Sarah Palin resigns as Governor - Page 62 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-11-2010, 04:16 PM   #916
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 06:24 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 02-11-2010, 06:45 PM   #917
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Today is her birthday, happy bday Sarah

__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 06:46 PM   #918
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 12:24 PM
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 06:47 PM   #919
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Baxter State Park rules !
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 07:08 PM   #920
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
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:

Quote:
"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 is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 07:12 PM   #921
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
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.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:18 PM   #922
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Baxter State Park rules !
On this we can completely agree.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:19 PM   #923
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
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.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:21 PM   #924
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:24 PM
Quote:
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.
.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:25 PM   #925
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 12:24 PM
we saw where palin chased those undecided voters last time.
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:23 PM   #926
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
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.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:24 PM   #927
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 24,917
Local Time: 05:24 PM
hey everyone, how's that changey and hopey workin out for ya? eh?
__________________
mikal is online now  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:19 PM   #928
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:24 PM
Pretty damn good, actually.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:43 PM   #929
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
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.

Quote:
he was talking about invasions into countries that have nuclear weaponry.
The United States has never invaded a country with nuclear weaponry.


Quote:
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.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:49 PM   #930
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:24 PM
There.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Obama got elected....... boosterjuice Free Your Mind 200 12-01-2008 12:07 PM
2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 11 purpleoscar Free Your Mind Archive 1010 11-04-2008 06:27 PM
The Rumor / FactCheck Thread Dreadsox Free Your Mind 25 10-21-2008 09:49 PM
so...Mike Huckabee. Harry Vest Free Your Mind Archive 493 02-06-2008 10:01 AM
AdamPorn elizabeth PLEBA Archive 63 12-12-2001 02:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com