Obama "POSSIBLY" changing his position in IRAQ

[Vteckidd]

FARGO, N.D. - Democrat Barack Obama struggled Thursday to explain how his upcoming trip to Iraq might refine, but not basically alter, his promise to quickly remove U.S. combat troops from the war.
ADVERTISEMENT

A dustup over war policy — one of the main issues separating the Illinois senator from his Republican opponent, John McCain — overshadowed Obama's town-hall meeting here with veterans to talk about patriotism and his plans to care for them. Republicans pounced on the chance to characterize Obama as altering one of the core policies that drove his candidacy "for the sake of political expedience." He denied equally forcefully that he was shifting positions.

Arriving in Fargo, Obama hastily called a news conference to discuss news of a sixth straight month of nationwide job losses, but the questioning turned to Iraq policy and his impending trip there.

"I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he said. "I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy."

He left the impression that his talks with military commanders there could refine his promise to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office.

Less than four hours later, after the town hall meeting, Obama appeared before reporters for another statement and round of questions to "try this again."

"Apparently I was not clear enough this morning," he said. He blamed any confusion on the McCain campaign, which he said had "primed the pump with the press" to suggest "we were changing our policy when we haven't."

"I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end," he said. "I have also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out. That position has not changed. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position."

He promised to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his first day in office "and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war, responsibly and deliberately, but decisively."

He said that when he talked earlier about refining his policy after talking with commanders in Iraq, he was referring not to his 16-month timeline, but to how many troops may need to remain in Iraq to train the local army and police and what troop presence might be needed "`to be sure al-Qaida doesn't re-establish a foothold there."

"I will bring our troops out at a pace of one two brigades a month" which would mean the United States would be totally out of Iraq in 16 months. "That is what I intend to do as president of the United States."

But later in the session, he said it is possible the 16-month timeline could slip if the pace of withdrawal needs to be slowed some months to ensure troop safety. "I have always said ... I would always reserve the right to do what's best," Obama said.

During his presidential campaign, Obama has gone from the hard-edged, vocal opposition to Iraq that defined his early candidacy to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for the phased-out drawdown of all combat brigades that, at a rate of one or two a month, could take 16 months. He has said that if al-Qaida builds bases in Iraq, he would keep troops either in the country or the region to carry out "targeted strikes."

Republicans, who have claimed Obama needs an update on the situation in Iraq, e-mailed a midday broadside.

"There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the national Republican Party. "Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician."

McCain, has been a vocal supporter of the Iraq war and war policy has been a central disagreement between the two candidates.

But Obama insisted his position has not changed at all. He pointed out he has always said, "We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." This means, he said, that his 16-month timeline "was always premised on" not endangering either U.S. troops or Iraq's stability, which he had previously been told by commanders was possible.

"I'm going to continue to gather information to see whether those conditions still hold," he said. "My goal is to end this conflict as soon as possible."

"I continue to believe that it is a strategic error for us to maintain a long-term occupation in Iraq at a time when conditions in Afghanistan are worsening, al-Qaida is continuing to establish bases in areas of northwest Pakistan, resources there are severely strained and we are spending $10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq that we desperately need here at home, not to mention the strains on our military," Obama said.

Obama plans a visit this summer to Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The Illinois senator also has said he intends to visit Iraq and Afghanistan this summer as part of an official congressional trip that would be separate from the campaign-funded Mideast and European tour. It would be his second trip to Iraq.

Obama's Web site contains this direct promise about Iraq: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al-Qaida attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al-Qaida."

McCain was an early supporter of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq as President Bush did last year. He wants to pursue the current counterinsurgency tactics to give Iraqis time to work out a political reconciliation. He has said he's willing to see some U.S. troops stay there as much as 100 years but not if they are being wounded or killed in combat. Rather he supports keeping a military presence in that part of the world because of its volatility.

I mean come on, i know politicians change all the time, and im used to them not sticking to their guns, but this is a HUGE issue to me.

This is pretty blatant that he went from "ENDING THE WAR" to now "Withdraw in 16 months" to "ill do whatever is neccessary".

Thoughts?

[AnTi-PooN]

he has one letter in his name different than osama....

