*Oh Great! 50K Soldiers, Just Sitting Ducks In IRAQ!!*

[California Girl]

So, basically, yesterday's media was just more smoke and mirrors.

*Sniggers and the ranting whackjobs who believed it - Suckers*

And... for the record.... Their RoEs do not include the instruction to be a sitting duck. Why the need for hysteria?

 

[eagleseven]

Sucks for the 50k still there...glad all my friends are home, at least.

 

[California Girl]

Sucks for the 50k still there...glad all my friends are home, at least.

I guess Bootneck isn't on your friend list then. And, there are those of us who still have friends out there.... despite this 'withdrawal'.

 

[eagleseven]

Sucks for the 50k still there...glad all my friends are home, at least.

I guess Bootneck isn't on your friend list then. And, there are those of us who still have friends out there.... despite this 'withdrawal'.

I thought he was in Afghanistan?

 

[Avorysuds]

Obama can't take them out because Bush and Republicans signed contracts and treaties keeping them hostage until Iraq is "rebuilt". We knew this before Bush left office. It was one of the campaign issues.

How quickly they forget.

Aw, you're ruining their fun with reality and truth.

You know the right wing kooks despise reality and truth.

Quit being so mean to them.

So are you guys admiting the pull out was part of the Bush timetable?

 

[Avorysuds]

Obama can't take them out because Bush and Republicans signed contracts and treaties keeping them hostage until Iraq is "rebuilt". We knew this before Bush left office. It was one of the campaign issues.

How quickly they forget.

Since when does any mere contract mean a wit to the Boyking or knuckle draggers like you?

Why doesn't he just go and say "Hey, we did it for CEO bonuses and now we're doing it to you"?

No, it's the Republicans who can't keep treaties or contracts. We already know this for a fact. Fuck, they can't tell the truth 10 words into a sentence.

Hahah so then you admit treaties/contracts can be changed/broken... meaning the "Kind of Pull Out" is really a "Kind Of" because Obama won't commit but does not want to not be able to claim he ended the Iraq war, despite the fact that he didn't end it.

 

[Avorysuds]

Obama can't take them out because Bush and Republicans signed contracts and treaties keeping them hostage until Iraq is "rebuilt". We knew this before Bush left office. It was one of the campaign issues.

How quickly they forget.

I should have known that you would manage to say something so stupid that it became the stupidest thing I ever heard eventually.

Any and all treaties that exist have to be approved by Congress before it is binding on the United States. That means, that even if you were right that Bush did sign a treaty with Iraq, it would not have been binding unless it was approved by 66 Senators, one of which was Obama. If this treaty actually existed, and Obama had some sort of problem with it, he should have said something before he got elected.

First you try to give Obama credit for what Bush did, and when that turns into an epic failure you try to blame Bush for what Obama is doing. Obama has no obligation to follow the Bush time line, he is doing so because, once he knew all the facts, he decided it was the best course of action.

WAAAAaaa hahahahah!

 

[Modbert]

Wait a minute.

How can 50,000 troops be sitting ducks in a unstable country yet at the same time those same people say the 2006 surge made the country stable?

 

[California Girl]

Wait a minute.

How can 50,000 troops be sitting ducks in a unstable country yet at the same time those same people say the 2006 surge made the country stable?

I bet, if you think really, really, hard.... and pretend for a few minutes that you are capable of looking at ALL the facts.... you could probably work out the answer.

 

[Modbert]

I bet, if you think really, really, hard.... and pretend for a few minutes that you are capable of looking at ALL the facts.... you could probably work out the answer.

Called sarcasm CG. Either the surge worked or it didn't. If it did, then our soldiers aren't sitting ducks.

 

[eagleseven]

I bet, if you think really, really, hard.... and pretend for a few minutes that you are capable of looking at ALL the facts.... you could probably work out the answer.

Called sarcasm CG. Either the surge worked or it didn't. If it did, then our soldiers aren't sitting ducks.

Our soldiers in South Korea are sitting ducks, but I wouldn't call the Korean War a failure.

 

[Modbert]

Our soldiers in South Korea are sitting ducks, but I wouldn't call the Korean War a failure.

If that's the case, then it all depends how you define sitting ducks. I don't think our troops are going to be any easier of targets now than two weeks ago in Iraq.

 

[MikeK]

Yes, because Obama declared that the 50K troops still there can't defend themselves if need be.

There is something very strange about that situation.

 

[eagleseven]

Our soldiers in South Korea are sitting ducks, but I wouldn't call the Korean War a failure.

If that's the case, then it all depends how you define sitting ducks. I don't think our troops are going to be any easier of targets now than two weeks ago in Iraq.

They are not easier targets...

...but if something goes horribly wrong in the next few years, they will be unable to do much of anything but take casualties. In other words, they are a guarantee that we will be militarily involved in Iraq for years to come.

 

[MikeK]

Our soldiers in South Korea are sitting ducks, but I wouldn't call the Korean War a failure.

It's a very different situation.

And the Korean "war" was not a war, nor was it called a war. It was a "police action." Iraq is called a war to avoid calling it what it really is -- an unnecessary and unlawful military aggression.

 

[Modbert]

They are not easier targets...

...but if something goes horribly wrong in the next few years, they will be unable to do much of anything but take casualties. In other words, they are a guarantee that we will be militarily involved in Iraq for years to come.

I'm sure we'll always be involved with Iraq in some fashion from here on in. I mean, think about how many troops we have in Germany and Japan 65 years or so later. Not saying I agree with such actions, but that's the reality of the situation currently.

 

[eagleseven]

Our soldiers in South Korea are sitting ducks, but I wouldn't call the Korean War a failure.

It's a very different situation.

In both situations, we have a token force stationed in an allied country (Iraq/South Korea) right next to an enemy country with nuclear ambitions (Iran/North Korea) ruled by loco dictators (Ahmadinejad/Kim-Jong Il).

In the event of a full war, both token forces will be unable to stop the attacking armies/bombs (Iran/North Korea).

 

[Political Junky]

Yes, because Obama declared that the 50K troops still there can't defend themselves if need be.

Where'd you read that they can't defend themselves?

 

[R.C. Christian]

You people act as if you've never seen nation building before. I feel relatively certain that the sky isn't falling. I feel even more certain that those soldiers could use some rest.

 

[DiveCon]

Obama can't take them out because Bush and Republicans signed contracts and treaties keeping them hostage until Iraq is "rebuilt". We knew this before Bush left office. It was one of the campaign issues.

How quickly they forget.

Aw, you're ruining their fun with reality and truth.

You know the right wing kooks despise reality and truth.

Quit being so mean to them.

dont ever confuse anything rdean says with reality or truth