US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 42 - 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 07-14-2008, 02:50 PM   #616
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Again, where does it say in the above article that both the Iraqi government and the United States want a time based withdrawal with NO CONDITIONS OR PREREQUISITES for Iraqi stability, security, and Iraqi military capability?

again, you've misunderstood the situation.

it says that without a specific timetable for withdrawal, there would have been no progress. it affirms the Obama position which has always been a timetable with respect to certain conditions on the ground. there was always flexibility, there was always conditions. *everyone* knows this. this is the nuance that you can't seem to wrap your head around. it's as if you're slowly becoming aware of the fact that you don't have any argument whatsoever and that the Obama position is now the Bush position. a withdrawal, on a timetable, but with common-sense provisions, conditions, and precautions. it's the open-endedness of the Bush/McCain plan -- 100 years, 1000 years -- that prevents progress from happening.

what you don't get, and what's so exasperating, is the fact that under the big umbrella of WITHDRAWAL is room for much flexibility. the important thing is to send the message that American troops will not be there for 100 years, 1000 years, etc. when you begin a withdrawal, you send a message to the Iraqis that there actually is an end in sight that provides a political impetus for progress.




Quote:
The key difference which you keep missing is that the Bush administration and the Iraqi government have always been for a withdrawal subject to conditions on the ground and the capability of Iraqi security forces.
did you even read the article? have you been listening to Maliki? where have you been for the last 6 years? do you listen to McCain?

his position is exactly the same as it was in 2003, 2004, etc. he wants to keep supplying indefinite soldiers, resources, whatever it takes, in order to stay the course in Iraq. he's on record saying "100 years." his "CONDITIONS AND PREREQUISITES" are the establishment of "a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state." just what does that mean? what are the measurements of such vague characteristics? this means that, hopefully, Iraq will become stable, and hopefully the Iraqis will make peace with each other, and hopefully all will go well, but if not, we'll still pour money into the situation.

if he doesn't want "100 years," it is incumbent upon him to say just how long he is willing to continue. what if these "CONDITIONS AND PREREQUISITES" aren't met in 5 years? in 50 years? in 500 years? do we keep pouring money down what is obviously a sinkhole? McCain hs said that after this war without end is over, US troops will remain in Iraq for generations in the way that they are in South Korea. when are we withdrawing from South Korea?

the issue is that McCain doesn't have a policy other than to toss out words like VICTORY or DEFEAT or other silly red-blooded jingoistic terms that obviously fool readers of the Weekly Standard.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 02:54 PM   #617
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,671
Local Time: 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Why did the United States invade Iraq?
Depends on who you ask. Some will say because of 9/11, some will say the war on terror, some will say we had satellite footage of WMDs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Has it made the United States less safe as Obama claims?
There is something to be said about it being a recruitment tool. Something to said about weakening relationships globally. And there is definately something to be said about exhausting a military that was never set up for nation building.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:03 PM   #618
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Depends on who you ask. Some will say because of 9/11, some will say the war on terror, some will say we had satellite footage of WMDs.


while there are multiple reasons, there is no question, whatsoever, that it was about the WMDs and their supposed threat to Americans. the idea that Saddam would give Al-Qaeda a bomb and they'd float it up the East River and flatten the Upper West Side.

*that* was the case that was presented to the American people.

and let's not forget that we removed Saddam 5 years ago. just what have we been doing ever since? cleaning up a huge mess which we created, one that did not exist -- there was never, ever AQ in Iraq -- before we invaded.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:38 PM   #619
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

it says that without a specific timetable for withdrawal, there would have been no progress.
There was no specific timetable for withdrawal. The Iraqi's have said they want a timeline for certain things to happen within, but it is not a timeline without prerequisites and conditions for Iraqi security and Iraqi military capability! Iraq's national security advisor already outlined what he was thinking about, and it is not even remotely similar to what Obama has proposed with the biggest differences being that the most important issue for any withdrawal plan is that it be conditions based.

Quote:
it affirms the Obama position which has always been a timetable with respect to certain conditions on the ground.
Obama has never had any conditions or prerequisites to begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq and to having all US combat brigades out in 16 months. Obama has NEVER required that the Iraqi military reach a certain level of capability prior to any US withdrawal.

Quote:
there was always flexibility, there was always conditions. *everyone* knows this. this is the nuance that you can't seem to wrap your head around.
You show me one place, anywhere, where Obama has said that he would ONLY withdraw US troops if conditions warrent it. Show me where Obama said that US withdrawal from Iraq was conditional based on the specific capability of Iraqi military forces?

Quote:
this is the nuance that you can't seem to wrap your head around. it's as if you're slowly becoming aware of the fact that you don't have any argument whatsoever and that the Obama position is now the Bush position.
Where is the nuance in stating that you will IMMEDIATELY begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq with the goal of having all US combat brigades out of Iraq in 16 months with no prerequisted for conditions on the ground and the capabilitiy of Iraqi forces?

Quote:
it's the open-endedness of the Bush/McCain plan -- 100 years, 1000 years -- that prevents progress from happening.
Massive progress has happened because the current civilian and military leaders of this country followed a sound strategy over the past few years which you were strongly opposed to. No one has any plans for staying in Iraq longer than is necessary which is why the Bush administration had plans to have half of US troops out of Iraq by the summer of 2004 prior to the invasion.


Quote:
what you don't get, and what's so exasperating, is the fact that under the big umbrella of WITHDRAWAL is room for much flexibility. the important thing is to send the message that American troops will not be there for 100 years, 1000 years, etc. when you begin a withdrawal, you send a message to the Iraqis that there actually is an end in sight that provides a political impetus for progress.
There is no real flexibility under Obama's plan. There are no prerequisites to starting a withdrawal, its just a move to start withdrawing regardless of conditions on the ground and then having all US combat brigades out in 16 months which by the way is something that many logistical officers in the military is unlikely to be possible.

Progress on the ground has occured because the United States has remained engaged in rebuilding the country and fighting the insurgency and reducing the violence instead of doing what Democrats recommended doing years ago. The Surge reduced violence substantially when Barack Obama claimed that it would increase violence. The Iraqi military and government have made massive progress over the last 18 months because of the continued work of the US military and diplomatic corp on the ground there, progress that would not of happened if the United States had yanked all of its combat brigades out of the country in between January 2007 and March 2008 as Barack Obama clearly stated that he wanted to do.


Quote:
did you even read the article? have you been listening to Maliki? where have you been for the last 6 years? do you listen to McCain?
You should ask yourself those questions.

Quote:
his position is exactly the same as it was in 2003, 2004, etc. he wants to keep supplying indefinite soldiers, resources, whatever it takes, in order to stay the course in Iraq. he's on record saying "100 years." his "CONDITIONS AND PREREQUISITES" are the establishment of "a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state." just what does that mean? what are the measurements of such vague characteristics? this means that, hopefully, Iraq will become stable, and hopefully the Iraqis will make peace with each other, and hopefully all will go well, but if not, we'll still pour money into the situation.
McCain's position on the war and any possible withdrawal is not the fabricated rubbish that the left likes to make up.

Its the same as his position on Afghanistan. McCain wants to continue to rebuild the economic, political, and security structures within Iraq to the point that US ground forces are no longer required for their continued development and keeping internal security in the country.

There are specific levels of capability that Iraqi military forces have to reach before they will be able to take over from a US combat brigade in a given province in providing security. The government has to make progress in a number of area's in order for the country to move foward, as outlined by the benchmarks. These are NOT vague characteristics but are conditions, factors, structures and capabilities that can be measured as they have been in other nationbuilding operations around the world.

This is not just a humanitarian effort, US national security is at stake here. The United States does not have the option of just picking up and leaving if it thinks things are not working out without endangering its security.


Quote:
if he doesn't want "100 years," it is incumbent upon him to say just how long he is willing to continue. what if these "CONDITIONS AND PREREQUISITES" aren't met in 5 years? in 50 years? in 500 years? do we keep pouring money down what is obviously a sinkhole? McCain hs said that after this war without end is over, US troops will remain in Iraq for generations in the way that they are in South Korea. when are we withdrawing from South Korea?
McCain never said that! He did say that US forces COULD remain in Iraq under peaceful circumstances in a status of forces agreement similar to what the US has with South Korea. He never said that the United States WOULD DEFINITELY stay in Iraq under such a condition though.

Bush, McCain, and the US military have already stated how long they plan to continue, as long as conditions on the ground warrent keeping US forces there to prevent development from stopping and security and stability from falling apart. Any withdrawal is based FIRST on conditions on the ground. That is something the Iraqi's and the Bush administration agree on, but differ with Barack Obama.

Quote:
the issue is that McCain doesn't have a policy other than to toss out words like VICTORY or DEFEAT or other silly red-blooded jingoistic terms that obviously fool readers of the Weekly Standard.

I suggest you take some time to listen to these men on the ground in Iraq and what their thoughts on the withdrawal plans of Barack Obama.

YouTube - Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan is Impossible

The Bush administration, McCain, the Iraqi government, the US military all continue to insist on sustainable security and having the proper conditions on the ground prior to any withdrawal, Obama does not.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:48 PM   #620
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Depends on who you ask. Some will say because of 9/11, some will say the war on terror, some will say we had satellite footage of WMDs.
Yet, the Bush administrations central case for removing Saddam was not 9/11, the war on terror, or satellite footage of WMD's, but Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD, his behavior and non-compliance on multiple issues in regards to other UN resolutions and the collapse of the sanctions and weapons embargo designed to help contain him.


Quote:
There is something to be said about it being a recruitment tool.
Oh, and the US invasion of Afghanistan is not a recruitment tool?

Quote:
Something to said about weakening relationships globally.
Well, then how is it that the largest US led alliance for the first time in history is involved in military operations outside of the continent it was set up to defend. Such a multi-lateral enterprise would not be possible between countries with significant weakening relationships.


Quote:
And there is definately something to be said about exhausting a military that was never set up for nation building.
What would you call what the US military has done in both Bosnia, and Kosovo and is doing now in Afghanistan?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:57 PM   #621
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
while there are multiple reasons, there is no question, whatsoever, that it was about the WMDs and their supposed threat to Americans. the idea that Saddam would give Al-Qaeda a bomb and they'd float it up the East River and flatten the Upper West Side.
Why do you think Bill Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox in November 1998? Was it because of an alleged threat to Americans within the United States or because he thought Saddam would give Al-Quada the bomb and they'd float it up the East River and flatten the Upper West Side?

Quote:
*that* was the case that was presented to the American people.
No, thats only a fraction of the case, which you like to make up as being the whole case.


Quote:
and let's not forget that we removed Saddam 5 years ago. just what have we been doing ever since? cleaning up a huge mess which we created, one that did not exist -- there was never, ever AQ in Iraq -- before we invaded.
Well, in liberal disney land where people like to ignore the consequences of not removing Saddam from power, that might be an accurate description.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 04:03 PM   #622
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,671
Local Time: 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Yet, the Bush administrations central case for removing Saddam was not 9/11, the war on terror, or satellite footage of WMD's, but Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD, his behavior and non-compliance on multiple issues in regards to other UN resolutions and the collapse of the sanctions and weapons embargo designed to help contain him.
Then how in the world did so much of the supporting public get it wrong?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post

Oh, and the US invasion of Afghanistan is not a recruitment tool?
Perhaps, but I think the majority of the world can see the difference between the two.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Well, then how is it that the largest US led alliance for the first time in history is involved in military operations outside of the continent it was set up to defend. Such a multi-lateral enterprise would not be possible between countries with significant weakening relationships.
You can't possible think we have the same standing globally that we did a decade ago.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post

What would you call what the US military has done in both Bosnia, and Kosovo and is doing now in Afghanistan?
Take a look at which units are doing the majority of the nation building in Iraq, those units were not designed to do so, they are the first to admit it.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-14-2008, 04:12 PM   #623
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:42 AM
This article may shed some light on why the race is tightening up.


Quote:

Obama, McCain agree on many once-divisive issues

Their similar stances on immigration, nuclear weapons, global warming and stem-cell research are evidence of a centrist shift in the political landscape.

By Janet Hook,, Peter Wallsten and Peter Nicholas
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

July 13, 2008

WASHINGTON — For Amy Rick, the 2008 presidential election is a win-win situation. Both Barack Obama and John McCain support an expansion of stem-cell research that she has battled for in vain under President Bush.

"Both are very solid," said Rick, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research. "We are definitely looking forward with optimism to a change in policy in 2009."

John Isaacs, an arms control advocate, feels the same way, because both candidates have made nuclear nonproliferation a priority. "We'll have major progress on nuclear issues no matter who is elected," said Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World.

Stem-cell research and nuclear weapons are just two examples of a surprising but little-noticed aspect of the 2008 campaign: Democrat Obama and Republican McCain agree on a range of issues that have divided the parties under Bush.

On immigration, faith-based social services, expanded government wiretapping, global warming and more, Obama and McCain have arrived at similar stances -- even as they have spent weeks trying to amplify the differences between them on other issues, such as healthcare and taxes.

Even on Iraq, a signature issue for both candidates, McCain and Obama have edged toward each other.

The result is that in many areas of policy, the general direction of the next White House seems already set, even if the details are not.

The centrist consensus on many issues underscores an important dynamic in the 2008 political climate: At a time of growing frustration with gridlock and partisan bickering in Washington, politicians with a pragmatic, middle-course tack are thriving. In both parties, the more strident, ideological presidential candidates lost in the primaries.

This development also shows how this presidential election differs from the last. Whereas both political parties in 2004 focused on mobilizing their most ardent supporters, this campaign's battle is focusing on the political middle.

The convergence is in large measure a result of McCain's record of defying the GOP party line. But Obama too has been tacking to the center lately on a number of fronts, including trade, government wiretapping policy and the death penalty.

"It debunks the common view that Obama is the most liberal Democratic senator," Isaacs said. "And it debunks the view that McCain is really the third Bush term."

To be sure, a McCain presidency would look far different than an Obama presidency. The two candidates have starkly different approaches to healthcare, Social Security and Supreme Court nominations, among other issues. But this makes it all the more surprising that in many areas the rivals are more or less aligned.

Initially, the war in Iraq was one of the hot-button disagreements. Obama made his early opposition to the war a cornerstone of his candidacy; McCain's calling card has been his support for the war and last year's troop increase. But in the course of the campaign, their differences have narrowed over the choices facing the next president.

McCain has repeatedly opposed setting timetables for withdrawing U.S. forces, but more recently he has said he wants most troops out by 2013 -- the first time he has mentioned a specific date.

Obama has repeatedly said he would withdraw troops within 16 months of taking office, but he has hedged in ways that would give him wide latitude: He says he will listen to military commanders, will react to events on the ground and may "refine" his plan after his upcoming trip to Iraq.

In other areas of policy:

* Both McCain and Obama favor combating global warming with a "cap and trade" system. Under this plan, the government would set limits on emissions. Companies and others who emit gases below those limits would be able to sell credits to those unable to meet the targets.

* On the future of nuclear power, the candidates are in the same neighborhood. McCain has laid out a plan to build 45 nuclear power plants. Obama has offered more general support, along with the caveat that a nuclear power expansion be coupled with a resolution on how to safely dispose of waste.

* Both have parted ways with Bush and advocated stepped-up negotiations with Russia and other countries to reduce the world's nuclear arsenal.

* Both twice voted for legislation -- which Bush twice vetoed -- that would have eased federal restrictions on human embryonic stem-cell research.

* Obama voted in the Senate on Wednesday for a bill, bitterly opposed by many liberals, to expand the government's eavesdropping authority and to protect telephone companies that cooperate with the program from being sued. McCain was not present for the vote but has said he supported the bill.

* Both embrace the idea of continuing Bush's faith-based initiative, a program that funnels federal money to religious charities for social services.

Although those issues are not prominent in the campaign debate, the candidates are also converging on the major issue of immigration -- to the surprise and delight of immigrant advocates and businesses who depend on their labor.

"The best news all year is that after competitive presidential primaries in both parties, we end up with nominees on both sides who get it on immigration," said John Gay, an official with the National Restaurant Assn. who heads a business coalition favoring a legalization plan for undocumented immigrant workers. "That was by no means a certainty when the campaign got started."

Most of McCain's rivals for the GOP nomination had criticized the idea of legalization as amnesty, and many campaign ads played on growing concerns about illegal immigrants.

McCain had been an early supporter of a legalization program for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. During the primary, he distanced himself from that plan and said he had learned his lesson, that Americans want the border secured first.

But now McCain has shifted his emphasis again, indicating that as president he would push for broad legislation that tackles all of the country's immigration troubles, including the legalization question.

Obama speaks more directly to the idea of legalization, and McCain addresses it in subtle terms, but advocates say the position is essentially the same.

"Sen. McCain never really repudiated his [original] position," said Tamar Jacoby, who heads a business coalition called ImmigrationWorks USA. "Saying you're going to do it in phases doesn't mean you're not going to do it."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 04:24 PM   #624
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:42 AM
Quote:
Has Barack Obama Peaked Too Soon?

July 14, 2008 10:25 AM ET | Bonnie Erbe

This weekend's RasmussenReports.com presidential tracking poll results are not good news for the Obama camp, despite the following caveats:

1. National daily presidential tracking polls are lousy predictors of electoral college results. They offer little insight into how key swing states will vote. In tight races, the White House is won in swing states. 2. Three-and-a-half months out from what we know is going to be a tight race, it is still way too early to give much credence to any poll.

Caveats aside, starting this past weekend, there has been a sizable shift in a poll that has pretty consistently shown Sen. Barack Obama beating Sen. John McCain in a two-way matchup since early June.

McCain, by normal GOP standards, has run a disastrous campaign of his own. He can neither find nor keep good staff. He's off message more than he's on. And he's produced his own series of flip-flops (albeit rather petty ones when compared with Obama's gaffes).

Has Obama peaked too soon? If upcoming polls find his lead to have evaporated long term and this weekend's findings turn out to have been more than just "statistical noise," then the answer will be "yes." If so, it might just be a bit of poetic justice. A little less than a year ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton was the media-anointed front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Then last winter, she was deemed to have peaked too soon.

Along came a rock star, a messiah, the Democrats' great hope, in the form of one Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton was tossed aside as so much detritus.

Lots can happen between now and November. Obama can regain the support of media figures who seem to have turned on him since he secured the nomination. Clinton supporters are hoping he will choose her as his running mate, but it remains to be seen if even that will be enough to woo her dispirited supporters into the Obama fold.

She peaked too soon, and that may just be what is happening to him right now.
This article asked the question

only time will give us the answer.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 04:37 PM   #625
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:42 AM
silly me, getting drawn into the insanity of discussing anything with STING.

anyway, as for the polls, yes, the daily polls show that, this week, things are tightening. but i don't think we have any idea what the country is thinking yet. i don't think the country knows what it's thinking yet. last week, Obama was up 15 in the Newsweek poll. this week, it's down to 4?

nah. what's important now are the polls either in the individual states, or the polls about the general mood in the country. everyone's pointing to the Rasmussen poll (even though we're told that the only poll that ever counts is Gallup ), but this same poll has Obama now up 8 in Michigan.

so who knows?

my guess is that these are statistical fluctuations with a few outliers, and Obama has a small but real 5ish point lead nationally.

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 04:39 PM   #626
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:42 AM
If it is a money race

he is up by a lot more than 5 points.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 04:54 PM   #627
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
everyone's pointing to the Rasmussen poll
we sit with our eyes transfixed on computer screens
waiting with 'bated fingers'

for something, anything at all, that we can swallow
and be first to spew out

now, I am alive, plugged in to the collective, brilliant net community, the here and now, facebookers, cheese cake factory eschewing, fist bumpers.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 05:35 PM   #628
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:42 AM
boo-yah!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 06:19 PM   #629
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Then how in the world did so much of the supporting public get it wrong?

They didn't get it wrong. Its a fact that Saddam was in violation of 17 UN security council resolutions, had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD, and after the war was discovered to have hidden multiple programs related to the production of WMD in direct violation of the resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. Saddam never gave up his intentions to aquire new WMD and dominate the Persian Gulf.


Quote:
Perhaps, but I think the majority of the world can see the difference between the two.
So now your claiming that those motivated to join Al Quada since the invasion of Iraq actually support the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and have not and will not fight for Bin Ladin in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region? Their only motivation for joining Al Quada is the removal of Saddam from power?


Quote:
You can't possible think we have the same standing globally that we did a decade ago.
Well, lets see, wouldn't the United States standing in the world impact its ability to radically change the mission of what had formaly been a defensive Alliance just for western Europe?

I'm well aware of the perceptions and myths, but the reality is a little different.

Quote:
Take a look at which units are doing the majority of the nation building in Iraq, those units were not designed to do so, they are the first to admit it.
Many of the US units that have deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo over the past 10 years are exactly the same type of units that have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. They are ground combat brigades that can engage in major war fighting if necessary. The combat brigades consist of armored brigades, mechanized infantry brigades, and light infantry brigades. The only distinction that you could draw is that only light infantry brigades have been sent into Afghanistan at this point, do to the more difficult terrain and the difficult logistical requirements that require nearly all supplies to be airlifted in to the country.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 06:24 PM   #630
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,981
Local Time: 08:42 AM
Obama tells NAACP blacks must take responsibility

By GLEN JOHNSON and DAN SEWELL, Associated Press Writers 3 minutes ago

Barack Obama is conceding that he has angered some blacks by calling on them to show greater personal responsibility, but he says he's not going to stop.

In remarks prepared for a speech Monday night to the NAACP convention in Cincinnati, the Democratic presidential candidate will say that while Washington has to provide more education and economic assistance, blacks must demand more of themselves.

He says that starts with parents guiding their children, turning off the TV and putting away video games.

Obama could become the first black president if elected in November.

The Illinois senator gave a similar speech on Father's Day at a Chicago church, upsetting some black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen 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 08:42 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