Obama General Discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
you need to stop with your thoughtful, nuanced perspective that makes sweeping characterizations like "little San Francisco" impossible to sustain. the only way STING can talk about anything is if he constructs non-existent strawmen and imaginary opposition to his positions, as well as fabrications about what Obama has and has not said.

please, stop.

The only thing that is imaginary or frabricated here is your claims about people posting in this forum, their positions, as well as what Obama has actually said and not said.

The reference to San Francisco county is simply that it is probably the most liberal county in the country in terms of how the population there votes. Few would argue that FYM is not heavily liberal.
 
san francisco is also a really awesome city and most people would kill to live there and it has a huge quality of life. so the slams seem kind of insane.

would you rather live in "little Topeka, KS"?

Sorry, although you want to think its a "slam", its not. San Francisco County just has a very strong record of voting heavily in favor of Democratic candidates, perhaps the strongest of any county in the country. The comparison with FYM is that the level of support for Democratic political figures there seems similar to the level of support you find in this forum for Democratic political figures. Its just a comparison of the voting and not a slam on anything.
 
I'd like to see any evidence that the majority of "Little San Francisco" here was in favor of immediate withdrawal (regardless of the conditions) from Iraq or Afghanistan as you seem to imply, Sting.

Time to back up your strawmen.
 
i haven't commented on the Obama speech because i see no good options.

but i feel further convinced that America has neither the blood nor the treasure to give to sustain a permanent colonial presence in two middle eastern countries for the next 20 years. and i don't see how that would make us any safer, at all, from radical islamist terrorism.

and, yes, i continue to blame Bush for this.
 
Not at all. Its just interesting to see that there is no reaction, either for, against, or undecided about the policy after such a big speech.

Are you expecting some post on Little San Francisco's website, or do you need to be reminded that you're literally talking about something that doesn't exist?
 
Are you expecting some post on Little San Francisco's website, or do you need to be reminded that you're literally talking about something that doesn't exist?

If George W. had given the same speech committing 30K more soldiers, there would be plenty of talk here.

(Everyone had an opinion on the Iraq surge, after all)
 
If George W. had given the same speech committing 30K more soldiers, there would be plenty of talk here.

(Everyone had an opinion on the Iraq surge, after all)

You have to be able to see the difference, you used to be able to do this...

One started it, the other is just trying to maintain or finish it.
 
If George W. had given the same speech committing 30K more soldiers, there would be plenty of talk here.

(Everyone had an opinion on the Iraq surge, after all)



and most people know that Iraq and Afghanistan are two totally different countries.

equivocation only goes so far.
 
there are no good options here.

i just wish the people who argued for prioritizing Iraq over Afghanistan these past 6 years would up and apologize.
 
and most people know that Iraq and Afghanistan are two totally different countries.

equivocation only goes so far.

True, they are different countries.

A surge strategy was much more likely to work in one than in the other.
 
50758823.jpg



At Least Obama ... I'm just proud of our president when they showed him, it was nice to finally see him not bow to somebody, you know.”
-- Dennis Miller
 
I'd like to see any evidence that the majority of "Little San Francisco" here was in favor of immediate withdrawal (regardless of the conditions) from Iraq or Afghanistan as you seem to imply, Sting.

Time to back up your strawmen.

In January 2007, Barack Obama came up with his plan for Iraq. It involved immediately withdrawing ALL 15 US Combat Brigades in Iraq at that time by March 31, 2008, regardless of conditions on the ground. Obama explained that the US military could not make any difference in what had become a "Civil War" and it was time for the United States to "end its involvement in a war that should have never have been fought".

He opposed the surge strategy in January 2007 which is the exact opposite of the strategy he proposed which was a unilateral withdrawal of troops without any regard for conditions on the ground.

Throughout 2007, Barack Obama supported multiple attempts by Congress to force the President into immediately starting a withdrawal without ANY regard to conditions on the ground. Conditions on the ground did not matter because in the view of Barack Obama and his democratic friends at the time, the United States was basically powerless to significantly effect conditions on the ground. Iraq was "a civil War" and the only thing that United States could do in 2007 was get out as quick as possible.

Now, I think it would be safe to say that the vast majority of people here in FYM agreed with Barack Obama on this issue back in 2007 with regards to Iraq. They supported Barack Obama's plan and congressional efforts to force the President to begin withdrawing troops PERIOD. No regard for conditions! None of the Democratic congressional bills on funding for the troops tied any of the withdrawal demands to any sort of conditions. The majority of people in here supported that, even though it was definitely the wrong policy.

Years, later, we see that the 2007 surge worked far better then even those that developed the strategy imagined it could. Even Barack Obama was forced to admit in the final months of 2008, that the surge strategy that he had so vigioursly opposed had indeed worked. Only irrational nut cases like Michael Moore still claim otherwise.


On Afghanistan, I've never claimed that the majority in here favored any sort of withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, my whole point with regards to Afghanistan is that FYM has been strangely silent on the matter. No significant reactions for or against.
 
In January 2007, Barack Obama came up with his plan for Iraq.


January 2007, Barack Obama came up with his plan for Iraq. It involved immediately withdrawing ALL 15 US Combat Brigades in Iraq at that time by March 31, 2008, regardless of conditions on the ground..

Now, I think it would be safe to say that the vast majority of people here in FYM agreed with Barack Obama on this issue back in 2007 with regards to Iraq. They supported Barack Obama's plan and congressional efforts to force the President to begin withdrawing troops PERIOD. No regard for conditions! .

I remember all of this w perfect clarity.
Get ready for the selective memory of many here.

<>
 
Now, I think it would be safe to say that the vast majority of people here in FYM agreed with Barack Obama on this issue back in 2007 with regards to Iraq.

And that is where you'd be wrong. Believe it or not, people can support a candidate and still disagree with some of his positions.
 
i haven't commented on the Obama speech because i see no good options.

but i feel further convinced that America has neither the blood nor the treasure to give to sustain a permanent colonial presence in two middle eastern countries for the next 20 years. and i don't see how that would make us any safer, at all, from radical islamist terrorism.

and, yes, i continue to blame Bush for this.

Well, I know there would be plenty of comments on this if Bush were still in office or if the President was McCain rather than Obama.

There is NO colonial US presense in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the middle east. This idea is just absurd. The United States does have the resources to continue to provide security in these area's and cannot afford NOT too! Every policy option has cost, and its time some here considered the cost of doing the opposite, like withdrawing from Iraq or Afghanistan pre-maturely.

Bush did not create industrial society or the energy dependent needs of such a society. He did not create Saddam, or Islamic terrorism. All of these things existed long before Bush ran for President in 2000.
 
And that is where you'd be wrong. Believe it or not, people can support a candidate and still disagree with some of his positions.

Ok, then show me the qoutes of people disagreeing in here with Barack Obama's policy in Iraq in 2007 as well the Democratic congressional attempts to start immediately withdrawing troops. The majority in here is on the left, and I don't recall anyone on the left opposing Barack Obama in 2007 or congressional democrats on policy in Iraq in 2007.

But hey, if you have some qoutes or know some people on the left that were against Obama policy on Iraq then in FYM, dig it up, it would be very interesting.
 
Are you expecting some post on Little San Francisco's website, or do you need to be reminded that you're literally talking about something that doesn't exist?

Come on now, we all know you exist. Surely, you must have some reaction to the Presidents speech? Lets hear it!:wink:
 
and most people know that Iraq and Afghanistan are two totally different countries.

equivocation only goes so far.

Despite the differences between the two countries, a similar strategy of Counterinsurgency is being used in Afghanistan like the strategy that worked in Iraq, which you predicted would not work.

You have democrats on Talk shows now talking about "Clear, Hold, and Build" in Afghanistan, the same tactics they dismissed for Iraq just a couple of years earlier. Its clear now that there are many democrats who have come to realize that the surge in Iraq worked and are now advocating similar tactics in Afghanistan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom