General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn 2016 I will vote for whomever promises to get OUT OF IRAQ.
Who's with me?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)So did I.
Look how much good that did us.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)it hasn't filtered down to our level yet.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Nobody said anything about re-invading.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Just curious...
neverforget
(9,434 posts)combat casualties doesn't it?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I reiterate, are we "out of Iraq"?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)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.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Journeyman
(15,001 posts)Or are you looking for just any promise that makes you feel better about yourself?. . .
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Journeyman
(15,001 posts)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)Taking a swipe at Vietnam War protesters and the OP, when both had very good intentions.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)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)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)needless war in Iraq. We are going back by choice, after having left.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)BainsBane
(53,003 posts)If we are actually in Iraq at that point?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)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
(53,003 posts)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)You are the one who said "wait and see." I said, let's not.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)at all. Carry on arguing with yourself because you clearly have no interest in what I have said.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)"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
(53,003 posts)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)
bigtree This message was self-deleted by its author.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)lol.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Lol.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)there needs to be a coherent plan to reach the goal.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There is no reason to go into Iraq.
Anyone who supports going into Iraq now is justifying Bush's legal war.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)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)at the full throated embrace of te Bush Doctrine.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)I did not suggest we invade countries preemptively.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)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.
You are talking about that country that is asking us for help right?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)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
(46,928 posts)I think the Dems better put up a strong candidate who knows something about National Security.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that's one of his main talking/campaign points.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)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
(9,434 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)We got a Democratic war to march into.
neverforget
(9,434 posts)coming from Democrats.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"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)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)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)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)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)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:
It was Neverforget that started the accusatory stuff ... that you happily co-signed, with the:.
Comment and continued on off the ledge.
But hey ...
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I still accept your apology.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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
(9,434 posts)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)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)or are you just spoiling for a fight to defend the you are really not a libertarian posing as a Democrat?
neverforget
(9,434 posts)back to Iraq and that makes you sound silly because there are Democrats that are not for this.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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
(9,434 posts)man intended to stop debate about policy differences with Obama. It was hyperbole otherwise you wouldn't have used it on DU.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)of the huckster he is.
neverforget
(9,434 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)whew ya missed the point
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)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.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That you would vote for Paul.
That IS what you've said.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Okay!
Deuce
(959 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)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)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)Not this time. I'd say the 300 will be out before August, because Obama's not a fool like Bush.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)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)Secret plan for peace with honor. Bring our boys home, aaahroooha!
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is all our fault, so we have to fix it, or so I've heard.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Don't hold your breath...
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)So, you won't have to vote for someone who promises that. What's your next criterion?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)BootinUp
(46,928 posts)It just made no sense from a strategic point of view.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)The ME map will be completely redrawn by then.