Mitt Romney wants to turn over power to the Taliban?

[pocketfullofshells]

Not sure if I heard this, but I could have swarn I heard him say he would turn over power to the Taliban today in the debate...I am sure he meant Afghan Government...unless he just was guessing that if we pull out right now as some republicans suggest, that in fact we would just be turning it back over to them...

that or I misheard him....

( unlike some here, I can figure out when a candidate misspeaks, verses has wrong info)

 

[Stalin]

Perish the thought that a colonial occupying power turn over a country to an indigenous majority.

The Taliban is of course the US armed and financed resistance to the bringing of Afghanistan into the 20th century.

This resistance was against liberating women and land reform - both communist party policies.

Comrade Stalin

 

[Popeye]

Not sure if I heard this, but I could have swarn I heard him say he would turn over power to the Taliban today in the debate...I am sure he meant Afghan Government...unless he just was guessing that if we pull out right now as some republicans suggest, that in fact we would just be turning it back over to them...

that or I misheard him....

( unlike some here, I can figure out when a candidate misspeaks, verses has wrong info)

We should pull out of Afghanistan now..and stop bombing Libya. Obama still has troops in Iraq too. In fact, how many wars does he now have going on?

Strange the way the anti-war protesters have become silent and pretty much disappeared now that the president has a "D" after his name..

 

[pocketfullofshells]

you think its the D in the name...or the fact that most of our troops are out of Iraq, they are not being killed in record numbers, and we have zero troops in Libya with zero troops even wounded...as we are basicily know providing predator drones and Intel...Also the man in charge of that nation...is in fact a terrorist who has attacked the US before killing Americans..

 

[BigRob]

Not sure if I heard this, but I could have swarn I heard him say he would turn over power to the Taliban today in the debate...I am sure he meant Afghan Government...unless he just was guessing that if we pull out right now as some republicans suggest, that in fact we would just be turning it back over to them...

that or I misheard him....

( unlike some here, I can figure out when a candidate misspeaks, verses has wrong info)

He did (about 2 seconds after he said it) correct himself on his misstatement.

 

[TruthSeeker]

you think its the D in the name...or the fact that most of our troops are out of Iraq, they are not being killed in record numbers, and we have zero troops in Libya with zero troops even wounded...as we are basicily know providing predator drones and Intel...Also the man in charge of that nation...is in fact a terrorist who has attacked the US before killing Americans..

Lie detector, sweeping generalization, and ignorance of the facts analysis:

1. "Most of our troops are out of Iraq" (define "most")

2. "They are not being killed in record numbers" ("record numbers" compared to what?)

3. "We are basically providing predator drones and Intel" (This is a LIE. PFOS must know about the bombing missions and helicopter gunship raids, right?)

 

[Hobo1]

you think its the D in the name...or the fact that most of our troops are out of Iraq, they are not being killed in record numbers, and we have zero troops in Libya with zero troops even wounded...as we are basicily know providing predator drones and Intel...Also the man in charge of that nation...is in fact a terrorist who has attacked the US before killing Americans..

Pocket I have been telling you this for years: get a spell checker on your browser. Download a Google toolbar and you get a spell checker for free. [basicily=basically, swarn=sworn]

Plus you can look up your facts to discover that the US had 50,000 troops in Iraq in September of last year - with calls to keep them on into 2012.

We have no idea what is happening in Libya because everything is classified. Obama ordered Special Ops forces to train and assist the rebels. We know at least 3 journalists have died. I am certain some American soldiers have also died.

"Also the man in charge of that nation [Gaddafi of Libya]...is in fact a terrorist who has attacked the US before killing Americans..-------Now I don't recall when either Gaddafi personally or the nation of Libya ever "attacked the US". I thought that honor belonged to Osama bin Laden's 9/11 attack. Before that, I believe Pancho Villa was the last man who attacked the US.

 

[clarkatticus]

Gaddifi was part and parcel of the Lockerbie bombing. Our involvment in Libya is part of NATO and payment for the EU backing of our endeavours in the Middle East. I noticed Gates lowered the boom on the NATO members letting them know their contributions were far too small and that the American people cannot continue to foot the bill in these times. Part of the problem of bringing home all the troops would be the increase in unemployment, something to think about.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Pocket I have been telling you this for years: get a spell checker on your browser. Download a Google toolbar and you get a spell checker for free. [basicily=basically, swarn=sworn]

Plus you can look up your facts to discover that the US had 50,000 troops in Iraq in September of last year - with calls to keep them on into 2012.

We have no idea what is happening in Libya because everything is classified. Obama ordered Special Ops forces to train and assist the rebels. We know at least 3 journalists have died. I am certain some American soldiers have also died.

"Also the man in charge of that nation [Gaddafi of Libya]...is in fact a terrorist who has attacked the US before killing Americans..-------Now I don't recall when either Gaddafi personally or the nation of Libya ever "attacked the US". I thought that honor belonged to Osama bin Laden's 9/11 attack. Before that, I believe Pancho Villa was the last man who attacked the US.

