PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues B.O.'s Iraq speech tonight


The Mad Crapper
08-31-2010, 02:43 PM
Let's not let Soetero revise history tonight....


Rush noted Obama’s position in January 2007:

OBAMA: We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

Dan Riehl notes Obama’s position in July 2007:

“Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan.”

A Democratic debate in September 13, 2007:

After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he’s been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people & our troops.

Democratic debate, January 5, 2008:

I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

The reaction to this year’s State of the Union address:

When Bush proclaimed, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,” Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated.

Obama’s released statement that evening: “Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that’s just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt–the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we’re finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.”

The recently-scrubbed portion of Obama’s web site: “The surge is not working.” Greg has the whole sections that were deleted.

UPDATE: Even more, from the Powerline guys:

January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.

On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration’s new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.

We never know what the future holds, and those who supported the invasion of Iraq made their own erroneous predictions — about WMDs, etc. But it’s less forgivable to deny progress as it’s occurring right in front of you. That suggests the candidate is wedded to ideology and oblivious to the consequences of policy changes. And a candidate who has the… well, audacity to claim that he always said the surge would result in an “improvement in the security situation and a reduction of violence” when he said the opposite many times thinks that A) voters are gullible and B) the media have the attention span of an over-caffeinated ferret.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/9300/obama-i-had-no-doubt-we-would-see-reduction-violence-surge

InChiefsHell
08-31-2010, 06:20 PM
Well, just watched it. Probably the best speech he's ever given.

munkey
08-31-2010, 06:24 PM
Well, just watched it. Probably the best speech he's ever given.

Are you fucking kidding? WOW

munkey
08-31-2010, 06:26 PM
to me it was much the same....complete bullshit

InChiefsHell
08-31-2010, 06:26 PM
Are you ****ing kidding? WOW

The bar is low, to be sure. But with the exception of the crap on the economy and the fact that he acted like he was all proud of the war effort, WORD WISE it was a good speech. People will read between the lines, I am, but speech wise, it was the least condescending and most pro-America I've ever heard him sound.

Just sayin'...

munkey
08-31-2010, 06:30 PM
The bar is low, to be sure. But with the exception of the crap on the economy and the fact that he acted like he was all proud of the war effort, WORD WISE it was a good speech. People will read between the lines, I am, but speech wise, it was the least condescending and most pro-America I've ever heard him sound.

Just sayin'...

just sayin'...it's the same shit...different day. IMO that same BS that got him elected which is sayin' something too...

to each his own...

Deberg_1990
08-31-2010, 06:35 PM
Did he try and take all the glory for Bush's work?? Wasnt he against the Surge??

This is all just propaganda anyways....there are still thousands of troops still in Iraq and will be for many years to come.

munkey
08-31-2010, 06:45 PM
Did he try and take all the glory for Bush's work?? Wasnt he against the Surge??

This is all just propaganda anyways....there are still thousands of troops still in Iraq and will be for many years to come.

:clap:

Chocolate Hog
08-31-2010, 06:51 PM
Wheres Hamas? The president not only gave Bush props he also compared his foreign policy to Bush's.

chiefsnorth
08-31-2010, 08:42 PM
He does not have much of an angle. With his poor understanding of all things foreign policy he painted himself into a corner. He can't claim credit for the relative success of a policy he opposed, and he is always showing that he has zero ability to admit he was wrong. Never has such a big deal been made into so little. This president has handcuffed himself several times over.

Ugly Duck
08-31-2010, 08:49 PM
Did he try and take all the glory for Bush's work?? Wasnt he against the Surge??

I don't get it. Is the Surge now a success that folks are taking credit for? When the Surge happened, the ethnic cleansing was almost completed & we paid off tribes that were planting IEDs to stop killing us. So deaths decreased (duh!). Iraq - biggest blunder in the history of our nation. First the excuse was Saddam was aiding Al Queda (not true). Then it was Saddam had WMDs & was going to attack America with them (not true). Then it was a "democratic" Iraq would cause other Middle Eastern countries to follow suit (didn't happen). Then we surged to "create political breathing space" for the government to agree on revenue sharing (didn't happen). All that happened during the Surge was that the round of sectarian violence had run its course effectively partitioning the country & we paid cash money to terrorists to stop planting bombs under us. There's no glory to take....

