Joe Biden update: Iraq one of Obama's 'great achievements'

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

SG SG SG, Biden states that thanks to Obama everything is great in Iraq.

Yea he did and its a joke because Iraq is anything but. That being said Biden was half right, Iraq will be one of this presidents great achievements because under his presidency troops will be withdrawn (whether you speculate so or not).

No I agree with you there Endisnighe, Iraq is not in a stable position and no president is going to change that. We were never meant to be in the country in the first place, it was under false reasons, and karma is just coming right back to bite us in the back.

Now you are here saying Obama was against it.

Obama was against the initial invasion yes, that doesnt mean he intends to just let the country get further in a mess. To me personally there is little amount of effort that can be done to change Iraq in its condition. A responsible troop withdrawal is at best the only reasonable way out, and even that will not make Iraq any more better off than previously.

$700 billion later, 4000 troops gone, more than 100,000 Iraqis gone, and the Iraq today is little better than the one before. America had not business and we cannot force positive democratic change in other countries. We are not the police of the world and you of all people should know that.

Please post his voting record on the war.

FactCheck: Opposes surge--hasn’t produced political solution. (Sep 2008)
Unwise war in Iraq distracted us from catching Bin Laden. (Sep 2008)
The surge is a tactic to contain 4 years of mismanaged war. (Sep 2008)
FactCheck: Iraq has at most $59B surplus, not $79B surplus. (Sep 2008)
FactCheck: Promised 16-month exit; now 16-month reduction. (Sep 2008)
You don’t defeat a terrorist network by occupying Iraq. (Aug 2008)
I will only send our troops into harm’s way when necessary. (Aug 2008)
Situation has improved in Iraq; but it’s still fragile. (Jul 2008)
Surge reduced violence; but distracts us from long-term goal. (Jul 2008)
$10 billion a month spent in Iraq should be spent in the US. (Jul 2008)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics. (Apr 2008)
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission. (Apr 2008)
2002 anti-war speech was not popular opinion at that time. (Apr 2008)
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable. (Feb 2008)
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis. (Feb 2008)
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million. (Feb 2008)
The Iraq war has undermined our security. (Jan 2008)
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats. (Jan 2008)
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war. (Jan 2008)
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start. (Jan 2008)
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent. (Jan 2008)
Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)
No permanent bases in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
www.ontheissues.org...

Obama has been a vocal opposer of the reasoning behind the Iraq war since 2002. That doesnt mean that he will not work with the generals and men on the ground for a responsible withdrawal. He may disagree with the war but that doesnt mean he has to go cowboy like the previous president.

sidestepping

Im not sidestepping the OP, its a relevant argument. Why earth would you blabber on about the surge when the was itself was a big fat lie? Unless the surge was to support a withdrawal it didnt do much else to change the fact the was cost us over $700 billion and over 100,000 lives including our own soldiers.

The surge itself cost this nation another $27 billion extra, and Iraq itself is still in this mess, the war itself is still no more justified that from the start:
edition.cnn.com...

So why go on about surge when the war itself has cost this nation dearly? What has the surge done to change this fact?

Of course being there is wrong.

Wrong and costly so why the hell do people continue to go on about the surge when it doesnt change a damn thing?

Now, what are we doing again in Afghanistan? Oh yeah, that is where the Taliban are or the Al Queda

Most liberals and democrat supporters actually supported the Afghanistan war since 2001 and that has not changed. Yes people like myself believe we were attacked by terrorists and I do support the hunt for the animals who did this to our nation. Its not hypocritical for people like me to support Afghanistan because Iv always supported it. It didnt matter which president was in, I believe we have a duty in afghanistan where the real war should be. I believe that ever withdrawing from Afghanistan, the the job of hunting down those responsible should continue.