/thread

[Spektrewing386]

hes been on that 16 month thing for a while now if you havnt noticed.

well its better than 100 years

[MistaCee]

I'll take a necessary pull out > 100 yrs

[mocha latte cupcake]

call me wrong or something and i thank the armed forces men and women who keep us safe... but as long as that **** isn't happening on AMERICAN soil... thats what concerns me.

i enjoy the thought of being able to go into a major city and not have to worry about suicide bombings, planes falling out of the sky etc etc... so if having our troops over there means we can keep american citizens safer over here then i'm for it. i don't always agree with bush but i don't have a hate for him. i think that we are doing some good over there for all the BAD the media spreads around. Obama has never been a choice in my mind and won't ever be, however, as much as we might be fighting a "losing war" whats better? Keep some civilians in another country safe and keep our nation safe? or bring out troops home b/c we don't want our troops so see combat? they joined the armed forces for a reason, and i bet you it wasn't the "free college for a few years of service" every nation bad mouths us for being over there, but watch a terrorist kill 20 people in a bombing, and they come crying to america for help. we are the world police which can be good and bad, but either way, when **** happens people ask US for help, then ***** when we "invade" their country to get rid of their problems... can't please them all... but how happy were the iraqi people when we got rid of sadaam? (sp?) over joyed if i remember right. because even though there are "terrorist acts" over there right now, those people seem to feel ALOT safer with our marines, army, navy, and airforce watchin their ass then they did with the terrorist and "secret police force" running their cities...

[Spektrewing386]

The Iraqi people are happy that Saddam is gone, but they are unhappy with the American occupation in their country. The thing is that more people are dead as a result of this war than the number of people killed by the Black Friday chemical bombings of the Kurds in northern Iraq. Iraq may have more freedom now, but im pretty sure there are more people dieing each month in Iraq now than when Saddam was in power. Yes Saddam was bad, having rape rooms, acid drip rooms, making people swallow gasoline and then blowing them up, having special tests where some soldiers would break into other officer's bedrooms saying "We are going to overthrow Saddam, are you with us?" and if they say yes, they shoot him for being a traitor. We supported this guy in the 80s for some stupid reason, right after we sold Iran a bunch of our warplanes.

Yes there is much militia violence in Iraq due to power struggles and sectarian violence and anti-american violence. None of that was there with Saddam. And i dont think the solution to current problems is going to come from a country where propably a majorty of its citizens couldnt even locate Iraq on a map before 2003.

Oh, and there is NO correlation between Saddam Iraq and American safety. If you honestly believe that our occupation of Iraq keeps America safer, then I dont understand how you came to that conclusion. Iraq was not a threat to us, our CIA proved that, but the Pentagon was not using the CIA's information to make decisions, and thats a fact.

Terrorism is fought with intelligence and special ops units, not by a large sledge hammer being swung by a guy with mental issues. The people that wanted to invade Iraq do not understand what war is like, they do not see the lives of the people it touches. They were exempt from other wars. Rumsfeld and Cheney don't respect the citizens of other nations. They see it as a video game, as red and blue icons on a large map. They were never in Vietnam, watching a little girl's skin fall off due to burns.

Our country has opened a can of worms that should have been delt with in another way.

And you say:
"i bet you it wasn't the "free college for a few years of service"", which is totally untrue, many, many, many (maybe 40%?) are there for that reason. Combined with the reason that they don't yet know what they want to do in their life, so they join up. I have a friend in Iraq right now in Ramadi who joined the Marines because he just didnt know what he wanted to do in life. I also have a friend who's going to Iraq whos in the Army Airborne, he just wants some action, but hes tired of the Army now.

Our actions in Afghanistan are helping keep us safe, but Iraq, sorry no. And invading Iran will do squat for our safety too. We might be the "world police". If that is so we can compare ourselves to the bottom of the barrel of the LAPD.

[JDM onlyy]

I think Spektrewing386 is right. My friend is in Army Airborne and he's leaving to Iraq in November. He joined because he wasn't doing anything and they pay for his college. Same with his brother. His brother is joining to pay for college.

And what he said bout Iraq and Afghanistan, I think is true too. Wasn't Osama and the Taliban the ones who bombed the towers? Not Saddam. So why the hell are we even bothering with them?

[Spektrewing386]

So why the hell are we even bothering with them?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
- which Rumsfeld and Cheney are members of.

-and a little bit of the "military industrial complex" stuff that Eisenhower warned us about.

-The Wolfowitz Doctrine, which influences the Bush administration greatly.

[tony]

I knew from the start we wouldn't pull out immediately regardless of who gets in office. Iraq is not a quick fix problem.. its going to take time.

