Sarah Palin resigns as Governor

[Strongbow]

hey, nice. just like the economy, you're going to blame a war on obama. i wish i could be that ballsy in the face of, you know, reality.

Where have I ever blamed the economy on Obama? I've supported nearly all of Obama's efforts on the economy, as well as both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since he come into office on January 20, 2009.

I was just asking Phil if he agreed with Obama's policy in Afghanistan.

 

[PhilsFan]

So, are you along with John Stewart against President Obama's strategy in Afghanistan?

The quote was about Iraq, not Afghanistan, so please stick with the topic.

 

[coolian2]

Where have I ever blamed the economy on Obama? I've supported nearly all of Obama's efforts on the economy, as well as both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since he come into office on January 20, 2009.

I was just asking Phil if he agreed with Obama's policy in Afghanistan.

okay, in that case replace "you're" with a royal "we're" in my post

 

[Strongbow]

The quote was about Iraq, not Afghanistan, so please stick with the topic.

There is nothing in the quote that shows that its specifically about Iraq. Afghanistan fits perfectly with what has been qouted as well. The United States did overthrow the government in Afghanistan and now has 110,000 troops in the country as well as there being another 40,000 troops from other countries there.

So I simply asked you, do you support Obama's policy in Afghanistan? Do you support the surge of US troops in Afghanistan?

 

[U2DMfan]

So the Taliban is a "government"?

We didn't overthrow the government in Afghanistan, we overthrew the Taliban's stronghold and installed a government.

 

[Strongbow]

So the Taliban is a "government"?

We didn't overthrow the government in Afghanistan, we overthrew the Taliban's stronghold and installed a government.

The governing authority in Afghanistan in September of 2001 consisted of people in the Taliban. They had controlled well over 95% of the country since 1996 imposing their laws, collecting taxes and conducting relations with other countries. Yes, I would call that a government. The Bush administration tried to get this government to hand over Bin Ladin in September 2001, but they refused. It was after that, that the Bush Administration launched the military invasion that overthrew this government.

It is Al Quada that is refered to as having a "stronghold" in Afghanistan at this time.

 

[martha]

The governing authority in Afghanistan in September of 2001 consisted of people in the Taliban. They had controlled well over 95% of the country since 1996 imposing their laws, collecting taxes and conducting relations with other countries. Yes, I would call that a government.

That the US helped place in power because they were fighting the dreaded Soviets.

 

[PhilsFan]

There is nothing in the quote that shows that its specifically about Iraq. Afghanistan fits perfectly with what has been qouted as well. The United States did overthrow the government in Afghanistan and now has 110,000 troops in the country as well as there being another 40,000 troops from other countries there.

So I simply asked you, do you support Obama's policy in Afghanistan? Do you support the surge of US troops in Afghanistan?

I support a realistic and methodical approach to stopping a major terrorist organization like al-Qaeda. The best way for us to combat said group is to focus our efforts on Afghanistan. So, I support a policy that places our active troops strategically, and placing them in Afghanistan seems the best method for that at this time.

Your implication that Jon Stewart is against that is quite incorrect. Stewart's quote is quite clearly referring to Iraq, regardless of how similar you think the situation in Afghanistan is. In the context of the conversation I took the quote from, it's obvious that Stewart is referring to Iraq. I agree with Stewart that we cannot attempt another Iraqi invasion, because what Bush did was disastrous.

This does not mean Stewart is against the policy in Afghanistan. In fact, I'm quite sure he's for it.

 

[Strongbow]

That the US helped place in power because they were fighting the dreaded Soviets.

Sorry, but the Taliban did not exist in the 1980s. The taliban were formed in the border area's of Pakistan/Afghanistan in the early 1990s and supported by Pakistan because they opposed other militia groups in Afghanistan that had ties or were considered friendly with India. By 1996, the Taliban had succeeded in defeating all the other Afghan militia's except a small number of the Northern Alliance who were pushed into the far Northeastern corner of the country.