Yes there are those that oppose war outright, but most folks including myself held different views between Iraq and Afghanistan because of the circumstances and have done so since 2001. Iraq was a lie, Afghanistan had reason following 9/11.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

The invasion of Iraq was an error to begin with.
...
Understaffing? The US had no business in Iraq in first place.

Blah, blah blah.:shk:

Look, you asked the question about the surge. I took the time and effort to respond to your question. What do I get in response? A whiny little partisan diatribe.

You don't want to discuss like an adult. All you want is to complain about Bush and his admin.

Grow up. Stick with the topic.

Originally posted by mishigas
Blah, blah blah.:shk:

yes who cares about the lies? $700 billion, $200 million a day and counting, over 4000 american soldiers lost, over 100,000 iraqis, and you dont seem to give a damn because it doesnt suit your ideological agenda.

And yet people like you expect me to take you seriously in your criticism toward this administration?

Look, you asked the question about the surge.

You still didnt explain to me how the surge excuses the lies and cost of the war already added?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

And yet people like you expect me to take you seriously in your criticism toward this administration?

Yes, yes I do. The miserable failings of this administration have nothing to do with the mistakes of the previous administration. You should be man enough to separate the two. Instead, you are a tireless partisan.

You still didnt explain to me how the surge excuses the lies and cost of the war already added?

I didn't because that was not the question asked. And I won't because all it is is your attempt to sidetrack the discussion away from the topic of Biden's loss of touch with reality.

SG, go back and re-read the thread. Notice the additional discussion on the benefits of the surge, after I answered your question. Now doesn't that tell you that you are off-track here?

The old advice applies: start another thread if you want to deflect the topic.

Originally posted by mishigas
Yes, yes I do. The miserable failings of this administration

You want me to buy your explanation for throwing an extra $27 billion at a war that was illegitimate and a costly miserable failiure to begin with, and yet you want to criticize this administration?

I didn't because that was not the question asked.

That was the question. What did the surge do to change Iraq? Im not interested in what brief positive change the surge did, I asked you what the surge did to change the war a whole? It was a costly illegitimate war to begin with, so what did the surge do to change that fact?

all this from a guy that hates the military, opposed the surge, bankrupted the nation, lost on the olympics thing, can't figure out what he is doing half the time and the other half he is kissing some clown's butt in another nation...

This guy is the biggest moronic toad i have ever seen in that office.... and he makes carter look good...

but yet, anything that is screwed up is bush's fault...

I guess people are still getting that tingle up their leg when the annointed one speaks (prior to his getting lost on the teleprompter) or running around in a lost orgasmic state of ecstacy over his smile and so called charm...

reply to post by Southern Guardian

That was the question. What did the surge do to change Iraq? Im not interested in what brief positive change the surge did, I asked you what the surge did to change the war a whole? It was a costly illegitimate war to begin with, so what did the surge do to change that fact?

It made it possible in the long run to set dates for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. That meant a whole lot of action and correct decisions had to be made by Bushco. It made it possible for Obama/Biden to try to suck up some of the credit, when the best thing they ever did was to stay out of the way and let Bushco handle things.

Originally posted by lilwolf
all this from a guy that hates the military,

Oh so because I oppose the war I hate the military? Its the same old excuse used to shut down anybody who questions the war courtesy of neocon propaganda machine.

bankrupted the nation,

Oh yes yes yes the nation was not bankrupted before Obama took office. Really now?

lost on the olympics thing,

How is that his fault exactly? Your blaming him for something totally out of his power? How desperate must you be to smear him?

but yet, anything that is screwed up is bush's fault

Because lord knows the financial collapse and the Iraq war happened under his watch.

Originally posted by mishigas
It made it possible in the long run to set dates for withdrawal

The surge had nothing to do with any withdrawal at the time and you know it. During the proposal for the surge, most democrats opposed it in part because it didnt have a withdrawal plan from Iraq which Republicans refused to add:
www.reuters.com...

And yet you continue to insist and justify the war.

