Arizona Debate tonight

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by crakjak

We have to engage in the world, but we should do it to establish decent governments ei: Japan and Germany after WWI. Win, take control, establish order and friends. The leftist are so wishy washy that there is no order, just pointless war.

If we would fight to win and establish order, more enemies would die during the war, but much less civilians and innocents would die in the pursuing years.

Iraq was a waste, because the leftist prevented a completion of what we started, now Obama has surrendered and given it all back. So what do we see bombing and killing as the bad guys fight to regain their control.

How did he surrender the Iraqi war? He withdrew within the timeline agreed upon by the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Twisp

How did he surrender the Iraqi war? He withdrew within the timeline agreed upon by the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.

Due to the leftist drum beat, and demonizing of the mission, Bush retreated from the complete task, so his timeline became compromised. The only objective of the left was to get out, no matter that the civilians will suffer and die because we have abandoned them, instead of completing the task. Japan is the tempate of the completed task.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Due to the leftist drum beat, and demonizing of the mission, Bush retreated from the complete task, so his timeline became compromised. The only objective of the left was to get out, no matter that the civilians will suffer and die because we have abandoned them, instead of completing the task. Japan is the tempate of the completed task.

So President Obama surrendered Iraq because of President Bush's prior decisions?

Or did then-Senator Obama force President Bush to put in place policies that would make President Obama surrender Iraq for President Bush?

Neither one makes a lot of sense.

If Japan is the template of the completed task in your opinion, do you think we should have dropped an atomic bomb on Iraq? That is what the Japan template would call for, after all.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Twisp

So President Obama surrendered Iraq because of President Bush's prior decisions?

Or did then-Senator Obama force President Bush to put in place policies that would make President Obama surrender Iraq for President Bush?

Neither one makes a lot of sense.

If Japan is the template of the completed task in your opinion, do you think we should have dropped an atomic bomb on Iraq? That is what the Japan template would call for, after all.

Bush tempered his objectives in Iraq due to the screaming of the Democrats and media that wore out the public. Obama surrendered to pacify his leftist base without due consideration of the welfare of the Iraqis, which is his job as commander and chief. Yes, Obama was one of the screamers, and due to the overwhelming public opinion Bush compromised, because he could not get the support to continue. He and the military were demonized for every possible reason by the left in this country.

The bomb was not necessary in Iraq, but the rebuilding of Japan and the US oversight and direction of that rebuilding and re-establishing Japanese leadership was a template for success in a more peaceful world.

These facts are indisputable!!!

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Bush tempered his objectives in Iraq due to the screaming of the Democrats and media that wore out the public. Obama surrendered to pacify his leftist base without due consideration of the welfare of the Iraqis, which is his job as commander and chief. Yes, Obama was one of the screamers, and due to the overwhelming public opinion Bush compromised, because he could not get the support to continue. He and the military were demonized for every possible reason by the left in this country.

The bomb was not necessary in Iraq, but the rebuilding of Japan and the US oversight and direction of that rebuilding and re-establishing Japanese leadership was a template for success in a more peaceful world.

These facts are indisputable!!!

But ultimately, the only one who could have surrendered was President Bush, since the pullout would not have been possible without his timeline? So he either surrendered, or did not have enough backbone to stand up for what he thought was right. Which was it?

Beside that, the Iraqi government did not want us to stay any longer pass the agreed upon withdrawal date set by the Bush Administration . Do you think we should have stayed past that date, against Iraq's wishes? Would that have been "not surrendering", prolonged deployment in a country that asked us to leave?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Yep, even Newt agrees with me, "Obama is the most dangerous president in history."

Vote for Newt!!! LOL!

Just this morning we now hear that the money brokers are getting together and twisting his arm to go after Assad. He is a war monger, only because others control him, he is a neophyte and president because of the stupidity of the American people to believe the brainwashing of the leftist media.