The US did not help place any government in power in Afghanistan during the 1980s or 1990s. It completely abondoned any aid to Afghan militia groups after the last Soviet troops left the country in February 1989.

The Soviet installed government on the other hand continued to receive aid from the Soviet Union as well as occasional air support in combating Afghan militia groups from 1989 through 1991. In 1991, the Afghan militia groups succeeded in overthrowing the Soviet backed government after which a civil war developed between the militia groups for power. It is during that Civil War that the Taliban was created in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area and eventually, successfully conquered, most of the rest of the country by 1996.

 

[Strongbow]

Your implication that Jon Stewart is against that is quite incorrect. Stewart's quote is quite clearly referring to Iraq, regardless of how similar you think the situation in Afghanistan is.

If you just simply look at the quote, it can easily refer to Afghanistan. The United States invaded the country, there are 150,000 troops there. Jon Stewart in the qoute is criticizing that approach.

In the context of the conversation I took the quote from, it's obvious that Stewart is referring to Iraq.

Even if that were clearly the case, he is still talking about how to fight terrorism. The invasion of Afghanistan and the deployment of 150,000 NATO troops there goes against everything he is saying in the quote.

I agree with Stewart that we cannot attempt another Iraqi invasion, because what Bush did was disastrous.

Stewart does not discuss the Iraqi invasion which had to do with SADDAM and other issues that went far beyond just terrorism. Iraq by the way is doing very well and is in a far better position than Afghanistan thanks to Bush's policies. Iraq today has a standard of living higher than Morocco, which will only increase in the years to come.

The number of people who defend the idea of leaving Saddam in power in Iraq in 2003 gets smaller every day.

 

[PhilsFan]

If you just simply look at the quote, it can easily refer to Afghanistan. The United States invaded the country, there are 150,000 troops there. Jon Stewart in the qoute is criticizing that approach.



Even if that were clearly the case, he is still talking about how to fight terrorism. The invasion of Afghanistan and the deployment of 150,000 NATO troops there goes against everything he is saying in the quote.




Stewart does not discuss the Iraqi invasion which had to do with SADDAM and other issues that went far beyond just terrorism. Iraq by the way is doing very well and is in a far better position than Afghanistan thanks to Bush's policies. Iraq today has a standard of living higher than Morocco, which will only increase in the years to come.

The number of people who defend the idea of leaving Saddam in power in Iraq in 2003 gets smaller every day.

I give up. You're just being dishonest now.

 

[BVS]

Can we get back to the topic of Palin being a moron and a waste of political space?

 

[Strongbow]

I give up. You're just being dishonest now.

There is NOTHING dishonest about what I just posted!

 

[PhilsFan]

I told you that Stewart was talking about Iraq. I know that because I watched the full interview I took the quote from. Yet you say looking at the quote, it could still be about Afghanistan. That's dishonest.

 

[anitram]

Nice to see.

There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.

Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party's presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall.

Poll finds most Americans are unhappy with government - washingtonpost.com

 

[PhilsFan]

Strongbow, maybe this will aid you just a bit:

The context of the discussion was that Bill O'Reilly was posing questions to Jon Stewart to get his views, in the way that one might be "vetted" in the lead up to the election. O'Reilly asked Stewart his thoughts on Iran, and whether we should be invading Iran because of their possession of nuclear weapons. Stewart made that statement, relating the Iran situation to Iraq because our basis for invading Iraq was the (misguided) belief that they possessed nuclear weapons.

It's not Afghanistan. Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban was directly linked to al-Qaeda (unlike Saddam). It had nothing to do with guessing games about links or weaponry. Afghanistan was a target because of sound evidence and intelligence.

That's the main difference between the two conflicts: the context and rationale that led to the respective invasions.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Today is her birthday, happy bday Sarah

 

[coolian2]

 

[Bluer White]

Baxter State Park rules !

