ThomasK wrote:
WAKE UP! That's not what I said. If I did, prove it. You have to lie to make your point.
Very well, Thomas, pay attention, here comes the proof.

The statement of mine you take issue with is:

"You say you were not in favor of going into Iraq in the first place, but are in favor of being there now."

You said this above:

"Just because I have never said that we should have gone into Iraq" and earlier you said "I never was a fan of going into Iraq."

My statement "You say you were not in favor of going into Iraq in the first place" is clearly supported by both of your statements. No lie there. Perhaps a comprehension problem on your end. How long has it been since you had your eyes checked?

As for the balance of my statement, "but are in favor of being there now" that one is simple logic. If you are not in favor of leaving, then you are, by definition, in favor of staying. Elementary, my dear Thomas, elementary. Never mind the fact that you are arguing the point of staying right now.

As far as Obama, if he is saying to let the events dictate the withdrawal, then why does he want to pull out one brigade a month immediately if he gets elected? He backtracks.
Wants to pull out one brigade immediately? Sure. why not? Does that mean he will? Nope. Once again, the situation on the ground will dictate. You seem to forget what I said above. Here...let me refresh your memory.

truthhurts wrote:
Things can change. Obama will not back himself in the same corner Bush always does, namely, decide on a course of action and then stick to it no matter what happens or what additional evidence comes in. That is, well, stupid, and exactly the mind set that got us in this mess in the first place.

ThomasK wrote:
As far as improvements in Iraq, there HAS been improvement, whether you want to believe it or not. Even your "GUY", admits it. He's even backtracking because of it.
Has there been some improvement? Sure, mostly because of the surge troops and the fact that we were basically paying opposing factions to not fight each other, not to mention Iran stepping in from time to time. Gee, I wonder what their motive is? Now that the surge troops have left, we'll see how long it lasts. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Time will tell. The rash of new violence lately is not a good sign, though, is it?

You never did answer my question about how long you think we should stay in a combat role though. Wanna try again?

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
WAKE UP! That's not what I said. If I did, prove it. You have to lie to make your point.
Very well, Thomas, pay attention, here comes the proof.

The statement of mine you take issue with is:

"You say you were not in favor of going into Iraq in the first place, but are in favor of being there now."

You said this above:

"Just because I have never said that we should have gone into Iraq" and earlier you said "I never was a fan of going into Iraq."

My statement "You say you were not in favor of going into Iraq in the first place" is clearly supported by both of your statements. No lie there. Perhaps a comprehension problem on your end. How long has it been since you had your eyes checked?

As for the balance of my statement, "but are in favor of being there now" that one is simple logic. If you are not in favor of leaving, then you are, by definition, in favor of staying. Elementary, my dear Thomas, elementary. Never mind the fact that you are arguing the point of staying right now.

As far as Obama, if he is saying to let the events dictate the withdrawal, then why does he want to pull out one brigade a month immediately if he gets elected? He backtracks.
Wants to pull out one brigade immediately? Sure. why not? Does that mean he will? Nope. Once again, the situation on the ground will dictate. You seem to forget what I said above. Here...let me refresh your memory.

truthhurts wrote:
Things can change. Obama will not back himself in the same corner Bush always does, namely, decide on a course of action and then stick to it no matter what happens or what additional evidence comes in. That is, well, stupid, and exactly the mind set that got us in this mess in the first place.

ThomasK wrote:
As far as improvements in Iraq, there HAS been improvement, whether you want to believe it or not. Even your "GUY", admits it. He's even backtracking because of it.
Has there been some improvement? Sure, mostly because of the surge troops and the fact that we were basically paying opposing factions to not fight each other, not to mention Iran stepping in from time to time. Gee, I wonder what their motive is? Now that the surge troops have left, we'll see how long it lasts. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Time will tell. The rash of new violence lately is not a good sign, though, is it?

You never did answer my question about how long you think we should stay in a combat role though. Wanna try again?

Good greif. So by your twisted illogical logic, since Obama says he's not going to withdraw if there is progress, "then OBAMA AND YOU are, by definition, in favor of staying. Elementary, my dear TRUTH"

So you are admitting the surge worked. Now that the surge has ended and Obama has admitted progress is still being made, then by your logic....

As far as how long the combat role should be; it depends. Don't you agree? After all Obama agrees.

BTW, I have never voted a straight ticket. Something you could never say.

ThomasK wrote:
Good greif. So by your twisted illogical logic, since Obama says he's not going to withdraw if there is progress, "then OBAMA AND YOU are, by definition, in favor of staying. Elementary, my dear TRUTH"
Sigh. Try and get this right, Thomas.

1. Obama's current plan is to withdraw troops gradually over a 16 month period.

2. That figure can (and more than likely will) change depending on how conditions are when he takes office, or as things change after he takes office. Maybe it will be 18 months, maybe 20 months, maybe 24. No way to tell at present.

3. There is no open ended, "we're staying the course no matter how long it takes" in Obama's plan, though, which is what you are inferring. Perhaps you are confused...that's McCain's plan, the 100 year plan.

Got it yet?

So you are admitting the surge worked. Now that the surge has ended and Obama has admitted progress is still being made, then by your logic....
Lots of possible reasons violence went down. All pieces of a puzzle. Iran stepping in and pulling strings behind the scenes could have had much more of an impact than the surge. And paying them to not fight certainly did not hurt, did it? Bottom line is that it was a combination of things. Time will tell if the surge really did work. Or are you willing to pronounce judgment now? If the violence re-escalates, the surge will have been nothing more than a mirage.

Oh, BTW, the purpose of the surge in the first place was to buy the Iraqi Government some time to get their act together. If their act is now "together", then we should be able to pull out, oh, anytime. If their act is not together, then, pray tell, when will it be?

Oh, and for the third time, how long do you think we should stay there in a combat role? You have avoided the question twice. Wanna make it a third time?

BTW, I have never voted a straight ticket. Something you could never say.
Wanna bet? Facts:

1. I have never voted a straight ticket, ever. Not even close.

2. I was never a registered Republican or Democrat, but always considered myself more the former than the latter. Bush and the neo-conservative right turned me the other way...big time. They are that bad, that disgusting. Plus, I have developed a more compassionate side as I have grown older. Don't mind seeing my tax money going to help those in need and for social programs, and I do mind he rich getting special privileges. They don't need them.

2. Until John Kerry in 2004, I had never voted for a Democrat for President. Yes, that means I voted for the dimwit in 2000. I learned from the mistake...what's your excuse?

You can now admit your error.

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Good greif. So by your twisted illogical logic, since Obama says he's not going to withdraw if there is progress, "then OBAMA AND YOU are, by definition, in favor of staying. Elementary, my dear TRUTH"
Sigh. Try and get this right, Thomas.

1. Obama's current plan is to withdraw troops gradually over a 16 month period.

2. That figure can (and more than likely will) change depending on how conditions are when he takes office, or as things change after he takes office. Maybe it will be 18 months, maybe 20 months, maybe 24. No way to tell at present.

3. There is no open ended, "we're staying the course no matter how long it takes" in Obama's plan, though, which is what you are inferring. Perhaps you are confused...that's McCain's plan, the 100 year plan.

Got it yet?

So there is no way to tell when all the troops should be pulled out? In other words there is no date set, right? Sounds open ended to me.


truthhurts wrote:

Oh, and for the third time, how long do you think we should stay there in a combat role? You have avoided the question twice. Wanna make it a third time?

There is no way to tell at present. Does that help?


truthhurts wrote:

1. I have never voted a straight ticket, ever. Not even close.

2. I was never a registered Republican or Democrat, but always considered myself more the former than the latter. Bush and the neo-conservative right turned me the other way...big time. They are that bad, that disgusting. Plus, I have developed a more compassionate side as I have grown older. Don't mind seeing my tax money going to help those in need and for social programs, and I do mind he rich getting special privileges. They don't need them.

2. Until John Kerry in 2004, I had never voted for a Democrat for President. (Don't feel so bad, I voted for Carter. BIG MISTAKE. I think I had a crisis of conscience)Yes, that means I voted for the dimwit in 2000. I learned from the mistake...what's your excuse?

You can now admit your error.

I was in error. Good for you.

ThomasK wrote:
So there is no way to tell when all the troops should be pulled out? In other words there is no date set, right? Sounds open ended to me.

Want to play word games, huh? Hey, I understand...you gotta use the tools you have.

No specific date set? That is correct, Obama has set no specific date. Saying "We will be out by this date, period" would be a a sign of a bad leader. Kinda like Bush when he refuses to budge on his decisions. He's "The Decider", you know.

Open ended? Only if you consider the difference between 16 months and, perhaps, 24 months to be open ended. So how open ended is the McCain plan, Thomas? You know, the "We stay until it's finished, no matter how long it takes, how much it costs, or how many of our soldiers are killed" plan. On the scale of "open-endedness", how does 16-24 or so months (the Obama Plan) compare to "Who the hell knows, as long as is takes, even if it is 100 years" (the McCain Plan)?

Which is more open ended?

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
So there is no way to tell when all the troops should be pulled out? In other words there is no date set, right? Sounds open ended to me.

Want to play word games, huh? Hey, I understand...you gotta use the tools you have.

No specific date set? That is correct, Obama has set no specific date. Saying "We will be out by this date, period" would be a a sign of a bad leader. Kinda like Bush when he refuses to budge on his decisions. He's "The Decider", you know.

Open ended? Only if you consider the difference between 16 months and, perhaps, 24 months to be open ended. So how open ended is the McCain plan, Thomas? You know, the "We stay until it's finished, no matter how long it takes, how much it costs, or how many of our soldiers are killed" plan. On the scale of "open-endedness", how does 16-24 or so months (the Obama Plan) compare to "Who the hell knows, as long as is takes, even if it is 100 years" (the McCain Plan)?

Which is more open ended?

Obama is the one using word play. Whether you want to believe it or not, he does not have a specific date. What exactly is it going to take for him completely withdraw? More violence, less violence, no violence. Strong government, weak government, no government? He is getting away with people thinking he is going to withdraw without being specific. Do you really think he will withdraw no later than 24 months? What happens in 24 months? What if some progress has been made? Then what is he going to do? Pull out no matter what? And that makes sense how?


Come on Truth, he's a politician. So is McCain. They'll play to whatever tune their constituents want to hear. You want to hear he'll be totally, completely out of Iraq no more than 24 months after he is in office, go ahead. That's about as real as the Tooth Fairy.

You want to know what I really think? We'll be there a lot longer than we want to be.