Actually, Hobo, both the Japanese and the Germans attacked the U.S. during World War 2.

Have you noticed that constantly setting PFOS straight is like dealing with a 5th grader who keeps flunking the same history test over and over again?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Gaddifi was part and parcel of the Lockerbie bombing. Our involvment in Libya is part of NATO and payment for the EU backing of our endeavours in the Middle East. I noticed Gates lowered the boom on the NATO members letting them know their contributions were far too small and that the American people cannot continue to foot the bill in these times. Part of the problem of bringing home all the troops would be the increase in unemployment, something to think about.

Another case of disengagement from reality and facts.

1. Planning and financing the bombing of a commercial jet over Scotland does not constitute "an attack on the US" in the same realm as the 9/11attacks.

2. NATO is also involved in Afghanistan.

3. How would "bringing home the troops" increase unemployment? No matter where our military personnel are deployed, whether at home or abroad, they are still "employed" by the U.S. military. Remember, we have an ALL VOLUNTEER military.

 

[Hobo1]

Actually, Hobo, both the Japanese and the Germans attacked the U.S. during World War 2.

Actually, no. Hawaii was not a State during WWII, and battles at sea do not qualify as an attack on the US, IMO. If you broaden your definition to that extent, then the attack on the USS Cole would fall into the category of attack on the US.

And blowing up a passenger plane over Scotland is not an attack either. Attack means somebody sends a significant fighting force destroy property within the borders of the US. For example, NATO attacks Libya. That is an attack.

 

[Hobo1]

Part of the problem of bringing home all the troops would be the increase in unemployment, something to think about.

Ok, I thought about it and, uh, it is a problem I would like to have! Unemployed soldiers is not a social problem the US has had to contend with since we drew down troop levels from Vietnam. Quite a few ex-conscripts looking for jobs in the early 1970's as I recall. Employers were required to give veterans hiring preferences.

Since then, we seem to be getting into new wars faster than we can develop an excess of soldiers. Anyway, Netanyahu and Obama can always give them jobs attacking Iran - that seems to be the plan, now that Netanyahu is boss!

 

[TruthSeeker]

Actually, no. Hawaii was not a State during WWII, and battles at sea do not qualify as an attack on the US, IMO. If you broaden your definition to that extent, then the attack on the USS Cole would fall into the category of attack on the US.

And blowing up a passenger plane over Scotland is not an attack either. Attack means somebody sends a significant fighting force destroy property within the borders of the US. For example, NATO attacks Libya. That is an attack.

I was not referring to Pearl Harbor, and I already addressed the fact that the bombing of a commercial jet over Scotland does NOT constitute an "attack" on U.S. soil (refer to one of my previous postings).

I was referring to the Japanese launching bomb-laden balloons from Japan, and some of those balloons actually reaching the U.S. mainland and crashing in (thankfully) unpopulated areas in the western U.S.

I was also referring to Japanese submarines patrolling in U.S. waters off the California coast, and firing on civilian entities with their deck guns.

I was also referring to German U-boats sinking dozens of U.S. merchant ships off of eastern U.S. coastal waters and in the Gulf Of Mexico.

I was also referring to German "terrorists" who landed on Long Island with the intent of bombing several targets in New York City, and who were (thankfully) apprehended before they could carry out their mission.

 

[clarkatticus]

Another case of disengagement from reality and facts.

1. Planning and financing the bombing of a commercial jet over Scotland does not constitute "an attack on the US" in the same realm as the 9/11attacks.

2. NATO is also involved in Afghanistan.

3. How would "bringing home the troops" increase unemployment? No matter where our military personnel are deployed, whether at home or abroad, they are still "employed" by the U.S. military. Remember, we have an ALL VOLUNTEER military.

Planning and financing and training the people to conduct an attack on the US is indeed the same level as 9/11, this is why we attacked Afghanistan, remember? Just because it's not on the same scale doesn't mean it wasn't the same thing. Yes, NATO is in Afghanistan and Iraq--with qualifications The few Spanish troops there are not allowed to shoot unless fired upon and are not allowed to operate at night. Except for the British, none really have any skin in the game. Goddamn France already ran out of munitions and cannot use ours since thier hardpoints do not hold our munitions. What did Italy send? Shoes? It's time for them to put up, Libya is more their issue, not ours. You probably didn't know this, but a large portion of our troops abroad are reservists. I am all for bringing them home, though, but this is a problem we will have to confront. My neighbor gets "volunteered" for duty all the time being in the reserves, hard to hold a job or move up in that environment, but he is proud to do it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

He did (about 2 seconds after he said it) correct himself on his misstatement.

ahh ok good to know, i could not hear very well over some talking lol...Like I said< i know what he meant I just thought it was funny.