Brock
08-31-2010, 08:51 PM
I don't get it. Is the Surge now a success that folks are taking credit for? When the Surge happened, the ethnic cleansing was almost completed & we paid off tribes that were planting IEDs to stop killing us. So deaths decreased (duh!). Iraq - biggest blunder in the history of our nation. First the excuse was Saddam was aiding Al Queda (not true). Then it was Saddam had WMDs & was going to attack America with them (not true). Then it was a "democratic" Iraq would cause other Middle Eastern countries to follow suit (didn't happen). Then we surged to "create political breathing space" for the government to agree on revenue sharing (didn't happen). All that happened during the Surge was that the round of sectarian violence had run its course effectively partitioning the country & we paid cash money to terrorists to stop planting bombs under us. There's no glory to take....

Funny, Obama didn't say any of that.

patteeu
08-31-2010, 09:12 PM
I don't get it. Is the Surge now a success that folks are taking credit for? When the Surge happened, the ethnic cleansing was almost completed & we paid off tribes that were planting IEDs to stop killing us. So deaths decreased (duh!). Iraq - biggest blunder in the history of our nation. First the excuse was Saddam was aiding Al Queda (not true). Then it was Saddam had WMDs & was going to attack America with them (not true). Then it was a "democratic" Iraq would cause other Middle Eastern countries to follow suit (didn't happen). Then we surged to "create political breathing space" for the government to agree on revenue sharing (didn't happen). All that happened during the Surge was that the round of sectarian violence had run its course effectively partitioning the country & we paid cash money to terrorists to stop planting bombs under us. There's no glory to take....

Let us know when you get back to the planet Earth.

Ugly Duck
08-31-2010, 09:18 PM
Funny, Obama didn't say any of that.

Of course not - he's the President & has to diplomatic. He has to couch it in candy-coated terms, to reduce it to stuff like, "A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency" (The Saddam-AQ connection was fake, the WMD claims were fake. etc). And, "It's well-known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset" (It was a major right-wing blunder - worst the country has ever suffered, but I recognized the error from the start).

stevieray
08-31-2010, 09:35 PM
(It was a major right-wing blunder - worst the country has ever suffered, but I recognized the error from the start).

I wonder if he's spent more in 19 months than we ever did in Iraq.

He's a fraud.

BIG_DADDY
08-31-2010, 09:57 PM
Of course not - he's the President & has to diplomatic. He has to couch it in candy-coated terms, to reduce it to stuff like, "A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency" (The Saddam-AQ connection was fake, the WMD claims were fake. etc). And, "It's well-known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset" (It was a major right-wing blunder - worst the country has ever suffered, but I recognized the error from the start).

Last I recall the Dems backed it originally and moved it forward when they had complete power. This isn't a left wing, right wing thing it was a controlling the oil thing in that particular spot for future strategic military use thing although I can see why some people may feel the need to put everything in a partisan box.

Ugly Duck
08-31-2010, 09:58 PM
I wonder if he's spent more in 19 months than we ever did in Iraq.

Probably did. Republican deregulation had most major financial institutions, insurance companies & car makers going belly-up when the Dems took over. Pretty dang expensive to clean up the biggest mess since the Great Depression. Monumental financial & military fail on the Rightwing side, there....

stevieray
08-31-2010, 10:03 PM
Probably did. Republican deregulation had most major financial institutions, insurance companies & car makers going belly-up when the Dems took over. Pretty dang expensive to clean up the biggest mess since the Great Depression. Monumental financial & military fail on the Rightwing side, there....

:rolleyes:

ya, "probably did"..but not his fault...sounds like my 14 year old.

stevieray
08-31-2010, 10:06 PM
although I can see why some people may feel the need to put everything in a masked with sarcasm partisan box.


Same o'l UD.

BIG_DADDY
08-31-2010, 10:34 PM
Just watched it. Obama is a great orator so I expected him to have a smooth delivery. BTW, anyone else wonder at the time specific placement of our partial troop withdrawal and this speach? Thought so. I had my pad out and scratched down a couple things.

1. What does he mean he is pulling our combat troops as he promised? The were all supposed to be out of there in 120 days if I recall correctly. A partial withdrawal now is hardly delivering on that promise. Don't even get me started on him delivering on his promises.

