conflicts in the Mideast is not some Gordian Knot
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:48 PM
Jun 2014

requiring mythic genius to cut. Prior to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, a number of military and geopolitical experts predicted exactly what we are witnessing right now in Iraq and surrounding countries. It's not as if the expertise to craft an exit strategy isn't there, it's just not what Conservatives and Hawks want to hear.

Exaggerating the complications of withdrawal is a political tactic used by perhaps every General in every war. It allows for war to be the status quo, with an unending array of reasons why it must be.

War itself is an ongoing injury. It's a metaphorical hot poker thrust into the eye of a nation. The first thing to do is to withdraw the poker, so that treatment and healing may commence. The eye is gone, but the life is saved. I can't see how holding the poker in place is to be considered the best option.

We have the means to accomplish withdrawal effectively. We just don't want to, for obvious financial reasons.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
30. We already withdrew. This is the start of a new
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:56 PM
Jun 2014

needless war in Iraq. We are going back by choice, after having left.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
16. We should not "wait and see." We should be in the streets now in opposition of Obama entering
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:55 PM
Jun 2014

Iraq. It's a slow motion train wreck that everyone is watching, more interested in what dick fucking cheney said than that troops are now deployed in Iraq and the US is flying 30-35 mission a day over the country.

BainsBane

(52,999 posts)
17. That isn't what the OP is about
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:09 PM
Jun 2014

It is about voting in 2016 election based on a policy that may or may not be in existence at that time. She is not talking about doing anything now but waiting to vote.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
18. Right. We should work now to prevent it from being an issue in 2016.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:11 PM
Jun 2014

You are the one who said "wait and see." I said, let's not.

BainsBane

(52,999 posts)
19. No, that is not what I said
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:13 PM
Jun 2014

at all. Carry on arguing with yourself because you clearly have no interest in what I have said.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
20. I guess I don't understand what you meant by:
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:17 PM
Jun 2014

"Shouldn't we wait to see If we are actually in Iraq at that point?"

The best way to not be in Iraq in 2016 is to not go in at all. I'm not trying to argue.

BainsBane

(52,999 posts)
25. I agree with that
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:42 PM
Jun 2014

I responded to the OP's post: "I'm voting for whoever promises to get out of Iraq." I'm not going to pledge to vote on something I hope isn't the case at that point. I wasn't suggesting to wait and do nothing about Iraq.

Response to elehhhhna (Original post)

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
28. Here's a really easy coherent one: don't go in.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:52 PM
Jun 2014

There is no reason to go into Iraq.

Anyone who supports going into Iraq now is justifying Bush's legal war.

BootinUp

(46,852 posts)
29. You think you a candidate would be trusted with that pablum?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:55 PM
Jun 2014

People will want to know we are not going let the Middle descend into complete and utter chaos. Either accept the responsibility or step aside.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
31. It's not our responsibility to accept. I'm surprised
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:58 PM
Jun 2014

at the full throated embrace of te Bush Doctrine.

BootinUp

(46,852 posts)
34. The Bush Doctrine has nothing to do with my question.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:06 AM
Jun 2014

I did not suggest we invade countries preemptively.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
36. I guess it depends on how you define invade.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:08 AM
Jun 2014

300 troops plus air strikes in a country that hasn't attacked us? I would call that pre-emption, at a minimum that is Bush-lite doctrine.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
39. Are we the beck and call military of every civil war?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:24 AM
Jun 2014

There is not even a functional government that asked for our help. One side of a sectarian war reportedly asked for our help. There are many other nations with more legitimate interests and closer geographic proximity that can provide the military might. It is not our job. This is a military action of choice.

BootinUp

(46,852 posts)
47. I'll tell you what I think
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:45 AM
Jun 2014

I think the Dems better put up a strong candidate who knows something about National Security.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
35. I think all potential Dem candidate would be wise
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:06 AM
Jun 2014

to take note of that. I would never vote for Paul, but Americans are stuck of useless endless wars. I would hope that any Dem who has supported any of the Iraq misadventures would never win the primary. As a party we have to stand against this idiocy.

neverforget

(9,433 posts)
43. I've seen some "with us or against us" type posts today and it really concerns me
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:32 AM
Jun 2014

coming from Democrats.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
54. I've never seen so many "Democrats" willing to ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:24 AM
Jun 2014

"Vote for anyone that ..." Not even with abortion (for women and pro-choice males) or civil rights (with PoC or anti-racism folks), have Democrats, made that claim.

That concerns me coming from anyone ... except libertarians and/or right-wingers posing as progressives/liberals/Democrats.

Now maybe the OP was speaking in hyperbole ... maybe, you are too; but why not just say that, as opposed to defending such myopia?

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
52. So am I to assume that you, too ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:06 AM
Jun 2014

would be voting for Paul because he has promised to get us out of Iraq?

Will you, too, now put on your must convincing: "I'm really not a libertarian (rp supporter) posing as a Democrat" voice?

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
53. Fuck Rand Paul.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:11 AM
Jun 2014

I don't need to convince you of shit. I have never said a kind thing about Paul and his bigoted fucked up policies.

You are playing the bush game. With us or against us. When did Dems become so pro-military action that anti-war Dems are accused of being Libertarians. Fuck that.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
55. Okay ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:30 AM
Jun 2014

Why didn't you just say that first line and leave all the rest of the accusatory B.S. out?

The OP was clear ... He/she would "Vote for anyone that ..." Anyone includes the person you now wish to fuck.

Now maybe the OP was speaking in hyperbole ... maybe, you are too; but why not just say that, as opposed to defending such myopia?

And you are correct: you don't have to convince me of anything ... and you have not.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
60. Why didn't I leave it at the first line?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:52 PM
Jun 2014

Because of your accusatory bullshit. Your suggestion that a Democrat who is anti-war must be a secret closet Libertarian troll. Fuck that noise.

BTW, I never said I would only vote for someone who would get us out of Iraq. And, let me offer you another couple of explanations for the OP, since critical thought is not your "strong" suit.

First off, there will be Primaries in 2016, yes, Democratic Primaries. I will state, without qualification, that I will only vote for a candidate in the Democratic Primary who opposes the Iraq war and promises to get us out, if Obama still has us tangled up there. So, there is one non-Rand Paul answer for you.

Second, it should be seen as a wake up call to the Democrats. Are we willing to let a republican candidate be the anti-war candidate to our pro--war candidate? I should hope not. See, another non-Rand Paul answer. I hope all candidates who running 2016 are anti-war. I wish that was no longer a viable position, and I certainly don't want it in the Democratic Party.

You don't need to respond, I accept your apology.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
61. If you're going to recount the order of events ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:10 PM
Jun 2014

to justify your B.S., start at the beginning of the time line ... where I asked a simple question the simple and non-accusatory question:

Does that include Rand Paul ... that's one of his main talking/campaign points.


It was Neverforget that started the accusatory stuff ... that you happily co-signed, with the:.

With us or against us


Comment and continued on off the ledge.

But hey ...
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
64. Yes it is ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:17 PM
Jun 2014

and people really can read it for themselves.

But I would draw they attention to your penultimate and final responses (to this point) ... it is the exemplar of your postings ... you accept an apology that I have not offered, and continue pretend that I have.

neverforget

(9,433 posts)
68. The first mention of Rand Paul was another poster but you continued it.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:29 PM
Jun 2014

And your statement about Rand Paul implied that not agreeing with going into Iraq again was somehow supporting Rand Paul in 2016. You know it otherwise you wouldn't have said it.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
71. No ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:53 PM
Jun 2014

Stating that one would "vote for anyone that promises to get out of Iraq" implied a willingness to support paul.

BTW, why are you so upset about something I didn't say? "Thou doth protest too much, methinks." (Now there is an implying statement.)

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
50. Do you understand the concept of context ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:00 AM
Jun 2014

or are you just spoiling for a fight to defend the you are really not a libertarian posing as a Democrat?

neverforget

(9,433 posts)
57. you make it sound as if ONLY Rand Paul is against going
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:03 AM
Jun 2014

back to Iraq and that makes you sound silly because there are Democrats that are not for this.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
58. No ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:14 PM
Jun 2014

I make it sound like I asked the OP whether his/her "voting for anyone ..." includes Paul. (Maybe it was hyperbole ... Maybe not. My point was to point out the loose language ... which most would have seen; except those that protest too much.)

It is your "can't admit I jumped on the wrong track" bs that makes you look like you are either silly or protesting too much.

neverforget

(9,433 posts)
65. just stop throwing Rand Paul around as the big bad boogey
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:11 PM
Jun 2014

man intended to stop debate about policy differences with Obama. It was hyperbole otherwise you wouldn't have used it on DU.

BootinUp

(46,852 posts)
66. Only when others stop throwing him around as some kind of truth teller instead
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:13 PM
Jun 2014

of the huckster he is.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
70. What??? ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:42 PM
Jun 2014

I've read that post 3 times and still have no clue what you are getting at. Are you, in the first sentence responding to my post; while directing your response to others?

When someone says they will "Vote for anyone" that holds a particular position ... Why is unreasonable to ask if that statement includes for voting for someone that holds said position; but other positions that are completely repugnant?

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
73. Well clear it up OP ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:46 PM
Jun 2014

You will vote for anyone that promises to get the US out of Iraq ... Does that include a willingness to vote for Rand Paul, as that is among his #1 talking points.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
41. Are you talking about the 2016 Iraqi elections?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:27 AM
Jun 2014

Because I'm confused. We are not "in" Iraq, so it will be hard for us to get out of it. We've had exactly 0 forces there since the end of 2011. Not even "advisors." Now Obama will be sending "up to" 300 advisors. Compare that to the 166,300 forces we had there in October 2007. We're not going back there ... ever.

So I guess you MUST be talking about the 2016 Iraq elections.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
44. We have about 150 special operation troops there now, plus 275 defending the embassy.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:39 AM
Jun 2014

Plus 30-35 US surveillance sorties being flown daily.

The 150 special ops will grow "up to 300." The purpose of the teams is, in part, to get develop the intel for airstrikes. The strikes will be "targeted" "intense" and "sustained" according to the administration. And, strikes in Syria are likely as well.

All this with no articulated objective.

I think it is unpredictable where we will be in 2016, but this is a horrible place to be starting from.

 

Alex P Notkeaton

(309 posts)
42. I don't think we'll be in Iraq
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:29 AM
Jun 2014

Not this time. I'd say the 300 will be out before August, because Obama's not a fool like Bush.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
49. I would still hope it is our goal to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan before the end of the year
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:05 AM
Jun 2014

I'm with the person above who said that this shouldn't be an issue in the next election because we shouldn't even be there.

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
51. You know, that is how we got Nixon!
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:05 AM
Jun 2014

Secret plan for peace with honor. Bring our boys home, aaahroooha!

treestar

(82,383 posts)
56. I thought we were responsible for what happened there
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:34 AM
Jun 2014

It is all our fault, so we have to fix it, or so I've heard.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
69. Well, by then, we won't be in Iraq anyhow.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:29 PM
Jun 2014

So, you won't have to vote for someone who promises that. What's your next criterion?

BootinUp

(46,852 posts)
79. Probably a safe bet, but then I never thought we would invade in 2003.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:02 PM
Jun 2014

It just made no sense from a strategic point of view.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In 2016 I will vote for w...