If Clinton promises to end the Iraq war if elected,how is she going to handle World War III ?

Question

Hey wait a minute-Is this just another one of those usual political ploys to win your & my vote......or what !!!??

That's a pretty loaded promise she made- CONSEQENCES are written all over that commitment!!

comments/ideas

YES World War III is an extreme-it was intentionally added to offer the absurd
parallel that this nit witted claim about
"ending the Iraq war"just like that,was made.

Answer 1

She will bring destruction to the U.S.A. She should never make promises that appear to show weakness in national security issues. The only way for the U.S.A. to survive through this period of time is to stay on the offensive, and keep the Islamic extremists fighting with each other, that way they don't have time to plot against us. Divide our enemies and we shall prevail...

Answer 2

Unfortunately, the only way to know if it is just
a promise to get votes, or the real deal would
be to elect her and find out.

I am a little leary of anyone who says that they
would do some particular thing (such as pull
the troops) without having the best information
available. Granted, even having the best
information available, doesn't mean that you'll
do the right thing (should GWB really have
invaded Iraq?).

However, standing on one's proverbial stump
and saying "If elected and the information I
have then still shows what I've been shown
now, I will xxxxx" ... won't get covered on CNN.

Any soldier, any military tactitian, will tell you
that there are times to stop fighting without
winning. We have seen absolutely no evidence
(credible or otherwise) that says that 20000
people more will turn the tide.

We have seen plenty of evidence that our
continued presense there is making the
situation worse. If we were to disappear
tomorrow, there would be a lot of blood shed
but it would reach equilibrium pretty quickly.

Sounds pretty cold ... but if you're counting
bodies, the other way is even colder.

We have the best troops in the world, but
they are only a tool of the American people.
If you try to use a tool for something it wasn't
designed for, you'll probably end up breaking
the tool.

Answer 3

I'm having a hard time understanding the uproar. The Democrats were voted in to do something about this war. As soon as they were voted in people were screaming why aren't they DOING anything, even before they were actually sworn in in January. Does anyone expect the next President to NOT end the war in Iraq? That's part of whole damn point of the mid-term votes for the Democrats - the people want resolution for this mess that Bush has created. So now a Presidential candidate stands up and actually says she will end the war - WHICH IS WHAT IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN WITH - and people are talking about it like they want the war to continue well into the next decade all of a sudden. What in the world is up with that? Shouldn't the next President end this debacle in Iraq? Isn't that what most of us expect? Yes, consequences are written all over it - the consequences of getting us out of this mismanaged excuse for a war that Bush had created. And this is a bad thing how? I have no problem imagining Hillary Clinton staring down a tyrant with those steely eyes while her mind calculates what is best for our country - in Iraq or God forbid, in WWIII if it comes about. People are never satisfied. They taunt because the Democrats aren't moving fast enough or sticking their necks out, and then when one has the guts to do so? They want to cut that head off.

*Nothing was said about ending the war "just like that." Those are your words, not hers. She's already given credible alternatives to the way we are doing things in Iraq. Several people have, for quite a long time. I'm impressed with the changes that Clinton suggests for getting a grip on this war. They make more sense than the continued failed plans of a President too arrogant to consider advice that doesn't match the echoes in his head.

Answer 4

“If the election were held today, Hillary Clinton would win (Ohio),” he said. “Those who say (she) can't win the White House because she can't win a key swing state like Ohio might rethink their assumption.”
The survey by the Connecticut college shows her narrowly topping the two leading GOP contenders: former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani by 3 points and Arizona Sen. John McCain by 4 points.
The Clinton campaign immediately touted the poll results in a news release.
“If Hillary leads in Ohio at this point in the race-- the key state that gave the last election to the Republicans-- then this confirms that Hillary can win and is today winning,” said Clinton chief strategist and pollster Mark Penn. “She is the strongest Democrat in what was the most difficult state.”
Among Buckeye State Republicans, it's Giuliani 30, McCain 22, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich 11 and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 4. (The margin of error for the Republicans is 4.6 points.)
The entire telephone poll of 1,305 Ohio voters Jan. 23 through Friday has an error margin of 2.7 percentage points.
The survey contained continuing bad news for President Bush. Only 34 percent support his plan for a surge of nearly 22,000 troops to Iraq. Just 31 percent approve how Bush is handling Iraq, and 37 now say going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do. Only 27 percent say the country is headed in the right direction.
Overall, the president's job approval rating remains at 34 percent, the same as in December.

Answer 5

quite, i'm exceptionally particular the Bible prophesy says that the completed international will be antagonistic to Israel. because the U. S. is status via Israel, i do not imagine the prophesy is authentic yet. for sure, if a Democrat will grow to be the subsequent President and makes a call that is too un-workstation to take Israel's part over Muslim terrorists for concern of searching like we hate all Muslims, we ought to offer up backing Israel. for sure, on account that the 12 tribes of Israel were scattered in the course of the globe, i imagine the prophesy reported the 12 tribes should be reunited. it ought to also be a metaphoric conflict antagonistic to "Israel" or God's chosed people (which also incorporates Christians). you ought to say that it really is already happening. that extremely should be a demonstration of the proper cases. as well to each thing else, like the Tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.

Answer 6

She's pulling a John Kerry right now. Telling radical groups like Code Pink that GW misused her vote for the war. However she told that same group back in '03 that she was sorry that she couldn't agree with Code Pinks anti-war stance because Saddam was a threat and had to be taken out.
She doesn't know what to do and if we leave now, regardless of why or how we got there, millions will die. The same as 3.5 million Vietnamese died after we left Vietnam. For the Sunni's sake they better hope we don't bail out because they are on the Shi'ites hit list when we do.

Answer 7

It was the craziest thing I'd heard in a long time!! She doesn't realize that while a lot of people are against the war they know we can't pull out? That it isn't a case of all the Demo's don't want the war and all the Republicans do and isn't she suppose to be wooing Republicans over to her side? Poetic justice once again!

Answer 8

You're right. She has no qualification for dealing with people like her husband. Her office was given to her out of sentiment for Bill Clinton. She's a screamer and a control freak...probably why Bill cheated on her.

She'll win and husband will walk into whitehouse for eight more years. Democrats will freak and break apart the party in two years. Weakness will cause major international problems...and it's STRONG people that keep us out of war, or can end wars.

World War III is possible with China.

Answer 9

Loaded is a good word for this campaign bull dookie. She has no more the ability to promise the end to war than any other person can.
Much to Hillary Clinton's dismay and denial, God is in control....not her.

Answer 10

She made a simple, popular, political statement.....as usual. The first thing she will say (remember....she IS a Clinton), is "what exactly is the definition of 'end'?" She gains popularity, since everyone wants the war to end (everyone wants EVERY war to end!), but doesn't need any sort of plan (or even the slightest clue) on how to do it. It's simple economics of voting....what will I pay (demand) for the people's votes (supply).