2. The Iraqi people have rejected sectarian violence. That's an outright lie and laughable.

3. Tomorrow our push for peace in the ME will begin? Really, I am just going to leave that one alone.

4. Bitching about spending a trillion dollars on war over 10 years to have a military presence in one of the most straegically important areas in the world. Gee, funny he didn't mention spending that much in 2 years on a bungled stimulus program.

5. We must focas on the economy now? You have got to be ****ing kidding me, what was the trillion dollars for?

This whole extending the olive branch and coming together to honor our military personal thing because we owe it to them is complete hogwash. He sees the writing on the wall and just wants to be the first to play victim. I don't see his oratory performance saving him or the Dems in the next election. My 2 cents.

Bewbies
08-31-2010, 10:55 PM
Let us know when you get back to the planet Earth.

ROFL

InChiefsHell
09-01-2010, 05:23 AM
Just watched it. Obama is a great orator so I expected him to have a smooth delivery. BTW, anyone else wonder at the time specific placement of our partial troop withdrawal and this speach? Thought so. I had my pad out and scratched down a couple things.

1. What does he mean he is pulling our combat troops as he promised? The were all supposed to be out of there in 120 days if I recall correctly. A partial withdrawal now is hardly delivering on that promise. Don't even get me started on him delivering on his promises.

2. The Iraqi people have rejected sectarian violence. That's an outright lie and laughable.

3. Tomorrow our push for peace in the ME will begin? Really, I am just going to leave that one alone.

4. Bitching about spending a trillion dollars on war over 10 years to have a military presence in one of the most straegically important areas in the world. Gee, funny he didn't mention spending that much in 2 years on a bungled stimulus program.

5. We must focas on the economy now? You have got to be ****ing kidding me, what was the trillion dollars for?

This whole extending the olive branch and coming together to honor our military personal thing because we owe it to them is complete hogwash. He sees the writing on the wall and just wants to be the first to play victim. I don't see his oratory performance saving him or the Dems in the next election. My 2 cents.

I agree with your take. I made a comment that it was the best speech I'd heard him deliver. I still stand by that, but it was last night and I was watching Wipeout...heh.

This speech contained a few elements I had never heard from Barry. Namely, using George Bush's name and saying he is a patriot without choking was quite remarkable. I guess it just seemed like a less divisive than normal speech, so to me it was actually a pretty good speech.

...he's full of shit of course. I don't believe for a minute that he had any faith in the effort from the start, I doubt he stands "in awe" of the sacrifices of our soldiers (the only thing he is in awe of is his own reflection) and the bitching about spending 1 trillion over almost 10 years is laughable when you consider how much the dude has spent in less than 2.

I noticed he used the soldiers to say we must fix the economy to honor their sacrifice...see, I agree with that...just not the way this asshole wants to do it...

InChiefsHell
09-01-2010, 05:28 AM
Probably did. Republican deregulation had most major financial institutions, insurance companies & car makers going belly-up when the Dems took over. Pretty dang expensive to clean up the biggest mess since the Great Depression. Monumental financial & military fail on the Rightwing side, there....

This is amazing.

You are Barry's. Hook, line and sinker. And history seems to be escaping you. I hope you'll wake up soon.

The Mad Crapper
09-01-2010, 05:33 AM
The bar is low, to be sure. But with the exception of the crap on the economy and the fact that he acted like he was all proud of the war effort, WORD WISE it was a good speech. People will read between the lines, I am, but speech wise, it was the least condescending and most pro-America I've ever heard him sound.



I agree. B.O. must have been up all night with his finger down his throat, because you know damn well it made him sick to his stomach reading his teleprompter last night.

The Mad Crapper
09-01-2010, 05:36 AM
Iraq - biggest blunder in the history of our nation.

Electing Soetero president was the biggest blunder in the history of our nation.

Deberg_1990
09-01-2010, 06:48 AM
So did he ever mention how we overthrew and captured an evil dictator that had taunted the US and his own country for years ? Or did he miss that important detail in all the somberness???

InChiefsHell
09-01-2010, 06:52 AM
So did he ever mention how we overthrew and captured an evil dictator that had taunted the US and his own country for years ? Or did he miss that important detail in all the somberness???

Heh. Somehow, that wasn't mentioned...

|Zach|
09-01-2010, 06:55 AM
So did he ever mention how we overthrew and captured an evil dictator that had taunted the US and his own country for years ? Or did he miss that important detail in all the somberness???

So any fuckhead country that says mean things to the US should be dealt with by troops on the ground?

patteeu
09-01-2010, 06:55 AM
Did he say anything about how he's going to avoid squandering the Bush military victory by securing the political situation in Iraq or was he just talking about getting the heck out of Dodge?

|Zach|
09-01-2010, 06:56 AM
Heh. Somehow, that wasn't mentioned...

Probably because it would be silly to think that is a good reason in and of itself to do...well...anything.

InChiefsHell
09-01-2010, 07:06 AM
So any ****head country that says mean things to the US should be dealt with by troops on the ground?

I believe it was just a tad more serious than just saying mean things...:spock:

BucEyedPea
09-01-2010, 07:15 AM
Wheres Hamas? The president not only gave Bush props he also compared his foreign policy to Bush's.

ROFL And it is!

Amnorix
09-01-2010, 07:23 AM
Did he say anything about how he's going to avoid squandering the Bush military victory by securing the political situation in Iraq or was he just talking about getting the heck out of Dodge?

Bush squandered Bush's military victory. The surge has worked to cap sectarian violence, but there's no real evidence that the country will ever be able to hold together without a substantial permanent US military presence. Heck, it's been six months since elections and they can't even form a government. :shake:

Not that all of this wasn't pretty foreseeable, but Bush didn't want to foresee it. He wanted Saddam's head on a pike regardless of the cost, or whether it made real long term sense for us.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2010, 07:57 AM
Bush squandered Bush's military victory. The surge has worked to cap sectarian violence, but there's no real evidence that the country will ever be able to hold together without a substantial permanent US military presence. Heck, it's been six months since elections and they can't even form a government. :shake:

Not that all of this wasn't pretty foreseeable, but Bush didn't want to foresee it. He wanted Saddam's head on a pike regardless of the cost, or whether it made real long term sense for us.

'Cause they want a permanent presence there militarily. Bush, 'er our current regimes, are operating on the time-worn mercantilist policy of convincing everyone we need to remain there to stem hostilities. Like the British Empire used in India. It was to it's advantage to keep the Hindus and Muslim's stirred up against each other. It's the same time-worn formula from those ages and is our policy in the greater ME while expanding it into central Asia and Africa.

mlyonsd
09-01-2010, 08:11 AM
I would have preferred us waiting to pull out combat troops until the government was seated.

But oh well, Iraq is Obama's war now.

thecoffeeguy
09-01-2010, 08:27 AM
Let's not let Soetero revise history tonight....


Rush noted Obama’s position in January 2007:

OBAMA: We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

Dan Riehl notes Obama’s position in July 2007:

“Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan.”

A Democratic debate in September 13, 2007:

After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he’s been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people & our troops.

Democratic debate, January 5, 2008:

I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

The reaction to this year’s State of the Union address:

When Bush proclaimed, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,” Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated.

Obama’s released statement that evening: “Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that’s just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt–the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we’re finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.”

The recently-scrubbed portion of Obama’s web site: “The surge is not working.” Greg has the whole sections that were deleted.

UPDATE: Even more, from the Powerline guys:

January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we’re on in Iraq is working, I do not.

On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration’s new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.

We never know what the future holds, and those who supported the invasion of Iraq made their own erroneous predictions — about WMDs, etc. But it’s less forgivable to deny progress as it’s occurring right in front of you. That suggests the candidate is wedded to ideology and oblivious to the consequences of policy changes. And a candidate who has the… well, audacity to claim that he always said the surge would result in an “improvement in the security situation and a reduction of violence” when he said the opposite many times thinks that A) voters are gullible and B) the media have the attention span of an over-caffeinated ferret.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/9300/obama-i-had-no-doubt-we-would-see-reduction-violence-surge

All I can say is :Lin:

patteeu
09-01-2010, 08:55 AM
So any ****head country that says mean things to the US should be dealt with by troops on the ground?

First of all, attacking US aircraft on a regular basis, losing a war to the US and then failing to live up to commitments you make when the US agrees to cease fire, and generally causing a bunch of turmoil in a region of strategic importance to the US to the detriment of our interests there is quite a bit more than saying mean things. Don't be an apologist for Saddam, Zach.

Second, foreign policy isn't a one size fits all business. Every situation is unique. Just because two situations share some of the same characteristics, it doesn't mean the same response is warranted. That's just bad logic.

patteeu
09-01-2010, 09:17 AM
Bush squandered Bush's military victory. The surge has worked to cap sectarian violence, but there's no real evidence that the country will ever be able to hold together without a substantial permanent US military presence. Heck, it's been six months since elections and they can't even form a government. :shake:

Not that all of this wasn't pretty foreseeable, but Bush didn't want to foresee it. He wanted Saddam's head on a pike regardless of the cost, or whether it made real long term sense for us.

That's simply nonsense. There was no way that we could stop the rampant violence of 2006-07, until we did. IIRC, you were a naysayer then too. There is plenty of evidence that the sectarian factions in Iraq are willing to work together to build their fledgling state. The fact that the unfortunately close election in March hasn't caused the system to fall apart completely is testament to their efforts. But it definitely remains a problem. What has Obama done to help midwife a solution to this impasse? This is exactly the type of thing he needs to be focusing on in order to avoid squandering the efforts of our military and of the previous administration. Surely you don't think it's in our long term interests to walk away from the Iraqis now and feed those who worked with us to the wolves.

George W. Bush deserves the credit for the vision to surge troops into Iraq to pacify the country and provide the breathing room for political progress. That's the environment that he left to Barack Obama. Obama can either find ways to help the Iraqis take advantage of this opportunity or he can turn his back on the process, and increase it's chance of failure.

fan4ever
09-01-2010, 09:42 AM
Troops love this guy.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wzeBrJ4ANw4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wzeBrJ4ANw4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

InChiefsHell
09-01-2010, 10:07 AM
What's the point of the video?

patteeu
09-01-2010, 10:22 AM
Troops love this guy.

Wow, they were pretty subdued.

Iowanian
09-01-2010, 10:24 AM
He did talk about something last night that I agreed with. Obama made a statement about people who work hard having the opportunity for a better life or something to that effect. I completely agree, so lets stop making welfare such a simple option for people who do not wish to work hard.

King_Chief_Fan
09-01-2010, 10:44 AM
So any ****head country that says mean things to the US should be dealt with by troops on the ground?

so why not?

Brock
09-01-2010, 10:45 AM
so why not?

Let's send your kid first.

Dayze
09-01-2010, 10:52 AM
Wow, they were pretty subdued.

i looked like those guys when I was required to attend some BS P.R. crap after working a 15 hour day.

King_Chief_Fan
09-01-2010, 11:19 AM
Let's send your kid first.

you a coward to fight for your country?

Brock
09-01-2010, 11:22 AM
you a coward to fight for your country?

Are you a dipshit who simplifies things to that level?

King_Chief_Fan
09-01-2010, 11:22 AM
Are you a dipshit who simplifies things to that level?

only when I am talking to a dipshit

Brock
09-01-2010, 11:25 AM
only when I am talking to a dipshit

So at least you admit to being a dipshit.

patteeu
09-01-2010, 11:43 AM
Let's send your kid first.

What's wrong with a volunteer military?

BIG_DADDY
09-01-2010, 11:47 AM
Is it even possible for us to get futher off topic? Sheesus

Brock
09-01-2010, 11:54 AM
What's wrong with a volunteer military?

Who said there was anything wrong with it? Whether it's volunteer or not, this representative democracy gets a say in how it's used.

patteeu
09-01-2010, 12:02 PM
Who said there was anything wrong with it? Whether it's volunteer or not, this representative democracy gets a say in how it's used.

It's not voluntary if we send his kid first whether the kid has volunteered or not. "Let's send your kid first" was just a dumb thing to say. If you don't want your kids involved, convince them not to volunteer.

Brock
09-01-2010, 12:05 PM
It's not voluntary if we send his kid first whether the kid has volunteered or not. "Let's send your kid first" was just a dumb thing to say. If you don't want your kids involved, convince them not to volunteer.

A dumb thing to say is "why not" when somebody says "So any ****head country that says mean things to the US should be dealt with by troops on the ground?". That's the kind of fuckheaded thinking that gets 4500 of our best killed for at best poor reasoning.

BIG_DADDY
09-01-2010, 12:16 PM
A dumb thing to say is "why not" when somebody says "So any ****head country that says mean things to the US should be dealt with by troops on the ground?". That's the kind of ****headed thinking that gets 4500 of our best killed for at best poor reasoning.