Why did we go into iraq again? Please explain to me. What exactly does the surge have to do behind the reasoning of the war?

This is hauntingly reminding me of moron Al Gore's declaration that he created the internet. I wonder if these people realize how incredibly stupid it makes them look to most critically thinking people in the entire world... Doubtful because they are way too egotistical to see their own vanity..These people will eventually cause their own demise though..

reply to post by Southern Guardian

The surge had nothing to do with any withdrawal at the time and you know it.

Sure it did, as part of a larger strategy. No successful withdrawal would have been possible if the surge had not taken place and succeeded so wildly.

During the proposal for the surge, most democrats opposed it in part because it didnt have a withdrawal plan from Iraq which Republicans refused to add:

That is true, and showed the wisdom of the Republican strategy. If we had set a date for withdrawal, we all know what would have happened.

And yet you continue to insist and justify the war.

No just the surge.

Why did we go into iraq again?

Hint: it wasn't for oil. And it wasn't because of WMD's. And it wasn't because al Qaeda was there (they weren't, except for training camps in far northeast Iraq.

But that's a topic for another thread.

Please explain to me. What exactly does the surge have to do behind the reasoning of the war?

Absolutely zero, much as a broken fan belt has to do with a drive in the country. It happened, and needed to be dealt with.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

The surge had nothing to do with any withdrawal at the time and you know it.

Sure it did, as part of a larger strategy.

There was no larger strategy because Republicans refused to add a withdrawal timetable from Iraq.

So whether the game of chicken is real or feigned, there will be no timetable for withdrawal. The surge will continue.

realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com...

Show me evidence where there is any mention of troop withdrawal in the bill to fund $27 billion to the surge.

That is true, and showed the wisdom of the Republican strategy. If we had set a date for withdrawal, we all know what would have happened.

So you completely contradict yourself in the same post? You first claim that the surge was part of some larger plan of withdrawal from Iraq (with no source) then you come out admitting that withdrawal was not the intention of the Republicans who introduced and rallied the bill in the first place.

No just the surge.

So essentially you supported a plan to send in more troops (with no intention of withdrawal) into Iraq costing a further $27 billion to the tax payer, but you didnt support the war as a whole? You support the fact troops are there to occupy with no indication of any withdrawal anytime soon, and yet you dont support the war?

Do you see how that doesnt make sense?

Hint: it wasn't for oil. And it wasn't because of WMD's. And it wasn't because al Qaeda was there (they weren't, except for training camps in far northeast Iraq.

So you cannot explain why we are there, but you support our involvement in that nation?

Absolutely zero,

So to clarify:

You dont support the invasion itself but you support the continued occupation of the nation itself, supported another $27 billion thrown at the war but you yourself cannot bring up any reasons why we are there, you insist the surge works but you admit it didnt do a damn thing to change the war itself.

Im done here.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Im done here.

Yes, I agree, you are, You're spending too much time trying to meld my words into some type of answer to your assertions. It won't work , SG. You are supporting a policy of dump and run, and I'm not. So that confuses and frustrates you.

Don't think that my answers are intended to support your policy of dump and run. All that will do is confuse you when you read my words.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by jerico65

 

Withdrawing troops from Iraq is the greatest achievement of that war in my opinion, so I actualy agree with him.

But that also was already being planned - by the Bush administration.

Now all obama has to do is man up and also take credit for the current state of the economy.

Yo, obama. You don't get to just cherry pick the good stuff and claim it for yourself.

Originally posted by antideceit
This is hauntingly reminding me of moron Al Gore's declaration that he created the internet. I wonder if these people realize how incredibly stupid it makes them look to most critically thinking people in the entire world... Doubtful because they are way too egotistical to see their own vanity..These people will eventually cause their own demise though..

Damn, you beat me to it. It sure is a good thing that we have Dems to do all of the good stuff in the world though. But, since Al obviously did invent the internet, maybe Odumbo can take credit for 3d t.v..