 

[Strongbow]

I told you that Stewart was talking about Iraq. I know that because I watched the full interview I took the quote from. Yet you say looking at the quote, it could still be about Afghanistan. That's dishonest.

No its not. Here is the qoute again:

"Our strategy for battling terrorism can’t be that you overthrow governments, and then make the United States military commit 150,000 troops to those lands until they can be stabilized enough so you can prevent 10 people from plotting terrorism in a basement." - Jon Stewart

What is John Stewart talking about here, "OUR STRATEGY FOR BATTLING TERRORISM". In fighting terrorism he says that you CAN'T invade and overthrow governments and commit 150,000 troops to stabilize the country.

BUT, that is precisely what the United States has done in Afghanistan!

 

[Strongbow]

Strongbow, maybe this will aid you just a bit:

The context of the discussion was that Bill O'Reilly was posing questions to Jon Stewart to get his views, in the way that one might be "vetted" in the lead up to the election. O'Reilly asked Stewart his thoughts on Iran, and whether we should be invading Iran because of their possession of nuclear weapons. Stewart made that statement, relating the Iran situation to Iraq because our basis for invading Iraq was the (misguided) belief that they possessed nuclear weapons.

It's not Afghanistan. Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban was directly linked to al-Qaeda (unlike Saddam). It had nothing to do with guessing games about links or weaponry. Afghanistan was a target because of sound evidence and intelligence.

That's the main difference between the two conflicts: the context and rationale that led to the respective invasions.

In the qoute though, John Stewart was talking about "OUR STRATEGY FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM". He states that the strategy for fighting terrorism cannot involve the overthrow of governments and the deployment of 150,000 troops to stabilize the country in the aftermath.

But that is precisely what the United States has done in Afghanistan.

Based on this qoute, John Stewart does not support Obama's policy in Afghanistan.

 

[martha]

Baxter State Park rules !

On this we can completely agree.

 

[martha]

Sorry, but the Taliban did not exist in the 1980s. The taliban were formed in the border area's of Pakistan/Afghanistan in the early 1990s and supported by Pakistan because they opposed other militia groups in Afghanistan that had ties or were considered friendly with India. By 1996, the Taliban had succeeded in defeating all the other Afghan militia's except a small number of the Northern Alliance who were pushed into the far Northeastern corner of the country.

The US did not help place any government in power in Afghanistan during the 1980s or 1990s. It completely abondoned any aid to Afghan militia groups after the last Soviet troops left the country in February 1989.

The Soviet installed government on the other hand continued to receive aid from the Soviet Union as well as occasional air support in combating Afghan militia groups from 1989 through 1991. In 1991, the Afghan militia groups succeeded in overthrowing the Soviet backed government after which a civil war developed between the militia groups for power. It is during that Civil War that the Taliban was created in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area and eventually, successfully conquered, most of the rest of the country by 1996.

Gimme a nice long post then about how the Taliban emerged from the groups the US was supporting.

 

[deep]

Media boost Brown into GOP presidential mix
February 11, 2010 | 10:16 am

President Obama recently made a big thing about the “echo chamber” created by “a slash-and-burn” media and how that had helped poison the Washington political atmosphere.

But the big bullhorn of the media can create as well destroy, as seen in the case of the newest member of the Senate.

According to the latest Gallup poll, Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown ranks fourth of 11 possible presidential candidates named by Republicans and like-minded independents as the person they would most like to see as the GOP standard bearer in 2012.

Brown, who has been in the Senate just long enough to have been caught in two huge snowstorms, garnered 4%, a pittance that is about the same as the margin of error of the poll. With so little to show on his national record, the support is certainly name recognition from the blizzard of media attention that came with his surprise win of the Senate seat held for decades by the late Edward Kennedy.

Brown ranked behind two former governors, Massachusetts' Mitt Romney and Alaska’s Sarah Palin, with 14% and 11%, respectively,

for the top spots in the GOP race. Seven percent of those surveyed mentioned Sen. John McCain, the 2008 nominee, who is facing a tough re-election bid for his Arizona seat.

