President Hillary will end Iraq war!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by church mouse guy, Feb 4, 2007.

  1. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    At long last, anti-war in Iraq voters have a choice not an echo in that Hillary has said:

    "Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday she would never have started the war in Iraq - but if she's elected President, she'll end it.
    "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as President, I will!" Clinton said.'

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/494330p-416430c.html

    Since this seems to be the defining issue of the 2008 presidential election, it is good news for those who want the war ended by January 2009. Those voters now have a Democrat Party willing and able to represent them as the GOP is leaning towards Rudolph W. Giuliani, who would clearly continue the war until there is victory.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the GOP intends to run another man with the middle initial of "W!" :laugh:
     
  2. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is just one more reason to consider her for President. I would love to vote for her, but I will probably vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    She won't end the war.

    She'll just cause a bigger one by precipitously withdrawing our troops.

    We must all bear in mind that deep in her heart of hearts, she hates the military and everything they stand for. Always has.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    We agree on that, carpro.
     
  5. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Of course, Hillary will end the war in Iraq. She said that she would. ('"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as President, I will!" Clinton said.') That raises two questions. As Carpro has pointed out, it might start another war. However, Carpro, assuming that we cut and run during January 2009, it may be a question of time before we are attacked again or before we are unable to get oil from the Arab penisula.

    The second question revolves around the fact that people who are against the war in Iraq must send money to Hillary so that she can have a full campaign. Elizabeth Taylor sent $100,000 but that won't be enough.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    We agree about half the time, Ken, and we both like Shelties.:thumbs:
     
  7. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Since Giuliani, like Bush, is unwilling to do what must be done to actually win the war in Iraq there will be no victory in Iraq.

    I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
     
  8. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==You are joking, right? You can't honestly believe that leaving Iraq in January of '09 would be cutting and running? At that point we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II! Almost five years later and probably near four thousand dead American soldiers! Not to mention the millions of dollars that has been spent. Leaving Iraq at this point is not cutting and running. It is simply realizing that we are wasting our time and resources.


    ==None of that has anything to do with Iraq. If Bush feared it would then he should have handled this war differently. We should be focusing on homeland security and alternative energies and not helping the Iraqis get their act together.
     
  9. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Martin, the left has been saying for a long time that this very minor war has lasted longer than World War II. I suppose that Viet Nam would have been in the same category. However, the issue about World War II deals only with American direct involvement in World War II. For example, it does not consider when Japan first invaded Manchuria or when British shipping was first attacked by Germany or when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. American merchant sailors were dying long before the USA was in the war.

    Also, I have mentioned several times that FDR lost more than three thousand men on many a day in both Eurpope and the Pacific so that the losses for all those years pale beside the losses for a single day in WW II. I imagine the American civil war would have many deadly single days also. I think that that is a poor point for your side, Martin.

    As for the idea that we can cut and run in Iraq on January 2009 at the latest and not have to face any consequences, that is nonsense on stilts. We cut and ran in Korea and we now face a nuclear North Korea, a puppet state of China, which now has the ability to shoot our satellites out of space and can field an army of tens of millions of men that will not flinch no matter how high Chinese deaths become.

    We cut and ran in Viet Nam and tens of thousands of people were murdered by Hanoi.

    In the Middle East, we are facing a nuclear Iran and the destruction of the Jews by Iran. Also, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt would be forced to seek nuclear weapons if the USA retreats from the Middle East. Islamofascism will count our withdrawal as a defeat and the attack will begin again as Islam seeks to conquer the world.

    These issues have not been addressed by your side, Martin.

    However, I do not think that you can co-opt the GOP with a peace candidate. Hillary has taken that issue for her own with her statement yesterday: "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as President, I will!"

    It's over for your side in the GOP, Martin.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) Iran does not have nuclear weapons nor is there any evidence that it is attempting to build such.

    2) I would advise you against betting your house on that.
     
  11. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0


    ==So? I did say "we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II".




    ==First off if we pull out of Iraq at this point it will not be cutting and running. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that it would be. Second please show me where I have said there would be no consequences to pulling out of Iraq. Please, show me where I said that. You can't because I have not said that. I have said, in other posts, that Iraq will become a bloodbath when we leave. Our leaving may also create a larger war in the middle east. However, and I have said this before as well, Bush should have considered these points before he got us into this ill advised war with his ill advised war plan.



    ==The situation in the middle east is not helped by the United States being stuck in Iraq. It also does not help that the United States, a military super power, has been stuck in Iraq by what equals to third world fighters. Bush has allowed our country to be embarrassed in Iraq. That helps no one. With Iraq out of our hands we can concentrate on other matters.



    ==Of course they could not claim victory if the pull out is proceeded by a massive military campaign that makes shock and awe look like child’s play. I support a quick, very lethal, military operation in Iraq that would put a serious hurting on the terrorists before any withdrawal. That would not really require "more troops" since it could be done from the air and from the sea with the support of land troops. In a sense the United States would leave Iraq on fire. The terrorists could not claim victory after that. For them to do so would look foolish even in that part of the world.



    ==The GOP is no concern of mine. I can vote republican, I could vote democrat, I could vote third party, or I could vote for Donald the Duck. If the GOP runs aground because of this war, so be it.




    ==I don't care about sides I only care about ending this failed war.
     
    #11 Martin, Feb 4, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2007
  12. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Iran is the major threat in the region. They say that they are building atomic power for energy purposes but I doubt if you could persuade the Jews that there is no attempt to build the atomic bomb, Ken.

    Jordan has also stated their intention to build nuclear power. This also forces Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey to follow suit. What will be left if Iran is not stopped is a nuclear Middle East.

    As for the fact that the GOP is unlikely to field a peace candidate, I think that that is illustrated by Hillary's promise to end the Iraq war by One Nine. The GOP cannot top that unless they want to look like "me-too Republicans" back in the 1930s, 40s and early 50s. The GOP wants a choice, also, and not an echo of Hillary who has said, '"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as President, I will!"'

    The GOP frontrunner is another W
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) That doesn't make it so.

    2) Hogwash.
     
  14. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    72
    If the GOP runs another Bush-like candidate, you can kiss their party goodbye.
     
  15. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    That line is to help win the Democratic nomination. If she does that, then let's see if she continues that one-lane road toward the general election.
     
  16. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sounds like she voted for us to go to war so that she could campaign against the war . . .

    What a shame.


     
  17. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is 100% correct. She voted for the war. She is as responsible as all the others that voted for it. The only way she is going to end the war is to talk the terrorists to death.
     
  18. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    She's simply running another idea up the flagpole to see who salutes.
     
  19. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Prophesizing again?

    :rolleyes:

    Wow, do you have super x-ray vision that allows you to see into hearts of hearts or did you send away for those glasses advertised in comic books?
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    She's got a long track record. No crystal ball needed. I suggest you take off your blinders and get familiar with it. She just may be the next president.
     

Share This Page

Loading...