I agree with Ron Paul, we should go to war only in the right way, DECLARE WAR, define the enemy and the objective of winning. Beat the ........ out of the bad guys and take the spoils. Make the bad guys pay for the cost of the war. We are being bled financially in all these undeclared wars, did you even know that we have four or five fights in Africa, thanks to BO?

I totally agree with Ron Paul on that. It doesn't surprise me on Africa. I haven't looked closely at what factions Obama is supporting. I know he did some photo-ops with Raila Odinga in the background, who is a Muslim sympathizer with very well-known communist political roots. Obama and Odinga's roots are from the Luo tribe. Obama's cover was that he and Michelle were there on an AIDS mission.

Originally Posted by crakjak

We have to engage in the world, but we should do it to establish decent governments ei: Japan and Germany after WWI. Win, take control, establish order and friends. The leftist are so wishy washy that there is no order, just pointless war.

If we would fight to win and establish order, more enemies would die during the war, but much less civilians and innocents would die in the pursuing years.

Iraq was a waste, because the leftist prevented a completion of what we started, now Obama has surrendered and given it all back. So what do we see bombing and killing as the bad guys fight to regain their control.

I agree that Iraq was a waste. From our civilian point of view, we knew these backwards tribal people involved a huge religious issue that just could no be won.

To the point on less civilians and innocents being killed - the Muslims don't appear to hold any value for their women and children, hiding behind them because they knew the American forces were going to be careful with targeted bombing. I say, if you hide behind your civilians, you draw your whole country into war, and it's just too bad. You are toast.

Put Allen West in charge - he doesn't mince words and lays out a clearly defined purpose and plan of action.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Twisp

But ultimately, the only one who could have surrendered was President Bush, since the pullout would not have been possible without his timeline? So he either surrendered, or did not have enough backbone to stand up for what he thought was right. Which was it?

Beside that, the Iraqi government did not want us to stay any longer pass the agreed upon withdrawal date set by the Bush Administration . Do you think we should have stayed past that date, against Iraq's wishes? Would that have been "not surrendering", prolonged deployment in a country that asked us to leave?

We when to war with Iraq, when you defeat an enemy you don't ask, "When would you like us to leave?" The PC doctrine in America today is weakness and directionless.

In Bush's defense, the public and Congress turn against the war before it could be completed. Bush was hammered by the Democrats, day in and day out, and the international community, could you have stood up to that????

This country is divided, and that makes it hard to acccomplish much of anything, the same thing has happened to Obama, he is being hammered. Of course, I disagree with him on most everything so I'm glad that he is being hammered. But will any President be able to lead this country out of the stalemate of division? I'm not sure?

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by crakjak

We when to war with Iraq, when you defeat an enemy you don't ask, "When would you like us to leave?" The PC doctrine in America today is weakness and directionless.

In Bush's defense, the public and Congress turn against the war before it could be completed. Bush was hammered by the Democrats, day in and day out, and the international community, could you have stood up to that????

This country is divided, and that makes it hard to acccomplish much of anything, the same thing has happened to Obama, he is being hammered. Of course, I disagree with him on most everything so I'm glad that he is being hammered. But will any President be able to lead this country out of the stalemate of division? I'm not sure?

I still don't get your point about Obama surrendering. It sounds more like you think it was President Bush's and Iraq's fault for setting a withdrawal timeline, and Obama was just following what they agreed on.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I still don't get your point about Obama surrendering. It sounds more like you think it was President Bush's and Iraq's fault for setting a withdrawal timeline, and Obama was just following what they agreed on.

It doesn't have to make sense twisp...

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I still don't get your point about Obama surrendering. It sounds more like you think it was President Bush's and Iraq's fault for setting a withdrawal timeline, and Obama was just following what they agreed on.

What do you not get??? Obama ignored the danger to the Iraqi people, and withdrew the troops, the conditions on the ground did not support the timetable, I don't care who set the table. We don't know if Bush would have withdrawn them or not, it was just a target, the current President could have extended it, he is in charge now and responsible. Bottom line, we went to war and did not complete the job, and Obama will get the blame as Iraq goes up in flames, and he should.