How many of you anti-war liberal wackos know what withdrawal means?

Question

Do you even realize withdrawal as defined by many leading democrats and the few republicans who support it means pulling back our troops, but NOT bringing them home? We would still maintain a sizable force level in Iraq and in the region and we would stil move in when necessary to deal with problems. That's what most mean when they say "withdrawal", including your fearless leader Hilary Clinton. What say you???

Answer 1

I'm antiwar .. BUT i am not pro-withdrawing the troops without putting in place a stable and strong peace keeping force....

Iraq was a MISTAKE .. and if you're a mature responsible adult you face up to your mistakes ..

It was a diversion , It was irrelevant , It was a shame that so many young men and women in the armed services and other innocent people have died in a war that was based on MIsinformation (if not down right lies) and personal vendettas and agendas... meanwhile AQ grows stronger ...
And I am NOT attacking the troops YOU and BUSH are the ones using them for cannon fodder

Answer 2

OK, I'm one of those anti-war Conservative wackos, but I'll respond anyway.

First, I don't think YOU really know what withdrawal means. Yes, Hillary Clinton is talking about maintaining bases in the area, and effectively her policy is only slightly different than the Bush policy. Basically, they are both interventionists. On the other hand, Ron Paul's policy is to completely withdraw, and NOT leave troops in the area to go back later. The idea of withdrawing is to NOT police the world.

As a conservative, I wouldn't be voting for Hillary anyway. But if I were truly anti-war, she'd probably be my last choice among the Democrats. Without a doubt, Ron Paul is my first choice overall, because in addition to practicing small government here at home, he proposes a small government outlook on the rest of the world. He realizes that we can't solve all the world's problems. If Iraq hasn't taught us that, I don't know what will.

Answer 3

That's exactly what I understand it to be, why would anyone think otherwise, I'm anti war but not a pacifist, I know we started a foolish war and in the words of a GOOD American Colin Powell you break it you bought it, I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with the terrible execution of the war by this administration and with my brothers and sisters trying to quell someone Else's civil war

Answer 4

properly, i don't recognize approximately that border safeguard concern, that dosn't appear as if them.. yet spending our funds right here particularly than there is clever to me. If we can be dumping billion of dollers someplace, i'd besides get a clean street or some wind powered electrical energy for it. I additionally think of that many of the liberals choose to concentration on terrorist threats someplace else particularly than putting around in a civil conflict, that seems to make sense to me too. I advise, heck, the liberals have on no account been against getting out and getting in touch interior the international, they simply think of this Iraq concern is dumb. that's what i think of, besides.

Answer 5

Yes. If anybody actually listened to what they were saying they would be aware of that. That's what they said from the beginning.

Bring some home, leave special forces in Iraq, send some to Afghanistan, shorten their stay, and lengthen their time off.
That is what they want to do.

Answer 6

Why do you resort to the name calling when you have a valid question? It sounds as though you are very impressed with your knowledge and if that's the case, there are people on this forum who respond to decent questions when they're not phrased so childishly.
At this point in time, us "anti-war liberal wackos" will have take whatever Mr. bush hands out. Whether it's withdrawal, bringing our troops home or having another surge, we just want the war to end and our troops to come home.

Answer 7

I say your illusion will burst in 08' considering seventy percent of America is now anti-war liberals by your definition. The Presidential veto override is coming, it's only a matter of time. Elections are getting closer all the time. We'll see what wins, the drive to stay in congress or the drive to stay in Iraq.

Answer 8

Was it necessary to say wackos? You could have asked your question without resorting to that. Maybe you even have a valid point to be made. But when you see "wackos" in your question it loses all creditability.

Answer 9

It's time for Iraqis to take control of their own country. This war is costing too much in lives, injuries, dollars and our reputation.

Answer 10

Who ever said anything different? Did you assume we thought anything different? What point are you trying to make? I guess I am just too much of wacko to understand what you are trying to say.