But Brown placed on a par with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, each with years of national politics behind them. They culled 3%.

To be sure, the GOP is far from unified right now, facing a conservative, angry anti-incumbent attack from the "tea party" movement.
The poll found that 42% said they did not have an opinion on whom they preferred for the GOP spot.

But the poll does have some meaning. Even without naming a possible candidate, registered voters split almost evenly on whether they would back President Obama for another term or would go to any Republican.

Forty-four percent of U.S. registered voters said they were more likely to vote for Obama and 42% picked the Republican candidate. The remaining 14% said they were undecided or would vote for another candidate.

The old political adage is that it takes a candidate to beat a candidate, so the polls will likely shift when a real person – as opposed to a generic Republican – is named to run against Obama.

.

 

[coolian2]

we saw where palin chased those undecided voters last time.

 

[PhilsFan]

No its not. Here is the qoute again:



What is John Stewart talking about here, "OUR STRATEGY FOR BATTLING TERRORISM". In fighting terrorism he says that you CAN'T invade and overthrow governments and commit 150,000 troops to stabilize the country.

BUT, that is precisely what the United States has done in Afghanistan!

In the qoute though, John Stewart was talking about "OUR STRATEGY FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM". He states that the strategy for fighting terrorism cannot involve the overthrow of governments and the deployment of 150,000 troops to stabilize the country in the aftermath.

But that is precisely what the United States has done in Afghanistan.

Based on this qoute, John Stewart does not support Obama's policy in Afghanistan.

You're playing games with words again. Out of context, yes, he's talking about terrorism in general. But in the context, he wasn't talking about terrorism as a whole, he was talking about invasions into countries that have nuclear weaponry. He specifically said that Iran is no different from Pakistan or Russia, who also have nuclear weapons, and that we can't defend ourselves from them in the way we did Iraq.

I explained the context, and you insisted on taking it right back out of the context. For the third and fourth times. Right there.

That's dishonest.

 

[mikal]

hey everyone, how's that changey and hopey workin out for ya? eh?

 

[martha]

Pretty damn good, actually.

 

[Strongbow]

You're playing games with words again. Out of context, yes, he's talking about terrorism in general. But in the context, he wasn't talking about terrorism as a whole, he was talking about invasions into countries that have nuclear weaponry. He specifically said that Iran is no different from Pakistan or Russia, who also have nuclear weapons, and that we can't defend ourselves from them in the way we did Iraq.

I explained the context, and you insisted on taking it right back out of the context. For the third and fourth times. Right there.

That's dishonest.

What you quoted was about the strategy for combating terrorism NOT a strategy for combating the proliferation of WMD.

He does not mention anything about a strategy for combating the proliferation of WMD in the quote you posted. He is talking about terrorism only in that quote.

You do understand that the proliferation of WMD among countries and terrorism and the strategy for dealing with terrorism are on the surface two different things?

Although the spread of WMD could effect the capabilities available to terrorist.

he was talking about invasions into countries that have nuclear weaponry.

The United States has never invaded a country with nuclear weaponry.

He specifically said that Iran is no different from Pakistan or Russia, who also have nuclear weapons, and that we can't defend ourselves from them in the way we did Iraq.

1. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Pakistan and Russia do have nuclear weapons.

2. The Obama administration does consider Iran to be a different case than Pakistan or Russia. The Obama administration is not threatening sanctions against Pakistan or Russia because they have nuclear weapons. They are also not keeping the "military option" on the table because Pakistan and Russia have nuclear weapons.

3. The Obama administration has never ruled out the use of military force in protecting the country and the world from the spread of WMD.

4. So, not only does John Stewart not agree with the Obama administration on how to combat terrorism, he does not agree with the Obama administration on how to combat WMD proliferation or the nature of threat posed by countries such as Iran, Russia, and Pakistan.

 

[martha]

There.