No,I don't get the vibe....We will leave when it is time.
2007-06-15 16:56:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by ♥ Mel 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
yea that is pretty much the plan
all these cfr members want the oil and are using iraq to start pre-emptive wars with other countries such as Iran. We will go into Iran on pre-emption if another CFR member is elected. Make no mistake
Precisely I would never ever vote for the following:
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
Fred Thompson
John McCain
Bill Richardson
Newt Gingrich
Barack Obama
Chris Dodd
Despite what they say about all the good things they would do because they are members of the CFR. and want to obliterate the borders and our national sovereignty.
Not a myth, not a theory ....A FACT. Research the paper entitled Building a North American Community of the CFR website.
President of CFR RIchard Haas said " Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change...sovereignty must be redefined if the states are to cope with globalisation"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo5czvd3-...
Not my idea of the world Iwant my children to live in I am sorry.
2007-06-15 18:23:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Beauty&Brains 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I keep hearing people now talk about that we may have to stay for 50 years. I'm sorry, but we didn't sign up for that. Even Hillary is talking about leaving a "permanent presence". How is that any different? It's just fewer troops...will that make them safer?
This is where I start to think that Ron Paul has the right idea. Just pull them out and come home. I know he's a straight-forward and thoughtful person, but I never was quite a non-interventionist. Lately, though I've started thinking. Does anyone even know why we have troops stationed in 120 different places around the world? No wonder we get ourselves into so much trouble. Seriously, do we need troops in Germany anymore? Does anyone seriously think the Nazis are coming back there? And in Iraq...how is what we're doing now going to make things any better? Seriously. What is our goal? What is our mission? Is anyone even asking these questions? If the goal is to have troops there in case we catch someone shooting at our troops, where's the logic?
2007-06-15 17:24:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by skip742 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are right, do you think the Republicans even have an inkling to leave the worlds 5th largest oil reserve? Many companies are pulling oil out of Iraq! Exxon and another US company sends a super tanker once a month to pick up 4 MILLION Barrels!
Read between the lines!
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago 7/5/07
WASHINGTON - Several Republican senators Tuesday called for
President Bush to implement a new war strategy based on recommendations by the
Study Group, which advocated winding down the U.S. combat mission.
"The president needs bipartisan support if the United States is to sustain a long-term position in Iraq," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn.
The message that must be sent to the president is, "Let's see if we can agree on an entire approach so you can have the kind of support you need," he said……..
If certain steps were taken, most troops could come home by early 2008 and a smaller contingent of forces could stay to support the Iraqis and strike al-Qaida targets, the panel said."
The president needs bipartisan support if the United States is to sustain a long-term position in Iraq," said Sen. Lamar Alexander
Get it?
2007-06-15 16:58:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
you're spectacular suited, do you think of of the Republicans even have an inkling to bypass away the worlds 5th appropriate oil reserve? Many companies are pulling oil out of Iraq! Exxon and yet yet another US company sends an miraculous tanker as quickly as a month to %. up 4 MILLION Barrels! learn between the traces! by utilising ANNE FLAHERTY, correct Press author 6 minutes interior the previous 7/5/07 WASHINGTON - limitless Republican senators Tuesday referred to as for President Bush to implement a sparkling conflict attitude in preserving with recommendations by utilising the learn team, which counseled winding down the U.S. try against challenge. "The president desires bipartisan help if the country is to shelter a protracted-term place in Iraq," stated Sen. Lamar Alexander (information, bio, vote casting record), R-Tenn. The message that ought to desire to be sent to the president is, "enable's see if we are able to agree on an entire attitude so which you have have been given this manner of assist you like," he stated…….. If particular steps have been taken, optimal troops could come back residing domicile by utilising early 2008 and a smaller contingent of forces could stay to help the Iraqis and strike al-Qaida targets, the panel stated." The president desires bipartisan help if the country is to shelter a protracted-term place in Iraq," stated Sen. Lamar Alexander Get it?
2016-10-17 10:34:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ask Hilary, even while she speaks of cutting and running, she's secretly talking about how long the reality of the troops over there is. She said that the troops will be over there for at least 10 years or longer, while saying in the public debate that within the first 100 days in office she'll withdraw.
2007-06-15 17:21:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
We still have bases in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. So why would you be surprised by having permanent bases in Iraq or anywhere else? I feel it's a very good idea to maintain a strong presence in such a very unstable part of the world. Not to mention how unstable the people are.
2007-06-15 17:26:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure looks like it. We're building permanent type bases and support bases. The UN just announced that we need to stay longer. You're right about the embassy. Yeah, we're not leaving for quite awhile.
2007-06-15 17:02:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
No I do not--We must leave and soon. The Embassy compound most likely will be blown to bits as soon as the enemy figure out how to get close enough.
2007-06-15 16:57:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by Joan J 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
We are still in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. It has not hurt us any and it has certainly helped those countries a ton. So, so what if we "never" leave Iraq? Eventually, Iraq would stablize and grow their economy ((like most areas in Iraq are currently doing very well)). www.dryflypolitics.com
2007-06-16 02:54:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by sbay311 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, here's the score so far in the countries we've waged war against:
Germany...still there SIXTY-TWO years after WWII.
Japan...ditto, also SIXTY-TWO years.
Italy...ditto again.
Korea...still there FIFTY-FOUR years after Korean conflict.
Iraq...take a wild guess!
2007-06-15 16:59:30
·
answer #11
·
answered by backinbowl 6
·
1⤊
0⤋