Obama has promised to remove all troops within 16 months.

...and they both want to increase troops in Afghanistan.

There's no real difference in philosophy between the two -- to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Both Senators are interventionists. They just don't agree on how to go about intervening.
 
...and they both want to increase troops in Afghanistan.

There's no real difference in philosophy between the two -- to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Both Senators are interventionists. They just don't agree on how to go about intervening.

I was thinking that today. Didnt obama say something about increasing troops in afganistan by 15,000 or more?
 
...and they both want to increase troops in Afghanistan.

There's no real difference in philosophy between the two -- to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Both Senators are interventionists. They just don't agree on how to go about intervening.

I agree on increasing troops in afghanistan. The Taliban is returning to power there.


I really doubt any of us were against the Aghanistan war. Not even Ron Paul was against it.
 
electronicmaji, do you have a link for this? I can't believe he would advocate removing all US troops. That's big news.
 
Obama is only against the war in Iraq now (after voting to fund it) because he wants to take it elsewhere in the region. The simple fact that he believes there is such thing as a "war on terror" proves he is no better than the neocons. Move those troops around all you want, as long as the war profiteers keep profiting, and nobody mentions our hundreds of bases around the rest of the world.

and Ron voted for going after those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, not turning Afghanistan into another block for nationbuilding.
 
He was probably just pandering to the anti-war people in the crowd like when he pandered to the Jews at AIPAC.... Right, EMI?

Gotta get those votes by whatever means necessary!
 
Two Questions

And McCain continues to attack him. I think this shows me where the two really stand on the war.

What's Obama's Constitutional reasoning (if any) for removing all troops from Iraq, and where does he want to put them next?
 
What's Obama's Constitutional reasoning (if any) for removing all troops from Iraq, and where does he want to put them next?
The constitution doesn't motivate him.
It's just the democrats' turn to pose as the "opposition party."
He wants to put them in Afghanistan, perhaps Iran, and perhaps Pakistan
 
From Obama's website:
Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel.

So, Obama's Iraq position has not changed -- he's not ending the occupation, and will continue military operations there with US troops. He's going to continue to employ Blackwater. He will not remove all US troops.
 
From Obama's website:


So, Obama's Iraq position has not changed -- he's not ending the occupation, and will continue military operations there with US troops. He's going to continue to employ Blackwater. He will not remove all US troops.

Ask him, will he continue to build/support a Vatican sized embassy in Iraq?
How many troops would he leave, and where would they be stationed?
Will we have permanent bases in Iraq?
 
Ask him, will he continue to build/support a Vatican sized embassy in Iraq?
How many troops would he leave, and where would they be stationed?
Will we have permanent bases in Iraq?

Sure he will. But unlike McCain we will not have the same troop levels we have now in Iraq for the next 100 years.

There is a difference.
 
jesse_jackson_duke.jpg
 
Back
Top