Flashermac Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 Ah, the popular "scrambling aboard helicopters" image. Never mind that the last US troops had left SVN over 2 years before Saigon fell, nor that the troops one saw were flown in to help to evacuate civilians - most of them South Vietnamese who were in danger of being killed by the victorious communists. p.s. Anyone who was on the board years ago is aware that I opposed the Bushman's invasion of Iraq. It was needless and stupid, even though Christopher Hitchens did support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 Why should they? It was Obie's promise. He is the one who had branded it a "dumb war". If it was dumb, then he was dumb enough to continue it. What other choice did he have at the time? He's still keeping his promise and getting the US out as much as possible from Iraq, as responsibly and intelligently as he can. Much more responsibly and intelligently than Bush did getting us into the war to begin with I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 Parents and kids sports can get really crazy, brawls among the spectators are commonplace in Australia. One of my favourite writers. Pat Conroy based many of the characters in his books and similar incidents on his own father, a marine pilot, who struggled when dealing with his children. He was quite a guy though, when Conroy's semi-autobiographical "The Great Santini" was filmed, he supposedly insisted on being there when the father was buried, saying he would be the only person to ever attend his own funeral twice. One of the most tragic and sad songs I ever heard was the Cats in the Cradle. Fathers generally show more emotion and public love for their grandson. Great Santini was a good film. I gotta read his stuff Julian2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/ Both parties are part of this. I think its been posted about before. Disgusting. I repeat. We no longer live in a free and fair Republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robaus Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 Quote his speeech? OMG ! Which one? Do you really think Barry's speeches are archived here? You could've done what I did and come up with the same info by a Google. He said in his campaign that he would have U.S. troops out of Iraq in 16 months (of being sworn in). Well, almost 3 years after being sworn in, that has happened. And the troop withdrawl was made in accordance with a Status of Forces Agreement forged during the administration of GWB. LOL (Good thing, as I seriously doubt that Barry even knows what a Status of Forces Agreement is, being the incompetent "comander-in-chief" that he is.) HH Crikey, HH and cav, you are both cunning linguists..slippery as snakes, we gotta watch you both. >> You could've done what I did and come up with the same info by a Google. ...I did, but it’s not what you found...you must be suffering from Old Timer’s disease, mate... or just a mild dose of Fox Noise spin. >> He said in his campaign that he would have U.S. troops out of Iraq in 16 months (of being sworn in). ... Oh no he didn’t. He said he would bring home all US combat troops out of Iraq... some sites say “within†16 months, some say “about†16 months. Here’s a transcript of a campaign debate Jan. 15, 2008 with moderator Tim Russert OBAMA: “Your question was, could I guarantee all troops would be out of Iraq. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions.But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We’re going to have to protect our civilians. We’re engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we’re not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that George Bush seems to be intent on.†18 months not 16 months is a pretty good promise kept I reckon, especially bearing in mind that that debate was a full year before he could know the full picture. He always said he would consult with his generals when he took office and General Petraeus had called for “maximum flexibility†in setting withdrawal schedules. I humbly suggest that Petraeus may know a little bit more about the war in Iraq than you and cav do. 6 weeks into office on 27 Feb 2009 Obama announced In a speech at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps base: US "combat mission" in Iraq would officially end by August 2010, and that the remaining troops training Iraqis would be out by Dec. 31, 2011. He kept his word on both counts. But hang on a minute! After all your spurious quibbling about promises broken by 2 months, your republican darlings actually want US forces to stay longer in Iraq!!! Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Bachman, Huntsman and even John McCain have all released statements criticizing the withdrawal as premature. If Obama taxes the rich, they are going to need more Halliburton shares! Poor old Dick Cheney must be down to his last $5 billion now. Romney: ““President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women.â€..he forgot to add “futile†sacrifices caused by the lies and incompetence of the last fuckwit Republican president ostensibly looking for non existent WMD. HH, take a rest, mate. You must be feeling dizzy with all this spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robaus Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 Why should they? It was Obie's promise. He is the one who had branded it a "dumb war". If it was dumb, then he was dumb enough to continue it. Would that more people had listened to Obama then! Obama in October 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago. "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." By contrast to draft dodger Bushit's incompetence and indifference for US soldiers' lives, Obama's taking out Bin Liner and his conduct of the war against Libya were superb, saving the lives of thousands of Libyans from murder, torture and rape, without a single US casualty. btw,HH, I'm still waiitng for that west coast bridge you promised to be delivered when US ground troops were not deployed in Libya! Please could you have it erected from my condo balcony on a gentle slope to Walking Street? :-) Isn't it better to have a commnader in chief who doesn't needlessly sacrifice his troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 Some great points rob - I think it would be foolish to withdraw troops prematurely. The title of this thread implied Obama's not the greatest but do you guys in the US actually have a good alternative? I know down here it's hardly the money or the box when it comes to election time.... just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 In international affairs, Obie has done surprisingly well. It is on the domestic front that he has been a disaster. The problem is the Republicans aren't putting up anyone who looks very good either. Ron Paul is probably the best of the lot, though he is unlikely to get the nomination. He is an outsider with few connections to the political power structure. The Newt leave me thinking, "Yeah, he's smart, but he's a fruit cake." Romney leaves me yawning. Do we really need a president who thinks an uneducated New York farmer translated some mysterious gold tablets using the Urim and Thumim (which the Old Testament says were gemstones on the Israeli high priest's breast plate) and thus learned all about Jesus roaming around America and preaching to the Lost Tribes of Israel? (This is as nutty as Tom Cruse.) Right now I'd like to do without a president for a while and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamui Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 In international affairs, Obie has done surprisingly well. It is on the domestic front that he has been a disaster. Yep, media world of the Western world are remarkably quiet about the end of the Iraq war. It just looks like a footnote to a miserable failure of the GOP chicken hawks - none of the GOP politicians who rushed the Iraq war went to Vietnam. I guess this made it easier for them to make really stupid decisions and to sacrifice US soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted December 17, 2011 Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 Yep, media world of the Western world are remarkably quiet about the end of the Iraq war. It just looks like a footnote to a miserable failure of the GOP chicken hawks - none of the GOP politicians who rushed the Iraq war went to Vietnam. I guess this made it easier for them to make really stupid decisions and to sacrifice US soldiers. That probably is why we look at them as chicken hawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.