US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 34 - 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 07-16-2008, 09:28 AM   #661
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Everyone's younger than McCain

I've heard them and I'm much younger than him too, not by as much as you are unfortunately. Have read them on message boards too, even on Int. I consider that to be open company. Some people seem to think a message board is different somehow and open season in some strange way. Of course they would never do such a thing in "real life"- yeah that's it.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 11:41 AM   #662
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 09:51 AM
this is the worst

hearsay from over twenty years ago.

people that don't like McCain, now say he told a joke

the fact that this gets added into our conversation
and that people actually think it deserves any attention
is dumbing down this whole process
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 12:42 PM   #663
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 05:51 PM
I have to agree with deep on this one...there doesn't seem to be much credibility to it.
U2democrat is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 03:00 PM   #664
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:51 PM
I'm more concerned about stuff like this:

Quote:
For the second time in two days, John McCain has referred to current events in "Czechoslovakia" – a country that officially ceased to exist in January of 1993.
He also repeatedly confused the Sunnis and Shi'ites in a short time span. You have to wonder about his memory/cognitive skills.
anitram is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 03:07 PM   #665
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I'm more concerned about stuff like this:



He also repeatedly confused the Sunnis and Shi'ites in a short time span. You have to wonder about his memory/cognitive skills.

Or if he has gotten away with appearing more knowledgable than he really is
U2democrat is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 04:03 PM   #666
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2democrat View Post
Or if he has gotten away with appearing more knowledgable than he really is


John McCain knows how to win wars.

the "surge" that has been so successful in Iraq must be applied in Iran, and we will withdraw those from Iraq in order to likewise "win" in Afghanistan.

wait, Obama wants to withdraw and focus on Afghanistan? he's been saying this for years?

erm, wait, we need to staff our 100 year occupation, so we'll get the troops from NATO.

yeah. that's it. we had to go into Iraq and fuck around for 6 years before we figured out how to win in Afghanistan.

see?

John McCain knows how to win wars.

that's all that matters here.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 04:21 PM   #667
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:51 PM
I'm sorry, which war has he actually won?
anitram is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 04:26 PM   #668
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 07:51 PM
I think it was Vietnam... until the Democrats and their leader back then, Jane Fonda, single-handedly defeated the US... or something like that.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 05:01 PM   #669
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I'm sorry, which war has he actually won?



appeaser!
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 05:38 PM   #670
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: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
this is the worst

hearsay from over twenty years ago.

people that don't like McCain, now say he told a joke

the fact that this gets added into our conversation
and that people actually think it deserves any attention
is dumbing down this whole process

maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 06:25 PM   #671
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I'm more concerned about stuff like this:



He also repeatedly confused the Sunnis and Shi'ites in a short time span. You have to wonder about his memory/cognitive skills.
Totally, like when he had an old person moment and forgot how many states there were, he's obviously senile.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 06:33 PM   #672
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Found the video



LOL
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 06:38 PM   #673
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Totally, like when he had an old person moment and forgot how many states there were, he's obviously senile.
Oh for sure, day after day after day after day....what was it, 4 times with Lieberman whispering "50" in his ear?
anitram is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 07:49 PM   #674
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
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?
Barack Obama has consistently stated on his website, in the foreign affairs article that he would "immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq" without listing any prerequisites for that withdrawal to begin such as security levels on the ground or the capabilities of Iraqi forces. Barack Obama has never stated that he is willing to stay in Iraq until Iraq has developed sufficient military capabilities to replace any US troops that are withdrawn. Barack Obama's strategy is to get out of Iraq period, not stay in Iraq to first insure that it can stand on its own and then leave. I have consistently stated that the United States must first help secure Iraq and develop its security forces to a level that they can replace US forces on the ground before those forces can start withdrawing. That has been the Bush strategy all along. To qoute Bush, "As they stand up, we'll stand down". That line got mocked a lot in here and I don't see where Obama has ever suggested his strategy is in line with that.

But, if you can show me where Obama has specifically made any US withdrawal conditional on the security situation in Iraq, and the capability of the Iraqi forces, please post it here. If it exist, which I'm sure it doesn't, it would only mean that his strategy for Iraq is in line with the strategy that Bush has had for the past 5 years.

