US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 38 - 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 07-12-2008, 03:56 PM   #556
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Here is the video portion of the above article:

YouTube - Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan is Impossible
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 03:57 PM   #557
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Strongbow,

here is the problem.

and we can revisit this in mid 2009

to see if my suspicions are correct. (if we are both, still here)

Maliki wants to stay in power,
and he believes the Iranians are a safer bet (for him), than the, regime change prone, American Administration.


Quote:
The Iranians could argue that an Iraqi Shi'ite administration could not depend on the United States, which was committed to a strategy of alliance with Sunni regimes in the region against the Shi'ite ones.

Iran was able to exploit a deep vein of Iraqi Shi'ite suspicion that the US might still try to overthrow the Shi'ite government, using former prime minister Iyad Allawi and some figures in the Iraqi army. When the US draft dropped an earlier US commitment to defend Iraq against external aggression and pledged only to "consult" in the event of an external threat, Iran certainly exploited the opening to push Maliki to reject the agreement.

The use of military bases in Iraq to project US power into the region to carry out regime change in Iran and elsewhere had been an essential part of the neo-conservative plan for invading Iraq from the beginning.

The Bush administration raised the objective of a long-term military presence in Iraq based on the "Korea model" last year at the height of the US celebration of the pacification of the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province, which it viewed as sealing its victory in the war.

But the Iraqi demand for withdrawal makes it clear that the Bush administration was not really in control of events in Iraq, and that Shi'ite political opposition and Iranian diplomacy could trump US military power.

Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 07:01 PM   #558
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Strongbow,

here is the problem.

and we can revisit this in mid 2009

to see if my suspicions are correct. (if we are both, still here)

Maliki wants to stay in power,
and he believes the Iranians are a safer bet (for him), than the, regime change prone, American Administration.





Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

A future Iraq is certainly going to have closer ties with Iran than it has in the past, but that does not mean that Iraq is suddenly going to become an Iranian proxy. Iraqi internal stability would not survive a too close relationship with Iran. Sunni Arab's, Kurds, and other minorities which make up 40% of Iraq's population have a negative view of Iran. In addition, many Shia Arabs also have a negative view of Iran. Many Shia Arab's remember the Iran/Iraq war which by the way was primarily fought by Iraq with a military that was majority Shia Arab. Much of the fighting took place in Shia Arab area's of Iraq and many Iraqi Shia Arabs do not have fond memories of the Iranians. Shia Arab's may share a religion with Shia Persians in Iran, but they share national, cultural, ethnic and language ties with Sunni Arabs in Iraq as well as having fought a bloody 8 year war against the Iranians.

For Iraq to stay together and in order for any political party to be able to successfully govern Iraq, they are going to have to walk a tightrope that will make it seem that they are tilting to one side or the other at various times. Because of Iraq's religious, political, and ethnic make up, Iraq cannot act as an anti-Iranian country like it once did in the past, but nor can it become a proxy for Iran.

The Muslim world is 85% Sunni only 15% Shia.

The last thing the Maliki government wants to do is align itself with Iran in such a way that they risk their relationships with the Arab world and the United States. The United States and the Arab world collectively have far more to offer any Iraqi government than Iran alone would be able to offer it. Already, the Iraqi military has developed strong ties with the US military over the past 5 years that are well ahead of any ties with Iran. US military forces, not Iranian forces have been on the ground in Iraq the past 5 years fighting to build the country and develop the Iraqi military. No other country on the planet can offer the Maliki government the military, economic, and logistical support that the United States can.

The Maliki government is doing a smart thing by trying to work with and satisfy many of the competing interest groups within the country. At times this will make it appear that it is tilting toward Iran and other times it will look the opposite. Its the best way for Iraq's competing political groups to be reconciled.

Also, the Maliki governments idea of US withdrawal is not what Barack Obama has in mind. It involves first completing the transfer of Iraqi provinces to the control of the Iraqi military. That process is only 50% complete at this point and may not be completed until 2010. Then they would like to see a redeployment of US forces from the cities, but for such forces to remain in the country for another 3 to 5 years with the security conditions on the ground reviewed every 6 months and full withdrawal dependent on conditions on the ground. There has been no Iraqi proposal for a hard withdrawal date independent of conditions on the ground.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 07:46 PM   #559
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Quote:
Saturday, July 12, 2008


The race for the White House is tied.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 43% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, Obama holds a statistically insignificant 47% to 46% advantage. Today is the first time that McCain’s support has moved above 45% since Obama clinched the nomination on June 3. It’s also the first time the candidates have been tied since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination

McCain is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters, Obama by 54%. Obama receives unfavorable reviews from 44% of voters while McCain is viewed unfavorably by 41%. McCain earns favorable ratings from 32% of Democrats while Obama is viewed favorably by 22% of Republicans. Among unaffiliated voters, McCain is viewed favorably by 58%, Obama by 54%.

Is this a trend?

Obama has been sliding.

And McCain rising.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:01 PM   #560
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i'm sorry you were offended,

but i did mean some (ironic but mild) offense

because i don't think you're aware

just how patronizing you come off
no need to apologize to me
I was not personally offended

your remarks came off as racist

I would think that most people would be offended by such remarks
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:09 PM   #561
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Strongbow, could we just wrap this whole thing up by conceding that the 16 month timetable on Obama's website is not going to happen?

Speaking as an Obama supporter from the beginning, I have NEVER believed or accepted the idea of a rapid/immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I've always believed that getting out would be much more difficult than going in. I also never really believed that Obama was going to insist on a 16 month withdrawal. The irony is you are depending on Obama being true to his word to make your case against him, while I am, perhaps, more cynically, expecting him to go back on his promise (which in my opinion was a politically expedient promise in the same league as "read my lips" that Obama really couldn't hope to keep) in making my case FOR him.