Spektrewing, on a side note what does your username refer to? Just curious.. nothing to do with the AC-130?

[Spektrewing386]

I knew from the start we wouldn't pull out immediately regardless of who gets in office. Iraq is not a quick fix problem.. its going to take time.


and now politicians are talking about Iran, you can read my last post in one of the threads from the whoreslounge about war in iran here: http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showpost.php?p=36927472&postcount=67

[Spektrewing386]

Spektrewing, on a side note what does your username refer to? Just curious.. nothing to do with the AC-130?


Well, i didnt like telling people my previous names cause they were even more stupid than my current one. The AC-130 is a cool plane, but im not a heavy plane kinda guy. i chose spektre because ghosts are cool, scary, and mysterious. and 'wing', because i wanted to throw something from the aviation world in there, and 386 has to do with my birthday.

[Vteckidd]

I knew from the start we wouldn't pull out immediately regardless of who gets in office. Iraq is not a quick fix problem.. its going to take time.

Spektrewing, on a side note what does your username refer to? Just curious.. nothing to do with the AC-130?

Tony what is your opinion on this latest news , i consider you the chief Obama supporter and prob know more about him than anyone else.

Does this bother you that he may POSSIBLY be flipping his position? or are people reading too much into it?

The deal with IRAQ, i think everyone in this thread is uneducated on the matter.

Look, the last time we neglected a terrorist was when Clinton was in office. His name was Osama Bin Laden and he crashed 2 planes into our buildings.

Saddam had defiend the UN for 12 years. He had gassed and mass murdered his own people and committed unspeakable war crimes and atrocities. He was anti israel (as most of the region is). He spoke FREELY about the desire to attack and destroy us and the Israelis.

We took him out, and i think after 9/11 we should have. He was the next big power threat against us. Now we underestimated the job in Iraq after major combat operations were over. But it doesnt mean its not working. IT IS WORKING the TIDE IS TURNING. The Surge has WORKED. Everyday there is progress. Like tony said its going to take time. But ultimately, 20-40-50-100 years from now it is in our best interest for that region to have some sort of democratic stability.

Think of our childrens future.

As for Iran, here is a company ADMITTINGLY DEVELOPING NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY. They have said they want to destroy Israel and the United States on MULTIPLE occasions. So i ask you this, if we IGNORE THEM, and CONCENTRATE on ourselves, what happens when they end up attacking us? Will you be the one that says we should have known, or it was our own fault, etc.

Its tough being the biggest superpower in the world, everyone wants you to topple, and yeah we are sticking our noses in other peoples territories but you have to realize these people WANT TO KILL US AND OUR WAY OF LIFE.

Withdrawing from Iraq means that you have forgotten 9/11 an the sacrifices the people made that day.

IMO

[Spektrewing386]

the reason bill didnt go after Osama when he knew his location as because last time he tried to take out a terrorist, he ended up destroying a medicine factory and it's workers by mistake.

You can call me uneducated on Iraq, but I can also call you uneducated on it too ;)
Doesnt mean I am just because you say so.


Israel and Iran had quite peaceful relations up until 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeni appeared on the scene and told people to start hating the West and Israel. We helped Iraq attack Iran which strained our Iran relationship. We shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing all aboard while we were in Iranian waters, no wonder they hate us.

Ahmadinejad's term is up in 2009 thank God. Bush's term is up in 2009 also thank God. Thing is, will the Iranians get a leader who tells his people to fear the United States along with us getting a leader who tells us to fear the Iranians?

Many people in America talk freely of killing everyone in the middle east. John McCain even openly joked about bombing Iran. Its all about what people tell you. Such as my mom, she hates motorcycles and forbids me to get one because all she knows about them is what she sees on the evening news about people crashing.

So many people blindly listen to their leader, we do, they do. It causes unnecessary problems. Basically its leader vs leader, not people vs people. War is people vs people brought on by leader vs leader.... then once the people start killing each other, it turns into people truley hating each other.

[BanginJimmy]

the reason bill didnt go after Osama when he knew his location as because last time he tried to take out a terrorist, he ended up destroying a medicine factory and it's workers by mistake.

this is the same Bill Clinton that randomly bombed Iraq, and Serbia whenever he got in trouble. I remember that clearly because I was on one of the boats that the the planes were launched from.



