Really? Dispute it. Dispute it. Dispute it. Dispute it. Your opinion that we should pick up our marbles and go home is not shared by sane people. Your continual statement that we should not have gone to war is not a checkmate. It is the cries of a child. Or senility. But come on back with another drive by. opcorn:
The analogy I like to use is that of frying a frog in a skillet. The old wives' tale says that if you throw the frog in a hot skillet he'll jump out, but put him in one that's at room temperature and he'll just sit there. Heat the skillet up slowly and he'll keep sitting there until he's cooked. Obama is our hot skillet. We're mostly cooked as it is, but with him we're finally jumping out of the pan.
I've heard it as a frog in hot water, but I get your meaning. Personally, I think the Obama administration is more like the really hot-looking, exotic chick (at 1am) who turns out to be a semi-homeless mother of two with VD (at 9am)... And it's now 10:30... But everyone has their own perspective...
Un-Declared War Congress didn't vote to declare it See above And he hasn't pulled them yet. As for his reasoning, you will have to ask him. Next
But this is absurd. Have you already forgotten? The last administration left in disgrace after being unable to finish its wars with its policy of "stay the course". The surge was in 2006. Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform of disengagement from Iraq. He's withdrawing troops from Iraq not sending in more. And he's stepping up the effort in Afghanistan, which Bush neglected and almost let get out of control. More troops on the ground and we are finally hitting them hard in Pakistan, who Bush was afraid to antagonize. This is misleading. None of the troop proposals (including the militray commanders') specified those troop arriving for another 10 months. Six weeks for a new President to make sure of the strategy for employing those troops is not only wise but prudent, and it didn't affect deployment by a single day.
No, it's not absurd, it's absolutely correct. And, as a matter of fact, this pullout was already beginning to be discussed before I even left Iraq in 2006, just when the surge was beginning to take shape. I will be the first to state general officers in charge of Iraq in 2005-2006 were woefully inadequate, but it was no simple coincidence that Petraeus was put in charge, followed by Odierno. They had already formulated an exit strategy - it didn't just happen when a new president was elected. That's why they were put into their respective positions. To say it didn't affect deployments by a single day is false. Many units began training for a deployment to Iraq, only to have to restructure their training plan to match what they would be doing in Afghanistan. Iraq and Afg are very different in population and environment. Some BCTs were/are moved up in the timeline, in addition to 2/82 ABN in Haiti. All of that has a trickle down effect on BCTs across the Army.
If it's an undeclared war then it's no big deal. They are just hanging out and you have no reason to bitch. Could you be more transparent? If all you can say is that they need to come home because they should not be there, then I suppose we should bring all our troops home from Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Korea, Vietnam, South America, Cuba, etc, etc, etc. Of wait I forgot, of course you want that. You are the advocate for isolationism. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
We would both be more accurate to say it was the Petraeus strategy that changed the dynamic in Iraq . . . not Bush or Obama. My point was that Obama was not continuing Bush's strategy (stay the course), but listening to his Pentagon experts from the beginning, a lesson Bush learned late. Noted. I would be more accurate to say that it did not delay deployment. I accept that training schedules could have been impacted.