Oh, and saying that you would suspend the withdrawal if Iraq achieves all of the political benchmarks is definitely not the same as having a prerequisite to starting a withdrawal or having a plan that starts withdrawing US combat brigades only when there are Iraqi forces capable enough to replace withdrawn US Brigades.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 08:19 PM   #675
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Obama has been stressing, for years, that more troops were needed in Afghanistan. McCain is following.

where is he going to get the troops from? the "victory" in Iraq? i guess we won't get all that freed up capital to balance the budget by the end of his first term then, huh.
No, Obama has been stressing for years that we can immediately start leaving Iraq irregardless of conditions on the ground there, after which some troops could go to Afghanistan.

McCain is for sending troops to Afghanistan, but not at the expense of reversing progress that has been made in Iraq.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 08:29 PM   #676
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and too bad that Obama said the following in October of 2006:

I already addressed this earlier. Its not evidence that Barack Obama was always for Bush's strategy of "As they stand up, we'll stand down". There is nothing here that suggest that Obama would wait until the Iraqi military forces had reached a sufficient level of capability to replace US forces before he would start withdrawing US combat brigades.

Obama still has the same withdrawal plan he wanted to implement back in January 2007 which would of had all US combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. He opposed the Surge in US troops which has dramatically lowered the level of violence across Iraq, helped the Iraqi military improve its capabilities, helped the Iraqi government make substantial progress on 15 of the 18 benchmarks, and allowed the Iraqi economy to start growing again with oil production returning to pre-war levels.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 08:43 PM   #677
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and the success of "the surge" makes it impossible to leave?




it would have gone to one of the boys, who would have faced a coup, and it would have fallen into the hands of another strongman.

there's be violence. but not 6 bonecrushing years of it.
Pretending that there would be nothing to worry about if coalition had just left Saddam and his regime in power is absurd. Again, look at the history of what this regime had done to the region already, its continued defiance of resolutions vital to the security of the region, the still relatively large size of its military, especially when compared to the smaller Gulf States, the collapse of the sanctions and weapons embargo regime to try and help contain him, and the fact that we now know of the things Saddam continued to hide from inspectors that were in violation of the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement right up to the start of the invasion in March 2003.

It was a necessity that Saddam be removed despite the needs of the war in Afghanistan which by the way continues to be the most successful occupation in the landlocked country's history. The United States does not have the luxury of picking and choose which national security issues it can work on, one at a time. Multiple issues may require action at the same time as in this case.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 12:25 AM   #678
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: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Barack Obama has consistently stated on his website, in the foreign affairs article that he would "immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq" without listing any prerequisites for that withdrawal to begin such as security levels on the ground or the capabilities of Iraqi forces. Barack Obama has never stated that he is willing to stay in Iraq until Iraq has developed sufficient military capabilities to replace any US troops that are withdrawn. Barack Obama's strategy is to get out of Iraq period, not stay in Iraq to first insure that it can stand on its own and then leave. I have consistently stated that the United States must first help secure Iraq and develop its security forces to a level that they can replace US forces on the ground before those forces can start withdrawing. That has been the Bush strategy all along. To qoute Bush, "As they stand up, we'll stand down". That line got mocked a lot in here and I don't see where Obama has ever suggested his strategy is in line with that.

But, if you can show me where Obama has specifically made any US withdrawal conditional on the security situation in Iraq, and the capability of the Iraqi forces, please post it here. If it exist, which I'm sure it doesn't, it would only mean that his strategy for Iraq is in line with the strategy that Bush has had for the past 5 years.

Oh, and saying that you would suspend the withdrawal if Iraq achieves all of the political benchmarks is definitely not the same as having a prerequisite to starting a withdrawal or having a plan that starts withdrawing US combat brigades only when there are Iraqi forces capable enough to replace withdrawn US Brigades.
. . . .and, bingo.

Called it!
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 02:12 AM   #679
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Mr. Obama's charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama's timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama's strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

"What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.
washingtonpost.com
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 09:32 AM   #680
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
McCain is for sending troops to Afghanistan, but not at the expense of reversing progress that has been made in Iraq.

can't wait for NATO to cough up those troops!
__________________

Irvine511 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 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×