You, in your typically masterful and text-heavy way have created a no-win situation for Obama. Either he breaks his 16 month timetable promise and you can paint him in a variety of negative colors ("just another dihonest politician", "a foreign policy neophyte who had no idea what he was promising when he made that commitment" etc). Or he persists in standing by it and you can continue to point out how unreasonable and unworkable it is. Either way. . .you win.

Of course there are things you would have to ignore.

Like:
The timetable was predicated on the idea that an indefinite stay in Iraq would be bad for the U.S. and for Iraq. Most of us don't want to be in Iraq forever, and a timetable--even if it has to be readjusted multiple times--would help keep us moving in the right direction. This is the real difference which you consistently ignore (and I admit the Democrats political pandering assists you in this)--the difference between an approach of an indefinite 100-years stay in Iraq and an aggressive move to wrap things up there as soon as possible.

Also, you have not allowed the possiblity nor recognized the value in Obama being able to change his perspective or admit he was wrong. As Irvine has pointed out, it's exactly this quality that was lacking in the previous administration. If Obama is wrong about the 16 month withdrawal I should hope he should have the good sense to admit it and he shouldn't be excoriated for doing so.

Unless of course you only vote for leaders who are never wrong. . .which would explain your current support for the Bush administrations polices.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:11 PM   #562
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
no need to apologize to me
I was not personally offended

your remarks came off as racist

I would think that most people would be offended by such remarks

No, they didn't come across as racist.

He was obviously being ironic. Most people would be able to recognize that.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:11 PM   #563
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
No, they didn't come across as racist.

He was obviously being ironic. Most people would be able to recognize that.
Then maybe I should be offended?

Was he suggesting,

that was my thinking?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:17 PM   #564
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
"Hypothetically speaking, we should have $100,000. But realistically speaking we live with two hos,” Mac said.


"Bernie you got to clean up your act. This is a family affair. … I'm just messing with you," Obama said.


I thought Obama was working on winning over the Hillary supporters?
Since we're talking about racism.

What white politician would we make responsible for everything any other white supporters say?

Why must Obama be held responsible for whatever his black supporters say?

I think Obama responded appropriately to Mac's remarks. What else was he supposed to do?

This kind of thinking is a classic American racism. I'm not making any personal accusations you understand. . .I'm just saying.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:19 PM   #565
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Then maybe I should be offended?

Was he suggesting,

that was my thinking?
Actually, I think you're probalby getting warmer. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:26 PM   #566
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Since we're talking about racism.

What white politician would we make responsible for everything any other white supporters say?

Why must Obama be held responsible for whatever his black supporters say?

I think Obama responded appropriately to Mac's remarks. What else was he supposed to do?

This kind of thinking is a classic American racism. I'm not making any personal accusations you understand. . .I'm just saying.

what are you going on about?



Ok

thinking about it for 5 seconds, (you were too quick to respond)

I agree with you, this is a non-story,

that may get some play because of Drudge and other blogosphere related bullshit.

But, why did you bring up race?

This could have been an inappropriate remark at a Hillary, McCain or Romney fund raiser. Is the candidate responsible? For the talents remarks? Fair question?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:29 PM   #567
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Actually, I think you're probalby getting warmer. . .

And the evidence for that is?


Anyone that is not for Obama is racist?

One of the very first post I ever made in here was that I think Obama is an outstanding person, and that I would expect to enthusiastically support him in the future when he has more of a track record.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:33 PM   #568
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
what are you going on about?



Ok

thinking about it for 5 seconds, (you were too quick to respond)

I agree with you, this is a non-story,

that may get some play because of Drudge and other blogosphere related bullshit.

But, why did you bring up race?

This could have been an inappropriate remark at a Hillary, McCain or Romney fund raiser. Is the candidate responsible? For the talents remarks? Fair question?
That explains it. . .I thought I was losing it for a minute. After I posted, I was like. . .wait a second, where did his post go? I coulda sworn. . .

The reason I brought up race is because the idea that the bad behavior of one black person reflects on all black people has long been frustrating to African Americans in this country. You are right that in our current political culture the white politicians might have been "held responsible" as well, but I still believe that when it happens to Obama, as a black candidate it has a lot more traction.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:39 PM   #569
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
And the evidence for that is?

I'll let Irvine get into that, if he chooses to. My point was simply that I think he was aiming at you not Obama in that post.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2008, 08:51 PM   #570
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
That explains it. . .I thought I was losing it for a minute. After I posted, I was like. . .wait a second, where did his post go? I coulda sworn. . .

The reason I brought up race is because the idea that the bad behavior of one black person reflects on all black people has long been frustrating to African Americans in this country. You are right that in our current political culture the white politicians might have been "held responsible" as well, but I still believe that when it happens to Obama, as a black candidate it has a lot more traction.
It was gone before you replied, because I did think about it.


and I have read many of the things you have posted about your life experience

I have always said racism is at the top of the list of problems that still exist today.

I still support affirmative action and believe there is a real need for it today.

I bet many of Obama's young supporters do not.

I can appreciate from your vantage point, especially with overtly racist statements towards Obama, that every statement can be viewed through that lens.




Believe me, if a first term (elected in 2004) white Senator were the nominee and McCain was the GOP candidate, my vote would be floating back and forth, the same as it is now.

I will say that with Obama's pragmatic repositioning lately,
he is giving more confidence that he may be a decent president.
__________________

__________________
deep 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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 AM.


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