Why will the republicans win in 2008? - Page 5 - 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 01-01-2008, 07:20 PM   #61
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: 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I don't think this is true this time around. The Republicans are the ones who can't come up with a candidate to energize any large faction, much less the base.

I agree. I actually think the Dems have a really exciting field of candidates this year and as far as I can tell most Democrats, though they certainly have their preferences right now, will unite around any one of the leading candidates that ends up getting the nomination. Anyone here want to cop to being a Democrat who won't vote for Hillary if she gets the nom?
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 11:15 PM   #62
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


What are you talking about? With the exception of Ron Paul, most Republicans still support this war and the idea of combating terrorism rather than running away.

And please explain your Jesus comment. I don't know what that means.
Many conservative voters are fed up with this war, they don't see it going well.

Huck is making comments that Romney's Jesus isn't the same Jesus he believes in. McCain and Guiliani aren't known for their strong faith or moral compasses. Paul hasn't even mentioned Jesus... Last time around the Republicans definately wanted a theocracy, this time around the canidates aren't exactly unified on that.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 08:54 AM   #63
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




all of the Democratic front runners think we will be in Iraq well into 2009.

most people don't want to walk out right now, but most people don't think a 15 year or more occupation is the correct course of action.

you're doing what Strongbow/STING does, which is take a minority position amongst a minority of people, and pretending that this speaks for everyone and anyone who disagrees with you. i think a pullout tomorrow would be disastrous. but i think a long term occupation is even worse.
Its a well documented fact that nearly all Democrats wanted to withdraw all US combat troops by March 31, 2008 including the 3 leading Democratic contenders at the start of 2007. But, although they would never admit it, the success of the surge in 2007 has forced them to change their tune. A leading Democratic contender not committing to have all US troops out by 2013 would have been unthinkable 1 year ago, but its now the position of the three leading candidates.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 09:02 AM   #64
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
when has Hillary called for a withdrawal date?

a withdrawal is one thing -- even Bush wants to start reducing troops once he gets enough coverage from "the surge" -- but she has not mentioned a specific date to withdraw by.

most of us are concerned by the size of the US embassy being built over there and the groundwork that has been laid for a long term occupation in the heart of the most instable region in the world that will do nothing but breed more hatred and swallow billions and billions more into a cesspool of ethnic hatred that's quickly devolving. the best thing we can do is get off their oil and move on to other things -- like the actual "war on terror," for lack of a better term -- rather than incur the debt, loss of morale at home and inspiration of rage abroad that a long term occupation of Iraq/Mesopotamia/the Middle East would entail.

an endless military and economic commitment to Iraq makes no sense, unless you're willing to say that, yes, we are there to secure the oil. but i'd respond by saying that the only rational response to oil dependence is to get ourselves off the junk rather than have our very own Afghanistan that will surely rot the US from within just as surely as it brought down the Soviet Empire.
The difference with Bush is that he is only going to withdraw troops if conditions on the ground warrent it and would have no problem sending troops back if they are needed.

Maintaining the US military and economic committment to Iraq is more important than the committment to Afghanistan. If your such an advocate of withdrawal from the region, why are you not calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan which is actually devoid of Al Quada attacks unlike Iraq, and certainly does not have, nor does it border area's that have natural resources that so heavily impact the planet like Iraq does.

Sectarian conflict, and muslim anger over the US occupation are issues with Afghanistan as well, yet, the response from so many Democrats is the opposite of Iraq policy.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 10:36 AM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

But, although they would never admit it, the success of the surge in 2007 has forced them to change their tune.
I don't know what type of "success" it is when 1.5 million Iraqi refugees flee to Syria, and underage girls have to turn to prostitution to survive:

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...BrandChannel=0

If things are so great, why haven't they returned home?
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 11:22 AM   #66
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:46 AM
i find it really funny when people talk about what a great success "the surge" has been, especially after they spent 4 years holding their hands over their ears, shutting their eyes, and screaming, EVERYTHING IS GOING JUST FINE IN IRAQ! EVERYTHING IS GOING JUST FINE!"

touting the success of "the surge" is an admission of the colossal errors made from the start of the invasion, and it's an indictment of Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney and an admission of a total lack of post-war planning. if you admire "the surge," you should be disgusted by the incompetence of the years 2003-2007 in equal measure.

i know McCain is. this is why he himself is surging. it's not that everyone believes in the Iraq mission. it's that McCain knows that he can use "the surge" to distance himself from the disaster of the Bush policies and to demonstrate that he, as opposed to Junior, is competent.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:21 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Hahaha, Fox banned Ron Paul from the Republican debate in New Hampshire.

Read about it.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:17 PM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Re: Why will the republicans win in 2008?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dreadsox
[B]Thoughts?

Quote:
Why will the republicans win in 2008?
National
Security.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:51 PM   #69
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Hahaha, Fox banned Ron Paul from the Republican debate in New Hampshire.

Read about it.


it's astonishing. he has way more money than, say, Fred Thompson.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 02:51 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 12:46 AM

The ladies aren't resonating Mr. Paul:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._problems.html


__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:50 PM   #71
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Re: Re: Why will the republicans win in 2008?

Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


National
Security.

dbs
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:59 PM   #72
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i find it really funny when people talk about what a great success "the surge" has been, especially after they spent 4 years holding their hands over their ears, shutting their eyes, and screaming, EVERYTHING IS GOING JUST FINE IN IRAQ! EVERYTHING IS GOING JUST FINE!"

touting the success of "the surge" is an admission of the colossal errors made from the start of the invasion, and it's an indictment of Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney and an admission of a total lack of post-war planning. if you admire "the surge," you should be disgusted by the incompetence of the years 2003-2007 in equal measure.

i know McCain is. this is why he himself is surging. it's not that everyone believes in the Iraq mission. it's that McCain knows that he can use "the surge" to distance himself from the disaster of the Bush policies and to demonstrate that he, as opposed to Junior, is competent.

Its a great success, because typically with any large scale counterinsurgency or nation building exercise, such a turn around takes years NOT months to achieve. Typically throughout history, most invasions and occupations involve far heavier casualties than was seen in Iraq prior to the Surge, so despite the mistakes made early on, Iraq prior to the surge can be viewed as a success when one considers the multiple accomplishments of building a new Iraqi military, the formation of a government, as well as long and difficult negotiations with militia and insurgent groups that started as far back as 2004. Any occupation that faces such a large insurgency will experience many of the problems that the coalition has in Iraq. In some cases the occupying force may be forced out. While its true that the initial occupation could have been handled better, its inaccurate to say that it was a "failure" as there were plenty of achievements during that time frame as well. What makes the surge different is how rapid the success and accomplishments have been, but there was plenty of good ground work done for it in the years prior to January 2007 which contributed to the success this year as well.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:04 PM   #73
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ntalwar


I don't know what type of "success" it is when 1.5 million Iraqi refugees flee to Syria, and underage girls have to turn to prostitution to survive:

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...BrandChannel=0

If things are so great, why haven't they returned home?
The refugees you speak of fled over a long period of time, and it will take a long period of time to resettle them all. Nation building is a long and difficult task. Despite that, the success this year in 2007 has been dramatic, and any time casualty levels drop by this magnitude and at this rate, it is a great accomplishment, and only those at the extreme corners of the political spectrum will refuse to acknowledge it.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:22 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

The refugees you speak of fled over a long period of time, and it will take a long period of time to resettle them all. Nation building is a long and difficult task. Despite that, the success this year in 2007 has been dramatic, and any time casualty levels drop by this magnitude and at this rate, it is a great accomplishment, and only those at the extreme corners of the political spectrum will refuse to acknowledge it.
So for the ones that do return - they will simply starve:

http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=4220&blz=1

Quote:
The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.

The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.
The goal apparently is the depopulation of civilians.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:46 PM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

Despite that, the success this year in 2007 has been dramatic, and any time casualty levels drop by this magnitude and at this rate, it is a great accomplishment,
Quote:
This year has been the most deadly for American troops in Iraq since the invasion nearly five years ago, US military figures out today show.
__________________

__________________
anitram 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 02:46 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