Town Square

Post a New Topic

"End the war in Iraq, and win the war in Afghanistan"

Original post made by Gary, Downtown North, on Mar 4, 2008

Hillary just said this. Could somebody please explain how she plans to do both at the same time? Is this how our next, potential, Commander in Chief, will try to cope with the world stage? Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, would never have made such a statement.

Comments (22)

Like this comment
Posted by a
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Mar 5, 2008 at 9:24 am

I don't know, Hillary to me is a walking contradiction. She reminds me of the Bush administration - say one thing, do another. Remember "missions accomplished" & victory way back? But we're still in Iraq which will cost us $3 trillion.

This is why I voted for Obama - because he knew, as I knew, that we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place. Hillary was only too eager to send us there and fund it.

I remember seeing her on CSPAN standing up in the Senate to applaud the decision to go to Iraq.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 5, 2008 at 11:11 am

Give us a break. Margaret Thatcher was not stupid. She did not start wars without plans for winning them.

Hillary has an excellent point. Why keep on losing two wars? Pick the one with a payoff and go for the win.

Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 5, 2008 at 12:43 pm


Plans for winning wars, and actually winning wars are ususally two different things. Lincoln thought the little dust up at Bull Run # 1 (First Manassas)would be a stinging lesson to the South, and it would back down. Stonewall Jackson got his moniker by destroying Lincoln's plans. Grant and Sherman were eventually left the dirty task of actually winning the war.

Bill Clinton promised a short commitment of US troops in the Balkans...we are still there, and Kosovo has declared independence. Expect some repersussion withing the next few years. That war is endless, and the EU is beyond feckless.

There is no winning in Afghanistan without a win in Iraq. The liberation of Arabs, especially Sunnis, to choose their own leaders...and to accept changes in power, is such a revolutionary thing, that it will reverberate around the Muslim world. A failure in Iraq will just mean more of the same, and Afghanistan will never be won.

Hillary is in over her head. Thatcher would NEVER have made that statement!

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 5, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Ah, Gary. You've been reading Lewis Carroll again.

Even the Cheney/Bush puppet government in Iraq is no fool. It knows where the wind blows and where the power is, which is why it's sucking up to Iran. That war was lost by incompetence at the top in 2003, and no amount of surging can save it.

Hillary's got it right: Better to win what we can and have to. Afghanistan has no oil, but it grows opium poppies and terrorists big time, right under the Cheney/Bush nose.

Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 5, 2008 at 3:12 pm

There's no winning in the Middle East without defeating Iran--better sooner than later.

Like this comment
Posted by rw
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 5, 2008 at 3:17 pm

R Wray,
You are a war mongerer.
This whole idea of "war = peace" is plain insanity.
War with Iran is tantamount to a third world war in which millions would perish. The U.S. economy is in the gutter and the Iraq war debt helped get us there. Have you looked at the value of the U.S. $ lately?

A war with Iran would simply destitute the U.S.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 5, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Defeat Iran? Now? With what? Our Army, Marines, and Air Force are mired down staying the course in Iraq. Our leftover forces are losing even Afghanistan.

Defeat Iran?? Ho, ho, haw, haw, whoo-boy. Get real.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 5, 2008 at 4:07 pm

The biting irony is that Wray might be right.

But the US cannot act. Our commander in chief and his handlers have so thoroughly bungled the situation to Iran's advantage that they may as well have been working for Iran.

Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 5, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Paul and the others like you..what are you going to do when Bush leaves and there is no one left to blindly hate and blame everything on?

I have to laugh at the irony of the far left despising fundamentalist religions, and yet they just as blindly follow the dictates of or the daily kooks

You are the whole reason we will stay a volunteer military....those in the military would rather have 10 smart and committed guys by their sides than 100 like you.

In the meantime, they will keep fighting for liberty and justice for ALL, even you, even would be suicide-murderer bombers, and even the most disgusting, for those who use innocents, like children and the mentally retarded, as walking bombs.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 5, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Goodness. Some people have no gratitude. I show why our valiant military and our country are in such an awful mess and here's what I get.

Blindly follow dictates? I'm not the one worshipping the draft-dodging deserter and his draft-dodger boss who got us into this fix.

Far left? Just for that I won't offer to show you my Barry Goldwater '64 campaign memorabilia collection.

Like this comment
Posted by Please
a resident of Stanford
on Mar 5, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Israel-Firsters automatically label anyone a liberal when they express the slightess reluctance to murder Arabs, destroy the US economy with inextinguishable war debt, legalize torture, or shred our Constitution.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 5, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Please help me with this one, Gary: "Bill Clinton promised a short commitment of US troops in the Balkans...we are still there"

Bill Clinton may have put the troops there, but who's been commander in chief for the past 7 years and could have ordered the troops out anytime he wanted?

Weren't we likewise promised a short war in Iraq? The troops would come home in August 2003, and the $60B war bill would be paid by selling the bounteous oil the grateful Iraqis would bestow upon us.

Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 5, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Wow, what were you smokin' that you heard that the troops would come home in Aug 2003?

EVERY analyst predicted a minimum of 5 years, then a draw down to about 30,000 troops for stability. I believe we would have achieved that except for those in THIS country who enabled and emboldened the fascists.

But, in spite of the enemies within, freedom is prevailing in Iraq. My bet..down to 60,000 before November.

Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 5, 2008 at 9:54 pm

And, what 60 billion? It was predicted to be 400 billion, which any one knows is really at least 500 billion. We are up to 600 billion.

And, where did you hear that we would be paid back in oil? We have never taken anything back for helping a people. Our reward is the stability and peace of a region, which brings about prosperity and trade.

Now is the time to invest in Iraq.

Like this comment
Posted by Quit the Drivel
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 5, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Gee Paul, didn't that draft-dodging B.J. Clinton (the one you worship) give us 9/11 by refusing to deal with terrorism during his corrupt regime, like the attacks on the World Trade Center (in '93), on the Cole, etc.? Didn't he commit a war crime for forcing our military to bomb Serbian civilians from the air, all based on the lie of so called ethnic cleansing? Seems like you cherry pick your reality, like all liberals do.
No one who could have ever considered voting for Barry Goldwater, could possibly hold the views that you do today, unless senility has set in.

Like this comment
Posted by Please
a resident of Stanford
on Mar 6, 2008 at 5:48 am

Here's video from 2003 of Israel-First puppet Donald Rumsfeld:

Web Link

The Iraq war will last "six days, six weeks, I doubt six months."

Like this comment
Posted by Boaz
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Mar 6, 2008 at 6:32 am

Please--no one cares about your comments. We know what you are up to.
in the meantime Israel; is destroying Hamas in Gaza--Hamas leaders are hiding with their tail between their legs and crapping in their pink lace panties.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 6, 2008 at 10:18 am

Ah yes QTD. Eyes ever firmly on the rear-view mirror. Never saw that broken bridge up ahead by the Bush, did you.

I am not a Clinton defender, but I give him his due. Like Cheney and Bush he dodged the draft. However, he didn't do it Bush-style, joyriding jets at taxpayer expense at a guaranteed safe distance from enemy bullets, then blithely walking away when the TNG began testing its pilots for drugs. He knew his politically powerful Daddy would shield him from the consequences of desertion. Cheney, as we recall, had "other priorities than military service" during the sixties. He got married, then bred up a daughter, keeping just ahead of the steadily disappearing draft deferments.

Whether Clinton's actions in the Balkans are a war crime is up to the world court, which Bush and his handlers refuse to deal with, thereby shielding Clinton. Go figure.

Terrorism? Who was it that blew off direct warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack while on vacation in Crawford Texas? (Osama had neglected to give him a calendar. How gauche.) Clinton launched two direct counter-terrorist attacks that I recall (and do you remember Desert Fox?), but I also recall he was distracted from defending America by a peculiar Republican obsession with his sex life.

I didn't get to vote for Barry Goldwater because I was too young. However, I did and continue to admire him. Too bad he's been thoroughly dissed by self-styled modern conservatives (great oxymoron there, no?). But then, Barry had principles. How gauche.

Like this comment
Posted by perspective.
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 6, 2008 at 1:38 pm


I guess you have no idea how the current Democrat rules ( with the "super delegate" stuff meant to override the popular vote) came to be, do you? Conservatives didn't define Goldwater, he did it all by himself.

Check out Goldwater years. YOU are the very reason the Democrats made the new rules. They didn't want another Goldwater to guarantee another Republican what happens if Obama gets the nomination.

Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of another community
on Mar 6, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Paul, you constantly post Bush hating comments are all over Town Square. Your vitriol is extreme and your accusations are unfounded. But when hate has taken over, one loses the ability to be rational and objective - as you have. It is clear that you will continue to believe whatever suits you, and there can be no real dialogue with you.
I can't imagine what principals of Goldwater's you admire. Perhaps you could list them. Goldwater is considered to be the founder of the modern conservative movement. He inspired Reagan.
While Bush is no conservative, he is not a manipulator or a liar. He speaks straightforwardly and does what he believes is right (though many in his party disagree with him). Much of the Bush bashing that goes on is just nasty politics.
As a psychologist I am a trained observer of behavior and personality characteristics. These characteristics reveal more about an individual than most people realize. They have shown me a great deal about who Bush is and about his detractors. You may disagree with Bush's views and decisions, but you have misjudged the man.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Thanks, Observer. Your response is written at a level far above what I usually get in these forums. But its content is on par.

I only report the facts. Nobody has challenged any of them. But I understand the ire. Every patriot should be enraged at what has been done to America in the past 7 years. Unfortunately too many readers, like yourself, cannot see beyond personalities and reflexively respond as though I am attacking the perps personally. I call it the "People Magazine" syndrome; given your trade, maybe you have a more academic characterization.

But, having been much accused, I decided I might as well be guilty, hence the past couple of posts.

I cannot improve on Harry Truman's observation: "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."

Like this comment
Posted by JustMe
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 13, 2008 at 6:43 pm

To the War Supporters -
The issue is not if the war is going well or not or if we won or
lost. The issue is that we attacked another country for no reason
except that Saddam was a jerk and we wanted to spread democracy.
My answer to that - gimme a break, "Our best friends are some of
the worst despots in the world" and "none of your damn business"

thousands of iraqi civilians died in the american bombings and many
american soldiers. This president has not even captured the
criminal who killed 3000 americans in one stroke.
What mission accomplished? What a horrible president!
God help us if he is the best this country can do.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 11 comments | 939 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 828 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 600 views