Sorry about vagueness, I thought it obvious; $500 billion++ dollars spent. Lots of peoples dead - including women, children, civilians, a country that was rather stable now in political turmoil, and no viable ending in site.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Flip-floppin' Hussein
Flip-floppin' HusseinFollow
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Quote:
Iraq was being ruled by a homicidal mass murderer and now is a democracy.
knoxsouthy wrote:
Elinda,
Yes it's terrible that the radical muslims we're fighting use women and children as shields. Perhaps you should take that up with them. Iraq was being ruled by a homicidal mass murderer and now is a democracy. Anything else?
Quote:
Sorry about vagueness, I thought it obvious; $500 billion++ dollars spent. Lots of peoples dead - including women, children, civilians, a country that was rather stable now in political turmoil, and no viable ending in site.
Yes it's terrible that the radical muslims we're fighting use women and children as shields. Perhaps you should take that up with them. Iraq was being ruled by a homicidal mass murderer and now is a democracy. Anything else?
Ummm, yeah how about $4.00+ a gallon of gas, a tanked ecomony, a deficit that we could slip the galaxy through and pretty much the rest of the world would just as soon see the ol US of A wiped off the map as not.
Oh,,,and the Iraq war continues.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
pretty much the rest of the world would just as soon see the ol US of A wiped off the map as not.
Not true. We just want to see it recolonized.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Elinda wrote:
pretty much the rest of the world would just as soon see the ol US of A wiped off the map as not.
Not true. We just want to see it recolonized.
That would most likely lead to a Mexico/Canadian border, and trust me, you don't want that.
#33REDACTED,
Posted: Jul 07 2008 at 11:10 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes it's terrible that the radical muslims we're fighting use women and children as shields. Perhaps you should take that up with them. Iraq was being ruled by a homicidal mass murderer and now is a democracy. Anything else?
NaughtyWord wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Elinda wrote:
pretty much the rest of the world would just as soon see the ol US of A wiped off the map as not.
Not true. We just want to see it recolonized.
That would most likely lead to a Mexico/Canadian border, and trust me, you don't want that.
Yes we do, we have to fly the buggers over to work our farms now. Trucks are cheaper than airplanes.
shadowrelm wrote:
weather
I'm sorry, I just can't take it anymore, the first 4 times was enough. It's whether dammit!!!!!
knoxsouthy wrote:
Quote:
"Okay, it'll take me 18 months vs. 100 years."
This is precisely what Democrats are known for. What Mcain actually said was if it takes 100yrs to be victorious that's how long we'll stay. But every Democrat hack states authoritatively that Mcain wants to be in Iraq 100yrs.
Even that's not true. He was asked about a Bush statement that US troops might be in Iraq for 50 years, and he responded with the following:
McCain wrote:
Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.
He clearly wasn't talking about being actively engaged in military operations for 100 years. Certainly not the kind that result in bodybags. So to imply that he'd be ok with the current situation in Iraq for 100 years is absurd, yet that's what everyone who tries to compare 16 months to 100 years is doing.
Edited, Jul 7th 2008 2:53pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I think in an interview he compared it with the military bases that the US maintains in other parts of the world.
Edited, Jul 7th 2008 5:13pm by Xsarus
Edited, Jul 7th 2008 5:13pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Quote:
He clearly wasn't talking about being actively engaged in military operations for 100 years. Certainly not the kind that result in bodybags. So to imply that he'd be ok with the current situation in Iraq for 100 years is absurd, yet that's what everyone who tries to compare 16 months to 100 years is doing.
I guess I should clarify my POV on it. I think 16 months is a bit long, in fact, I couldn't give any less of a f*ck what happens to Iraq after we leave. What happens in the WNBA is more important to me than fronting the economic and human life bill of bringing freedom to Iraqi's. If Iraqi's wanted freedom that f*cking bad, they would have done what every other revolutionist in history has done or attempted to do.
Edited, Jul 7th 2008 4:47pm by NaughtyWord
For those interested in the cite, here it is along with analysis of Obama's statement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25573237/
Totem
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25573237/
Totem
Sounds like much ado about nothing. In fact, the analysis clearly states that your......line was wrong. Obama has long said that we'd retain some troops for training and quick deployment. I remember him saying so during the debates.
As I said before, his plan for Iraq is pretty close to what I'd like to see: phased withdrawal combined with continued Iraqi troop training and some troops left around to provide support if (when) the Iraqi army needs it, especially with equipment the Iraqi army doesn't yet have a lot of (air support and heavy armor, mainly).
Totem wrote:
Except that Oblackman has emphatically stated he will unequivocally get the troops out of Iraq in the 16 months following his inauguration, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Period. Fini. Consider it done.
As I said before, his plan for Iraq is pretty close to what I'd like to see: phased withdrawal combined with continued Iraqi troop training and some troops left around to provide support if (when) the Iraqi army needs it, especially with equipment the Iraqi army doesn't yet have a lot of (air support and heavy armor, mainly).
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The fact that he has a clear lead among independents in the polls 
Good news from Rasmussen!I guess you can only jump up and down and wave that issue of the National Journal so long before it loses impact.
Good news from Rasmussen!
Rasmussen wrote:
During the Primary campaign season, Obama was viewed as politically liberal by an ever-increasing number of voters that grew to 67% by early June. However, since clinching the nomination, he has reversed that trend and is now seen as liberal by only 56%.
Twenty-two percent (22%) characterize the Democrat as Very Liberal, down from 36% early last month.
McCain similarly has been seen as politically conservative by more and more voters, also hitting 67% a month ago, but he is still viewed that way by 66%. While 19% saw him as Very Conservative in early June, that figure now has risen to 28%.
The Democratic candidate is viewed as a political moderate by 27%, up from 22% three weeks earlier, while McCain is seen as a moderate by 23%, down from 26% in the survey at the beginning of June.
Twenty-two percent (22%) characterize the Democrat as Very Liberal, down from 36% early last month.
McCain similarly has been seen as politically conservative by more and more voters, also hitting 67% a month ago, but he is still viewed that way by 66%. While 19% saw him as Very Conservative in early June, that figure now has risen to 28%.
The Democratic candidate is viewed as a political moderate by 27%, up from 22% three weeks earlier, while McCain is seen as a moderate by 23%, down from 26% in the survey at the beginning of June.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'm finding it somewhat amusing that Obama is now almost exactly quoting George Bush on some of his policy positions. So, he'll base his troop decisions on Iraq based on the advice of the commanders on the ground. Sound familiar? Oh. And now he's pushing for funding for "faith based initiatives". He's even using the exact same phrasing that's been attacked by his fellow Liberals as some sort of evil violation of church and state when Bush said it.
Will the real Barack Obama please stand up? Lol. You guys just nominated a guy who'll apparently say anything to anyone if he thinks it'll help his chances and isn't really savvy enough to hide it well...
Will the real Barack Obama please stand up? Lol. You guys just nominated a guy who'll apparently say anything to anyone if he thinks it'll help his chances and isn't really savvy enough to hide it well...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
The fact that he has a clear lead among independents in the polls
Good news from Rasmussen!I guess you can only jump up and down and wave that issue of the National Journal so long before it loses impact.
Good news from Rasmussen!
Rasmussen wrote:
During the Primary campaign season, Obama was viewed as politically liberal by an ever-increasing number of voters that grew to 67% by early June. However, since clinching the nomination, he has reversed that trend and is now seen as liberal by only 56%.
Twenty-two percent (22%) characterize the Democrat as Very Liberal, down from 36% early last month.
McCain similarly has been seen as politically conservative by more and more voters, also hitting 67% a month ago, but he is still viewed that way by 66%. While 19% saw him as Very Conservative in early June, that figure now has risen to 28%.
The Democratic candidate is viewed as a political moderate by 27%, up from 22% three weeks earlier, while McCain is seen as a moderate by 23%, down from 26% in the survey at the beginning of June.
Twenty-two percent (22%) characterize the Democrat as Very Liberal, down from 36% early last month.
McCain similarly has been seen as politically conservative by more and more voters, also hitting 67% a month ago, but he is still viewed that way by 66%. While 19% saw him as Very Conservative in early June, that figure now has risen to 28%.
The Democratic candidate is viewed as a political moderate by 27%, up from 22% three weeks earlier, while McCain is seen as a moderate by 23%, down from 26% in the survey at the beginning of June.
Not sure why you think this is "good news". His polling against McCain is a dead heat unless you look at the Newsweek poll. What this says is that he's dramatically shifted his positions since wining the nomination (ok, presumed. whatever). A shift that has been noticed by the public. Whereas McCain's seen as pretty much the same, with a slight shift to the outside rather then the middle.
If no one notices and they actually think he's a moderate, it'll be good for him. If they do notice (and it's likely), this will be seen as a shift done purely to win voters (which it is of course). The question is whether this will make more voters think he's reaching out to them, or that he's just lying to more people...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
So, he'll base his troop decisions on Iraq based on the advice of the commanders on the ground. Sound familiar?
Quote:
Oh. And now he's pushing for funding for "faith based initiatives". He's even using the exact same phrasing that's been attacked by his fellow Liberals as some sort of evil violation of church and state when Bush said it.
Quote:
You guys just nominated a guy who'll apparently say anything to anyone if he thinks it'll help his chances and isn't really savvy enough to hide it well...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
His polling against McCain is a dead heat unless you look at the Newsweek poll.
Quote:
If no one notices and they actually think he's a moderate, it'll be good for him. If they do notice (and it's likely), this will be seen as a shift done purely to win voters (which it is of course).
You must be new here. Welcome to America!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So, he'll base his troop decisions on Iraq based on the advice of the commanders on the ground. Sound familiar?
Other then semantics Joph, in what way is that different then "When the Iraqi's can maintain their own security we'll leave"?
Oh wait! It isn't...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
His polling against McCain is a dead heat unless you look at the Newsweek poll.
I don't know what wishful thinking you've been doing, but virtually every single daily tracking poll for the last month has had both candidates at like 44/46, which is within the margin of error. The outliers are Newsweek and that NY Times poll, which produced results that didn't match what anyone else was seeing.
The only people who don't see this as a tight race right now are the faithful on the Left. IMO, Obama's trying to hard to appease everyone, and if he doesn't knock it off and pick a position he's going to lose more then he gains.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
in what way is that different then "When the Iraqi's can maintain their own security we'll leave"?
Quote:
I don't know what wishful thinking you've been doing, but virtually every single daily tracking poll for the last month has had both candidates at like 44/46, which is within the margin of error.
The only poll which consistantly gets tight is Gallup which, for whatever reason, is usually 2-3 points lower than everyone else. Even still, they were at 6 points on Sunday and 5 points yesterday. I think it's curious that Gallup is consistantly several points behind the average but, what the hell. At least they're not APG.
I suppose you're almost right about "virtually" every daily tracking poll. There's only two major ones, Rasmussen and Gallup and Gallup shows a tighter race than Rasmussen. So 50% either way
Gallup's monthly average has been +3 Obama, outside of the 2pt MOE. Edited, Jul 8th 2008 3:03pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
in what way is that different then "When the Iraqi's can maintain their own security we'll leave"?
Yes. Because the first is an honest statement about what is actually happening and what the actual conditions will need to be before the troops can come home. The second (Obama's method) is essentially a lie in that it makes it appear as though the "goal" is to get the troops home, but it effectively places the same limits on when they'll actually get back.
Personally, I'd much rather have a president who says that our troops are going to stay in theater and in strength until they've accomplished a specific goal, than one who says that his goal is to bring them home, but not until they've accomplished that same goal. Do you seriously think that Bush's intent is to keep hundreds of thousands of troops deployed just for the heck of it? Both are essentially using the exact same criteria for troop numbers. The only real difference is that Bush told you what that criteria was up front, while Obama would rather kinda hide that until it happens.
Does it make you feel better if we have troops in Iraq because the president wanted to send them home, but couldn't because conditions on the ground don't allow for it? At the end of the day, the same exact number of troops will be there. Assuming he's being honest about his criteria for withdrawal. There's always a chance that he'll feel forced to do so ahead of time and ***** up the whole process.
The problem with Obama is that you can't really be sure what he's actually going to do. He's told the folks on the left what they wanted to hear in order to get the nomination, and now he's telling the folks in the middle what they want to hear. Um... Which is it? Do you know? Are you sure? I'll repeat my earlier statement that if he doesn't pick some positions soon and stop trying to please everybody on all sides, he's going to lose this thing by even more then I thought he would.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Um... Which is it? Do you know? Are you sure?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 268
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (268)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Flip-floppin' Hussein
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC