US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 43 - 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, 06:30 PM   #631
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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.

The newsweek poll is down to 3 now actually. Gallup does not do state polls, but they are still the most consistently accurate over time in the national poll, which I admit is not actually the main thing to be looking at in this election.

While things are tightening up in other national polls besides Gallup, Barack Obama's position in the swing states has substantially improved ironically. Currently, all the Blue states appear to be out of reach for McCain, and the key to be looking out now is McCain holding states that are tipping like Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana. Missouri has held up surprisingly well over the past few months although there is a new polls that shows Barack ahead there. Nevada still seems to be with McCain.

The red states that seem to have gone blue and will be difficult for McCain to get back are just enough to win the election for Obama, Iowa, Colorodo, and New Mexico. But provided McCain is able to hold Ohio and Virginia, he still has a shot at getting back one of those formally red states which would give him the win.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 06:36 PM   #632
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Continuously claiming that the removal of Saddam from power by the US military is the worst foreign policy mistake in US history and that it has made the United States less safe.
That in no way equals "mourning the removal of Saddam" - and you should be smart enough to realize that.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 06:41 PM   #633
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:

Obama on the War


Peter Wehner - 07.14.2008 - 9:54 AM

In his New York Times op-ed today on Iraq, Barack Obama makes several claims worth examining.

In his opening paragraph, Obama writes

"The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States."

A phased redeployment of combat troops can now be done in the context of a victory in Iraq, whereas when Obama first called for the complete withdrawal of all combat troops in Iraq by March 2008, it would have led to an American defeat. It is because President Bush endorsed a counterinsurgency plan which Senator Obama fiercely opposed that we are in a position to both withdraw additional combat troops and prevail in Iraq.

Obama goes on to write

"In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda - greatly weakening its effectiveness."

"But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge . . . Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country."

This point cannot be emphasized enough: Obama, in opposing the surge, was wrong on the most important politico-military decision since the war began. He not only opposed the surge, he predicted in advance that it could not succeed and that it would not lead to a decrease in violence (on January 10, 2007, the night President Bush announced the surge, Obama declared he saw nothing in the plan that would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” A week later, he repeated the point emphatically: the surge strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.”)


Both predictions were demonstrably wrong. And for Obama to state that Iraq’s leaders “have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge” is misleading and false. Iraqi leaders have reached comprehensive political accommodations, including passing key laws having to do with provincial elections, the distribution of resources, amnesty, pensions, investment, and de-Ba’athification. In fact, a report card issued in May judged that Iraq’s efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are “satisfactory”–almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. Is Obama unaware of these achievements? Does he care at all about them?


In addition, Prime Minister Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, has taken to lead in opposing Shiite militia throughout Iraq, which in turn has led in a rallying of political support for Maliki throughout Iraq and respect for him among other Arab leaders.

The successful, Iraqi-led operations in Basra, Sadr City, and elsewhere completely subvert Obama’s claim that “only be redeploying our troops” can these things be achieved. They are in fact being achieved, something which would have been impossible if Obama’s “redeployment” plan had been put in place.


Obama writes this as well:

"for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender."

In fact, it is far from clear that Iraq will be judged a strategic blunder at all, let alone the “greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy.” It is now plausible to argue that the Iraq war will lead to a defeat of historic proportions for al Qaeda. It has already triggered a massive Sunni Muslim uprising against al Qaeda, a repudiation of violent jihadism from some of its original architects, and a significant shift within the Muslim world against the brutal tactics of jihadists. Iraq is also, right now, the only authentic democracy in the Arab world. And Saddam Hussein, the most aggressive and destabilizing force in the Middle East for the last several decades, is dead, and his genocidal regime is now but an awful, infamous memory.

This is not to deny that huge mistakes and miscalculations were made in the Phase IV planning of the war; it is to say, however, that those mistakes have been rectified and that we are now on the road to success in Iraq. None of this would have been possible if Senator Obama’s recommendations had been followed. It’s worth adding, I suppose, that if Obama’s recommendations had been followed, the results would qualify as the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy.

Finally, Obama writes this:

"on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war."

This is in some ways the most revealing statement written by Obama. He still cannot bring himself to say that the mission in Iraq is success, even when success is clearly within our grasp. For Obama the mission is, and since his presidential announcement in February 2007 has been, to end the war, even if it means an American loss of epic proportions. And if Obama had had his way, that is exactly what would have come to pass.


Among the most striking things about Obama’s op-ed is how intellectually dishonest it is, particularly for a man who once proudly proclaimed that he would let facts rather than preconceived views dictate his positions on Iraq.Obama’s op-ed is the effort of an arrogant and intellectually rigid man, one who disdains empirical evidence and is attempting to justify the fact that he has been consistently wrong on Iraq since the war began (for more, see my April 2008 article in Commentary, “Obama’s War“).

Senator Obama is once again practicing the “old politics” he claims to stand against, which is bad enough. But that Obama would have allowed America to lose, al Qaeda and Iran to win, and the Iraqi people to suffer mass death and possibly genocide because of his ideological opposition to the war is far worse. On those grounds alone, he ought to be disqualified from being America’s next commander-in-chief.
Commentary Blog Archive Obama on the War
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 06:41 PM   #634
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
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.
Wow, that didn't even come close to addressing the issue I was discussing, do you read the posts you reply to? This has nothing to do with why so many mention 9/11, war on terror, satellite footage, etc as to why we're over there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post

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?
Why would they fight for Bin Laden if they weren't supporters of Bin Laden before 9/11? How would a retaliation be used for recruitment purposes? If you didn't support Bin Laden than most would understand the reason for retaliation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post

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.
Well once again this doesn't really address the issue. Bosnia isn't exactly the perfect example of nation building. But the truth is, like I said many of the generals have admitted this themselves, they really aren't trained or equipped for nation building.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 06:42 PM   #635
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Well, in liberal disney land
Oh grow up.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 06:49 PM   #636
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
This is in some ways the most revealing statement written by Obama. He still cannot bring himself to say that the mission in Iraq is success, even when success is clearly within our grasp. For Obama the mission is, and since his presidential announcement in February 2007 has been, to end the war, even if it means an American loss of epic proportions. And if Obama had had his way, that is exactly what would have come to pass.
Wrong. Ending the war does not mean admitting defeat (though that is very telling of your mentality here). Setting a timetable is not admitting defeat. I can't believe this actually has to be explained. Giving the Iraqis a clear timeline to accelerate their political progress is not admitting defeat. Malaki wants a timetable. Even the Bush administration is making movements towards an accelerated drawback of troops, and they've even danced around the word "timetable" in recent days.

Ending a war does not equal losing a war.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 06:54 PM   #637
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Oh grow up.
Well to Sting's credit, maybe he is on to something here. If you think about it Conservative Disney World would be pretty boring.

A quarter of the characters would be removed due to fear of being gay.
It's a small world would kick out all the immigrants.
Rides would be shut down due to being too sexual.
And the only music they would have is Ted Nugent.

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 07:06 PM   #638
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: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Obama has always wanted a timed, cautious withdrawal over a period of months (not years, or decades). Obama has always said that the general timeframe for this will be about 18 months (give or taken, depending on conditions and logistics, which only makes sense).

No, no, no! It's withdrawal "without preconditions and regardless of the situation on the ground" (or something like that). That phrase is very important, you see. It frames the argument, and our GOP operative on the forum is a master of framing the argument in ways that serve his interests.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 07:11 PM   #639
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Wow, that didn't even come close to addressing the issue I was discussing, do you read the posts you reply to? This has nothing to do with why so many mention 9/11, war on terror, satellite footage, etc as to why we're over there.
For that, you don't need to look any further than Democrats who like to cherry pick Bush speeches on the war and frabicate what the administration central case for the war was.

But the administrations central case for removing Saddam was laid down in UN security council resolution 1441 and the congressional resolution in October 2002 both authorizing military action. 9/11, war on terror, and this satellite footage were not mentioned at all in the UN resolution and were certainly not the central case made in the congressional resolution authorizing the President to take military action against Iraq.


Quote:
Why would they fight for Bin Laden if they weren't supporters of Bin Laden before 9/11?
You were the one who claimed the invasion of Iraq had caused all these people who were not previously apart of Al Quada prior to 9/11 to join the terrorist group.

Quote:
How would a retaliation be used for recruitment purposes?
The same way a UN authorized invasion of Iraq to insure the security and stability of the region could be used for recruitment purposes.

Quote:
If you didn't support Bin Laden than most would understand the reason for retaliation.
If you didn't support Saddam then most should understand given the circumstances why the UN authorized invasion of Iraq was necessary. Whats the logic in fighting for Bin Ladin because of the removal of Saddam when one did not previously support Bin Ladin?

Quote:
Bosnia isn't exactly the perfect example of nation building.
Lets see, we have a country that was ripped apart by a real civil war between 3 different ethnic groups with nearly 10% of the entire population be killed in just the space of 4 years. If that had happened in Iraq, over 3 million people would have been killed the past 5 years.

But within two years of US military action and the deployment of a US heavy armored division into Bosnia, U2 came to town with their POPMART show. Today, formally war torn Bosnia has a standard of living higher than Brazil or Russia.

Bosnia is the best example of successful nation building over the past 15 years.

Quote:
But the truth is, like I said many of the generals have admitted this themselves, they really aren't trained or equipped for nation building.
It may not be their first mission, but its something they successfully did in Bosnia and Kosovo and are currently doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no other organization that is properly equipped to handle nation building in an unstable war zone than the military.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 07:18 PM   #640
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Wrong. Ending the war does not mean admitting defeat (though that is very telling of your mentality here). Setting a timetable is not admitting defeat. I can't believe this actually has to be explained. Giving the Iraqis a clear timeline to accelerate their political progress is not admitting defeat. Malaki wants a timetable. Even the Bush administration is making movements towards an accelerated drawback of troops, and they've even danced around the word "timetable" in recent days.

Ending a war does not equal losing a war.
Ending the war by removing all combat troops by March 2008, four months ago, would not have been good for America or Iraq. Opposing the troop surge, it has turned out, would not have been good for America or Iraq.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 07:22 PM   #641
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Wrong. Ending the war does not mean admitting defeat (though that is very telling of your mentality here). Setting a timetable is not admitting defeat. I can't believe this actually has to be explained. Giving the Iraqis a clear timeline to accelerate their political progress is not admitting defeat. Malaki wants a timetable. Even the Bush administration is making movements towards an accelerated drawback of troops, and they've even danced around the word "timetable" in recent days.

Ending a war does not equal losing a war.
By the way that came from article by Peter Wehner.

Has Barack Obama ever had as a prerequisite to withdrawing from Iraq, the security and stability of the country as well as the proper capability of the Iraqi military? No

When Barack Obama talks about ending the war, he is primarily talking about ending US involvement in the war, withdrawing all US troops.

The key difference between where the Iraqi's, Bush, and McCain are on withdrawal and where Obama is on withdrawal, is that Obama insist on a withdrawal without any prerequisites or conditions. Its something he has stated would start immediately without any prerequisites and that has not been the position of Bush, McCain, the US military or the Iraqi government.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 07:22 PM   #642
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 04:57 AM
I give up, not sure why I even engaged.

Sting, you once again ignored most of the issues that I actually brought up and since we're off topic I'm going to stop.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 07:31 PM   #643
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: 05:57 AM
Ah, this is it:

"without any prerequisites or conditions"

That's the phrase. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 07:46 PM   #644
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Obama tells NAACP blacks must take responsibility.
I hope he was wearing a cup.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 09:26 PM   #645
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Obama insist on a withdrawal without any prerequisites or conditions.
This is false. His speech, the one your previous posted article responded to, says he would take into consideration conditions on the ground. Now that you're using a demonstrably false talking point, care to respond without talking about a lack of prerequisites or conditions?
__________________

__________________
Diemen 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 05:57 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