Israel and Iran had quite peaceful relations up until 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeni appeared on the scene and told people to start hating the West and Israel. We helped Iraq attack Iran which strained our Iran relationship. We shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing all aboard while we were in Iranian waters, no wonder they hate us.

Ahmadinejad's term is up in 2009 thank God. Bush's term is up in 2009 also thank God. Thing is, will the Iranians get a leader who tells his people to fear the United States along with us getting a leader who tells us to fear the Iranians?
Iranians also took about 70 Americans hostage at our own embassy and the Iranian govt did nothing. We should have shot 70 of their civilian airplanes out of the sky.

You say Ahmadinejad's out of office in 09, thats if he leaves or if he's not 're-elected'. Iran should definately be next on the list to remove. The are a threat and according to the Geneva Convention's defination they are at war with us.

[Spektrewing386]

Actually, we most likey more of a threat to them then they are to us.

The American hostage crisis was the response to Operation Ajax, how ironic... the hostage takers claim it was a 'preemptive strike' against another US coup d’état. Its a circle, keeps going round and round.


this is the same Bill Clinton that randomly bombed Iraq, and Serbia whenever he got in trouble. I remember that clearly because I was on one of the boats that the the planes were launched from.

he did bomb iraq... but bush did too (more than bombed apparently as we see today), and the operations in serbia were a peacekeeping operation to end an international war. Our and other nation's participation in it was totally legal. We didnt start it, we just ended it. Tito was a great leader of Yugoslavia and was actually a pretty good guy. He brought unity to the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians. Then the breakup happend in 89 and the Serbs got a bit crazy a few years later.


And yes Ahmadinejad's term is 4 years long and end next year, but hey, we elected an arsehole twice also. It could happen.

[n00bsrus]

obama is a secret terrorist. nuff said. all politicians are crooked anyways. he'll change his mind about 10 more times before november. don't sweat it

[blaknoize]

Still a whole lot faster than 100 plus years...

There is no way that he or anyone else would just pull out and leave. So ok, he moved it up to roughly a year. No surprises there.

[Lucky DAWG]

The Iraqi people are happy that Saddam is gone, but they are unhappy with the American occupation in their country. The thing is that more people are dead as a result of this war than the number of people killed by the Black Friday chemical bombings of the Kurds in northern Iraq. Iraq may have more freedom now, but im pretty sure there are more people dieing each month in Iraq now than when Saddam was in power. Yes Saddam was bad, having rape rooms, acid drip rooms, making people swallow gasoline and then blowing them up, having special tests where some soldiers would break into other officer's bedrooms saying "We are going to overthrow Saddam, are you with us?" and if they say yes, they shoot him for being a traitor. We supported this guy in the 80s for some stupid reason, right after we sold Iran a bunch of our warplanes.

Yes there is much militia violence in Iraq due to power struggles and sectarian violence and anti-american violence. None of that was there with Saddam. And i dont think the solution to current problems is going to come from a country where propably a majorty of its citizens couldnt even locate Iraq on a map before 2003.

Oh, and there is NO correlation between Saddam Iraq and American safety. If you honestly believe that our occupation of Iraq keeps America safer, then I dont understand how you came to that conclusion. Iraq was not a threat to us, our CIA proved that, but the Pentagon was not using the CIA's information to make decisions, and thats a fact.

Terrorism is fought with intelligence and special ops units, not by a large sledge hammer being swung by a guy with mental issues. The people that wanted to invade Iraq do not understand what war is like, they do not see the lives of the people it touches. They were exempt from other wars. Rumsfeld and Cheney don't respect the citizens of other nations. They see it as a video game, as red and blue icons on a large map. They were never in Vietnam, watching a little girl's skin fall off due to burns.

Our country has opened a can of worms that should have been delt with in another way.

And you say:
"i bet you it wasn't the "free college for a few years of service"", which is totally untrue, many, many, many (maybe 40%?) are there for that reason. Combined with the reason that they don't yet know what they want to do in their life, so they join up. I have a friend in Iraq right now in Ramadi who joined the Marines because he just didnt know what he wanted to do in life. I also have a friend who's going to Iraq whos in the Army Airborne, he just wants some action, but hes tired of the Army now.

Our actions in Afghanistan are helping keep us safe, but Iraq, sorry no. And invading Iran will do squat for our safety too. We might be the "world police". If that is so we can compare ourselves to the bottom of the barrel of the LAPD.



First off i find it funny that you are basing what the Iraqi People as a whole want off of a third person perspective, you don't know either way. But i know that at this point it is in our interest to stay, i don't want another Vietnam on our hands.



And in reference to the bolded... you can't be serious? Because your two friends didn't know what they wanted to do or just wanted some action then that means that they can use the army for as long as they want and now leave when they don't like it.


It doesn't work like that. They should have been more responsible and known what they are getting themselves into. I respect the military more then 90% of people out there... but not the guys who do it for the wrong reasons. If you are going to join the military know what you are getting yourself into

[Lucky DAWG]

the reason bill didnt go after Osama when he knew his location as because last time he tried to take out a terrorist, he ended up destroying a medicine factory and it's workers by mistake.

You can call me uneducated on Iraq, but I can also call you uneducated on it too ;)
Doesnt mean I am just because you say so.


Israel and Iran had quite peaceful relations up until 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeni appeared on the scene and told people to start hating the West and Israel. We helped Iraq attack Iran which strained our Iran relationship. We shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing all aboard while we were in Iranian waters, no wonder they hate us.

Ahmadinejad's term is up in 2009 thank God. Bush's term is up in 2009 also thank God. Thing is, will the Iranians get a leader who tells his people to fear the United States along with us getting a leader who tells us to fear the Iranians?

Many people in America talk freely of killing everyone in the middle east. John McCain even openly joked about bombing Iran. Its all about what people tell you. Such as my mom, she hates motorcycles and forbids me to get one because all she knows about them is what she sees on the evening news about people crashing.

So many people blindly listen to their leader, we do, they do. It causes unnecessary problems. Basically its leader vs leader, not people vs people. War is people vs people brought on by leader vs leader.... then once the people start killing each other, it turns into people truley hating each other.



What do you suggest? Some kind of unitarian government?


Thats why they are leaders, because we put them there or allowed them to get into that position. That is the only way you can truely organize this many people in this day and age. So i really don't know what your gripe is about until you have a more effective way of organizing 300 million people into being a thriving, infrastructure.

[JConner]

lol CHANGE! Change means that he will CHANGE his mind tomorrow!

[Alan®]

He will DEFINITELY change his position on Iraq and then he will be basically the same as McCain but people will still go no McCain is just Bush all over again :blah: :blah: :blah: . Like I said though not really surprised. I predicted this months ago when his advisors were telling him there was no way that he would be able to pull out in 16 months.

[Spektrewing386]

First off i find it funny that you are basing what the Iraqi People as a whole want off of a third person perspective, you don't know either way. But i know that at this point it is in our interest to stay, i don't want another Vietnam on our hands.


You just contradicted yourself. but vietnam was way worse than iraq, but still i dont see how staying there is not like vietnam (we stayed there for a while if your not aware). I'm im sure you know any better than me what the average Iraqi wants (sarcasm). Americans dont know what other countries want, because they are not them.





And in reference to the bolded... you can't be serious? Because your two friends didn't know what they wanted to do or just wanted some action then that means that they can use the army for as long as they want and now leave when they don't like it.


Yes I am serious. They knew what they were signing for. I have 1 buddy in the Marines in Ramadi, he did a semester of college then went to bootcamp. He doesnt really like it, but now he has some sort of direction in his life. He probably wont re-enlist. To him its just one of those life experiences you wont regret. Another coworker of mine joined the Army after finding out all his college choices sucked. Hes now in airborne soldier and is getting married (hes like 19). Another coworker joined the Navy as is learning to crew a nuclear submarine. Hes not patriotic at all, but he does love technology.



It doesn't work like that. They should have been more responsible and known what they are getting themselves into. I respect the military more then 90% of people out there... but not the guys who do it for the wrong reasons. If you are going to join the military know what you are getting yourself into

I respect the military, i'm thinking of joining the air force myself. What I do not repect is the leaders who keep pushing us into wars that do not need to be fought. Id fight for my country, not for some men on high horses.

[ShooterMcGavin]

It doesn't work like that. They should have been more responsible and known what they are getting themselves into. I respect the military more then 90% of people out there... but not the guys who do it for the wrong reasons. If you are going to join the military know what you are getting yourself into
fair enough, but that doesn't mean the military isn't propositioning the wrong ppl and enticing them to join for all the wrong reasons.

as for mr. hussein obama changing his story, who's really surprised? don't we all know by now that polichickens change their tune to garner more attention/popularity?

fact is, talk is cheap, that's why honestly it doesn't matter who is promising what RIGHT NOW. what actually will be won't be known until he becomes elected.

[BanginJimmy]

don't we all know by now that polichickens change their tune to garner more attention/popularity?

This is the only reason I have semi-supported Bush. At least he has stuck to his guns from day 1.

[ShooterMcGavin]

This is the only reason I have semi-supported Bush. At least he has stuck to his guns from day 1.
yeah but too bad his "guns" only shoots blanks...

[Lucky DAWG]

You just contradicted yourself. but vietnam was way worse than iraq, but still i dont see how staying there is not like vietnam (we stayed there for a while if your not aware). I'm im sure you know any better than me what the average Iraqi wants (sarcasm). Americans dont know what other countries want, because they are not them.





Yes I am serious. They knew what they were signing for. I have 1 buddy in the Marines in Ramadi, he did a semester of college then went to bootcamp. He doesnt really like it, but now he has some sort of direction in his life. He probably wont re-enlist. To him its just one of those life experiences you wont regret. Another coworker of mine joined the Army after finding out all his college choices sucked. Hes now in airborne soldier and is getting married (hes like 19). Another coworker joined the Navy as is learning to crew a nuclear submarine. Hes not patriotic at all, but he does love technology.



I respect the military, i'm thinking of joining the air force myself. What I do not repect is the leaders who keep pushing us into wars that do not need to be fought. Id fight for my country, not for some men on high horses.




Ofcourse i don't know what the average Iraqi wants, thats what i said. I said you shouldn't claim to either so that is an invalid argument. My point is that it doesn't matter now what STARTED the war or the reason for going. What matters now is that we are there and need to see it through.


I don't know much about the nuclear aspect of the war when we started years ago, but i saw somewhere on a news report that Hussein's last stockpile of Uranium for his nuclear program just reached a Candian port the other day, doesn't that sound like intent for Nuclear Activity regardless if there are found said bombs... I'm not trying to make a point here i'm just curious because thats what it sounded like to me.



And i think thats great your friends found a direction but i don't think trying to get out of a contract or leave early is the right way to go about it, i don't blame them for not re-enlisting, but i think they should honor their contract. Either way i'm glad they served the time they did.


And Shagwagon i agree the military caters to certain groups in the way they advertise themselves but can you not blame people for simply not reading under the dotted line at the end of the day.

I guess my point is i respect the military, but i think people should analyze things more before making that commitment. Like i said i don't know a whole lot about the military, just that there are certain amounts of time you must stay enlisted or what not to recieve benefits.

[Lucky DAWG]

fair enough, but that doesn't mean the military isn't propositioning the wrong ppl and enticing them to join for all the wrong reasons.

as for mr. hussein obama changing his story, who's really surprised? don't we all know by now that polichickens change their tune to garner more attention/popularity?

fact is, talk is cheap, that's why honestly it doesn't matter who is promising what RIGHT NOW. what actually will be won't be known until he becomes elected.


Very true, its been like that forever though. Sucks that its like that, but thats why i like McCain because he seems like the more natural guy who isn't reading everything off of a Telepromter, he can hardly even read it to begin with, so that would make it difficult lol. :lmfao:

[ShooterMcGavin]

And Shagwagon i agree the military caters to certain groups in the way they advertise themselves but can you not blame people for simply not reading under the dotted line at the end of the day.

it's just as easy to blame "those" groups of people as it would be the government that has done more than its fair share in letting them down so that they'd be in a situation where they wouldn't care to read the fine print. simply put, the military is the best option for them, while they might not necessarily be the best candidates the military would hope to seek out.

[imbatman]

I respect the military, ...... What I do not repect is the leaders who keep pushing us into wars that do not need to be fought. Id fight for my country, not for some men on high horses.


i feel the same way :yes:

[Spektrewing386]

but i think they should honor their contract. Either way i'm glad they served the time they did.



they honored their contract to the fullest. i dont understand. if your in the military and do as they say, how is that not honoring the contract? not honoring the contract is going AWOL, they are staying their 4 years.

[Lucky DAWG]

they honored their contract to the fullest. i dont understant. if your in the military and do as they say, how is that not honoring the contract? not honoring the contract is going AWOL, they are staying their 4 years.


my mistake, that was a problem in communication. I thought they were complaining and trying to leave early then their contract to stay in. In other words trying to get out before the 4 years.


My bad :cheers: