US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 32 - 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, 02:57 PM   #621
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 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, 03:03 PM   #622
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 11:20 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 offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:12 PM   #623
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:20 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, 03:24 PM   #624
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:20 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, 03:37 PM   #625
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:20 PM
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 online now  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:39 PM   #626
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:20 AM
If it is a money race

he is up by a lot more than 5 points.
deep is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:54 PM   #627
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:20 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, 04:35 PM   #628
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 12:20 PM
boo-yah!
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-14-2008, 05:19 PM   #629
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 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, 05:24 PM   #630
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 12:20 PM
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  
Old 07-14-2008, 05:30 PM   #631
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 PM
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, 05:36 PM   #632
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 11:20 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, 05:41 PM   #633
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 PM
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, 05:41 PM   #634
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 11:20 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, 05:42 PM   #635
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Well, in liberal disney land
Oh grow up.
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 05:49 PM   #636
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 11:20 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, 05:54 PM   #637
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 11:20 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, 06:06 PM   #638
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 11:20 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, 06:11 PM   #639
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:20 PM
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, 06:18 PM   #640
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,145
Local Time: 12:20 PM
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  
 

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 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×