Check These Out: Buddy Finder | Videos | SpouseBUZZ | My Friend Network | News | Military Equipment


Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Hot Topics & Current Events  Hop To Forums  In the News    GOP Senator Calls for Troop Withdrawals
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Member
Posted
 
Posts: 613 | Registered: Wed 21 June 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
go to http://www.senate.gov/~warner/contact/contactme.cfm and tell him your views, I did.... Curse
 
Posts: 125 | Registered: Fri 22 September 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Suspended: 20 days.

Stillkit
Posted Hide Post
SirAndre007, Do you have any close relatives or family members in the sandbox? What are your views?

What is the reason to continue to send our troops to Iraq to be targets for IEDs, insurgents, and AQ?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Posts: 13064 | Registered: Fri 22 September 2000Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Experienced Member
Picture of MTCRetired
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SirAndre007:
go to http://www.senate.gov/~warner/contact/contactme.cfm and tell him your views, I did.... Curse


Just did Andre, thanks for the link.

Salute!!!!!!!!

Many branches but one brotherhood!
 
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Wed 27 September 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Experienced Member
Picture of MTCRetired
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bill_kananen:
SirAndre007, Do you have any close relatives or family members in the sandbox? What are your views?

What is the reason to continue to send our troops to Iraq to be targets for IEDs, insurgents, and AQ?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Bill, giving a deadline only reenforces the enemy and undermines what is currently proving to be positive progress.

Had Hitler none we were going to quit on such and such date he would not have killed himself, he would have waited us out laughing at us all the time.

And yes Bill IU have relatives (and many friends) in the sandbox and some going back 2nd, 3rd and 4th tours. And gues what, they still beleive in the mission, so please do not be so smug up the in New York most of the people doing the fighting are still for the mission!

Many branches but one brotherhood!
 
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Wed 27 September 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Suspended: 20 days.

Stillkit
Posted Hide Post
BTW, if you don't live in his district and can't vote for him there is no point sending him your comments. You would be more effective contacting your own congress critters and telling them to oppose Sen. John Warner's views.

Just a helpful tip to make your efforts more effective.
 
Posts: 13064 | Registered: Fri 22 September 2000Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Suspended: 20 days.

Stillkit
Posted Hide Post
quote:
And yes Bill IU have relatives (and many friends) in the sandbox and some going back 2nd, 3rd and 4th tours. And gues what, they still beleive in the mission, so please do not be so smug up the in New York most of the people doing the fighting are still for the mission!

I wish them well. Why do you fall in step with those who give our military unrealistic and irrational missions? The reason people are opposing the continued occupation of Iraq is they see no rational behind it and the administration has not been able to convince them otherwise.

Show the American people some real, tangible progress and attitudes will change. Other then that Iraq is just a big money pit where our soldiers are being killed.

Notice no one is calling for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
 
Posts: 13064 | Registered: Fri 22 September 2000Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
If Senator Warner is calling for troop withdrawals then there is serious sh*t going down. Senator Warner is probably the most knowledgeable senator in the US Senate when it comes to military matters. Remember Sen Warner was fomerly the head of the Senate's Armed Services Committee and he also served as Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan. btw according to this article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...81.html?hpid=topnews

it's appears that General Pace is about to back the Senator up. Anybody want to call General Pace a "Chicken shxxxxxxxx republican"?
 
Posts: 203 | Registered: Wed 14 March 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Experienced Member
Picture of Motive25
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by MTCRetired:
quote:
Originally posted by bill_kananen:
SirAndre007, Do you have any close relatives or family members in the sandbox? What are your views?

What is the reason to continue to send our troops to Iraq to be targets for IEDs, insurgents, and AQ?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Bill, giving a deadline only reenforces the enemy and undermines what is currently proving to be positive progress.

Had Hitler none we were going to quit on such and such date he would not have killed himself, he would have waited us out laughing at us all the time.

And yes Bill IU have relatives (and many friends) in the sandbox and some going back 2nd, 3rd and 4th tours. And gues what, they still beleive in the mission, so please do not be so smug up the in New York most of the people doing the fighting are still for the mission!

Many branches but one brotherhood!


We already have one deadline and everyone knows what & when it is- next Spring when the "surge" needs to end. We don't have enough troops after that to sustain it.

Other political "deadlines" are coming & going without results- Iraqi power & oil revenue sharing, for example. Without any progress in those areas, all the time we are buying with our blood and treasure for the Iraqi Government will have been wasted.
 
Posts: 4025 | Registered: Wed 01 February 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Experienced Member
Picture of MTCRetired
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bill_kananen:
Show the American people some real, tangible progress and attitudes will change. Other then that Iraq is just a big money pit where our soldiers are being killed.

Notice no one is calling for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.


Bill, three weeks ago two Democrats who have been strong critics against the war, one of whom was on CLinton's staff, came back from Iraq and said it is working. Even the New York Times recently said it is working.

A number of Dems, most notably Pelosi, Reid and Edrwards immediately jumped onto their little soap boxes with the hew and cry "we have lost!"

There are certain Democrats who cannot afford to have us win, so they sing the same song over and over.

Every day we hear more about Iraqi's who steping into the breach and fighting to protect American lives and save the freedom they are embracing. To say this is not working and they are not stepping up to the palte is to walk on the blood of the Iraqi's who have sacrificed as well as the blood of our own troops!

Lock step? Yes, to keep putting out the blather that we are losing or have lost, that is "lock step" with idiocy!

Many branches but one brotherhood!
 
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Wed 27 September 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Suspended: 20 days.

Stillkit
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Bill, three weeks ago two Democrats who have been strong critics against the war, one of whom was on CLinton's staff, came back from Iraq and said it is working. Even the New York Times recently said it is working.

I'm not the one who needs convincing. I too see evidence of progress in Iraq. But it is not the progress of the President's vision. It is the progress that makes sense for Iraq.

Once Americans are convince that real progress is being made the opposition will decrease. President Bush is not helping with his speeches and continued use of slogans.
 
Posts: 13064 | Registered: Fri 22 September 2000Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted Hide Post
The plan in WWII was to defeat the enemy on the battlefield. That is not the plan in Iraq.

The plan is to surge American troops to bring the violence down (not stop it) so that the Iraqi government can become effective and the Iraqi security forces can hold the gains made by US troops.

Even if the Iraqi government were not on vacation, there is no indication that they are anywhere near becoming effective. Even if they were to pass oil legislation, would that get everyone to just get along?

How long do you suppose the US troops should continue to surge while the Iraqis get it together?


quote:
Originally posted by MTCRetired:
quote:
Originally posted by bill_kananen:
SirAndre007, Do you have any close relatives or family members in the sandbox? What are your views?

What is the reason to continue to send our troops to Iraq to be targets for IEDs, insurgents, and AQ?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Bill, giving a deadline only reenforces the enemy and undermines what is currently proving to be positive progress.

Had Hitler none we were going to quit on such and such date he would not have killed himself, he would have waited us out laughing at us all the time.

And yes Bill IU have relatives (and many friends) in the sandbox and some going back 2nd, 3rd and 4th tours. And gues what, they still beleive in the mission, so please do not be so smug up the in New York most of the people doing the fighting are still for the mission!

Many branches but one brotherhood!
 
Posts: 2480 | Registered: Sat 27 May 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
I am a toad and troll of course but this is a sincere question.

What is the make up of Iraqi units being trained? I think in the bad old days the leaders were Sunni for the most part with the peons Shiite.

Is it different now. Leaders of mixed units with both factions being in lead roles?
 
Posts: 48 | Registered: Thu 09 August 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
New Member
Posted Hide Post
Just got an E-Mail off to Mr. Warner and advised him he may want to consider retiring; quit trying to be the dems "buddy"; quit giving cover to poor John Murtha who has exceeded his depth IAW the Peter Principle and he, too, should consider the Resthaven Assisted Living Center as home. Sen. Warner seemed to go off the deep end about two years ago and has not been able to recover. He was married to Liz Taylor at one time and perhaps he has regrets for giving up on that "sugar" as she continues to look real good for an old broad; but they do play with the exposure on the camera, so who knows? Anyhow, John needs to go as he becomes less rational and more liberal almost every time he opens his mouth---it has got to be the water in D.C. or perhaps Teddy's ignorance is actually contagious. Maybe he has his eye on Nancy Pelosi---nah, that's too far out there. Like Forrest Gump says "Stupid is as stupid does".
 
Posts: 141 | Registered: Wed 30 May 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted Hide Post
For all the furor over Senator Warner's comments, this is nothing to get excited about either way. This is no more than soothing his conscience and removing his sense of guilt.

About a year ago, he expressed horror and disgust at the way that detainees were being treated, with the 'illegal' actions of the U.S. government (provided that the Geneva Conventions are considered as 'law' within the United States), and with gross extensions of Executive privilege to include covering up domestic surveillamce and other violations of the 'unalienable rights' claimed for Americans. He backed down on every point of contention.

Reducing our troop strength by 5% is "nothing".
 
Posts: 1527 | Registered: Tue 31 August 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Highly Experienced Member
Picture of GunnyRet03
Posted Hide Post
Baird sees need for longer U.S. role in Iraq
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Brian Baird voted against the Iraq war, but the Washington state Democrat now says the United States should stay in Iraq as long as it takes to ensure stability to the war-torn country.

"We're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work," Baird told the Olympian newspaper after a recent trip to Iraq.

A hasty pullout could cause chaos that helps neighboring Iran and harms U.S. security, said Baird, who returned this week from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq. He said he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that the military must stay longer.

Baird voted in March in favor of a Democratic plan requiring President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year.

"People may be upset. I wish I didn't have to say this," said Baird, who is under pressure from liberal-leaning groups in his southwest Washington district to support a troop withdrawal.

The United States needs to continue with its current "surge" of military troops "at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment," said Baird, a five-term lawmaker from Vancouver, Wash. "I know it's going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

His comments are based on two beliefs, Baird said:

"One, I think we're making real progress. Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility ... and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."



Guess, he is a chickenhawk......
 
Posts: 18373 | Registered: Fri 05 September 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Highly Experienced Member
Picture of oldmole
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by GunnyRet03:
Baird sees need for longer U.S. role in Iraq
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Brian Baird voted against the Iraq war, but the Washington state Democrat now says the United States should stay in Iraq as long as it takes to ensure stability to the war-torn country.

"We're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work," Baird told the Olympian newspaper after a recent trip to Iraq.

A hasty pullout could cause chaos that helps neighboring Iran and harms U.S. security, said Baird, who returned this week from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq. He said he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that the military must stay longer.

Baird voted in March in favor of a Democratic plan requiring President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year.

"People may be upset. I wish I didn't have to say this," said Baird, who is under pressure from liberal-leaning groups in his southwest Washington district to support a troop withdrawal.

The United States needs to continue with its current "surge" of military troops "at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment," said Baird, a five-term lawmaker from Vancouver, Wash. "I know it's going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

His comments are based on two beliefs, Baird said:

"One, I think we're making real progress. Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility ... and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."



Guess, he is a chickenhawk......


No, and nobody is saying that he is, despite never having served. But there is a distinct difference between advocating against a "hasty pullout" and advocating for maintaining current force levels beyond six months of so, or advocating that they stay where they were before the surge after that.

I really do object to Senator Warner getting called Chicken anything after he volunteered for the two wars he was eligible for. Cool
 
Posts: 10931 | Registered: Mon 05 June 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Suspended: 20 days.

Stillkit
Posted Hide Post
quote:
How long do you suppose the US troops should continue to surge while the Iraqis get it together?

Not one single day. We either "put it together" or get out. If the Iraqis were to solve their own problems we shouldn't have invaded.
 
Posts: 13064 | Registered: Fri 22 September 2000Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Highly Experienced Member
Picture of mcgreer
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by oldmole:
quote:
Originally posted by GunnyRet03:
Baird sees need for longer U.S. role in Iraq
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Brian Baird voted against the Iraq war, but the Washington state Democrat now says the United States should stay in Iraq as long as it takes to ensure stability to the war-torn country.

"We're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work," Baird told the Olympian newspaper after a recent trip to Iraq.

A hasty pullout could cause chaos that helps neighboring Iran and harms U.S. security, said Baird, who returned this week from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq. He said he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that the military must stay longer.

Baird voted in March in favor of a Democratic plan requiring President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year.

"People may be upset. I wish I didn't have to say this," said Baird, who is under pressure from liberal-leaning groups in his southwest Washington district to support a troop withdrawal.

The United States needs to continue with its current "surge" of military troops "at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment," said Baird, a five-term lawmaker from Vancouver, Wash. "I know it's going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

His comments are based on two beliefs, Baird said:

"One, I think we're making real progress. Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility ... and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."



Guess, he is a chickenhawk......


No, and nobody is saying that he is, despite never having served. But there is a distinct difference between advocating against a "hasty pullout" and advocating for maintaining current force levels beyond six months of so, or advocating that they stay where they were before the surge after that.

I really do object to Senator Warner getting called Chicken anything after he volunteered for the two wars he was eligible for. Cool


You know what looks worse, oldmole: We're seeing in the media disagreement between senior military members and elected officials on the conduct of this engagement. Read here for the latest.

We need to step back and take a hard look at what we're doing and where all this is taking us. How can we expect success when the policymakers are at odds with the instruments of policy? If we're losing the faith, how can we prevail?
 
Posts: 9474 | Registered: Sat 31 December 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Suspended: 20 days.

Stillkit
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Guess, he is a chickenhawk......

I guess you would be wrong.

Rep. Brian Baird is not advocating for war. He sees the necessity for cleaning up the mess the Bush administration made. Most Americans feel the same way. (That's most, not all.)
 
Posts: 13064 | Registered: Fri 22 September 2000Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
  Powered by Eve Community Page 1 2 3  
 

Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Hot Topics & Current Events  Hop To Forums  In the News    GOP Senator Calls for Troop Withdrawals

© 2009 Military Advantage, Inc.