What that kind of thinking has to do with what we actually did is beyond me. Bottom line is we payed a trill to have a military presence in one of the most important stategic areas we could be in. We will continue to pay to have that presence. At this point we have absolutely no interest in ever leaving. What Osama said was complete hogwash.

Brock
09-01-2010, 12:28 PM
What that kind of thinking has to do with what we actually did is beyond me. Bottom line is we payed a trill to have a military presence in one of the most important stategic areas we could be in. We will continue to pay to have that presence. At this point we have absolutely no interest in ever leaving. What Osama said was complete hogwash.

So the fact that it was all based on lies, or as some might call them, "mistakes", is justified.

patteeu
09-01-2010, 12:35 PM
So the fact that it was all based on lies, or as some might call them, "mistakes", is justified.

It was more than justified. It's open for debate as to whether it was the best course of action or not, but it was more than justified even after you take away the things that the proponents were wrong about (e.g. WMD stockpiles). Saddam was still a huge threat to our interests, he was still focused on developing WMD capacity, he had a history of collaboration with terrorists including groups like the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which later merged with al Qaeda to become the al Qaeda we know today, the sanctions regime was crumbling, and he was guilty of repeatedly targeting our aircraft in the no fly zones.

InChiefsHell
09-01-2010, 12:43 PM
Is it even possible for us to get futher off topic? Sheesus

Heh. It's almost like you're new here...:D

Saul Good
09-01-2010, 12:46 PM
Probably did. Republican deregulation had most major financial institutions, insurance companies & car makers going belly-up when the Dems took over. Pretty dang expensive to clean up the biggest mess since the Great Depression. Monumental financial & military fail on the Rightwing side, there....

4.5% unemployment and a record 52 consecutive months of job creation was what the Republicans handed to the Dems in 2006. Glad that's fixed.

BIG_DADDY
09-01-2010, 01:04 PM
So the fact that it was all based on lies, or as some might call them, "mistakes", is justified.

It's certainly debateable. If you recall I was against the war from the onset but I understand the real reason why it was done. It's not like the powers that be in this country can just bring this to the public for a variety of reasons. First IMO the general populace in this country has grown so soft they're simply incapable of making the hard choices in this area. Secondly, even if they wanted to let the people decide they can't be up front about that strategic military play globally. So they lie. They lied then and they continue to lie. Obama lied his ass off last night. Is it right, I don't know but at least I understand why they have to in this situation.

BIG_DADDY
09-01-2010, 01:12 PM
4.5% unemployment and a record 52 consecutive months of job creation was what the Republicans handed to the Dems in 2006. Glad that's fixed.

Dude, anyone who is that much of a partisan hack isn't even worth responding to. The guy is like Frankie except with a control C, control F function. He doesn't have Frankies Bhagdad Bob flare either.

Calcountry
09-01-2010, 04:31 PM
It's certainly debateable. If you recall I was against the war from the onset but I understand the real reason why it was done. It's not like the powers that be in this country can just bring this to the public for a variety of reasons. First IMO the general populace in this country has grown so soft they're simply incapable of making the hard choices in this area. Secondly, even if they wanted to let the people decide they can't be up front about that strategic military play globally. So they lie. They lied then and they continue to lie. Obama lied his ass off last night. Is it right, I don't know but at least I understand why they have to in this situation.Soft is putting it mildly. A majority of men cannot even fathom the thought of cutting a chickens head off, and preparing it for food. With this kind of pussification, how can we be expected to be fierce, and savage enough to kill the fierce savages that would kill us?

They didn't have any problem explaining this to them boys back in '41. They knew what they had to do.

Deberg_1990
09-01-2010, 07:05 PM
It was more than justified. It's open for debate as to whether it was the best course of action or not, but it was more than justified even after you take away the things that the proponents were wrong about (e.g. WMD stockpiles). Saddam was still a huge threat to our interests, he was still focused on developing WMD capacity, he had a history of collaboration with terrorists including groups like the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which later merged with al Qaeda to become the al Qaeda we know today, the sanctions regime was crumbling, and he was guilty of repeatedly targeting our aircraft in the no fly zones.


People forget now, but in those years right after 9/11 that the Bush policy was to stop being reactive and start being proactive. Take the fight to them. Not nearly as many people had a problem with it back then because 9/11 was still fresh in everyones mind.

BIG_DADDY
09-01-2010, 07:08 PM
Soft is putting it mildly. A majority of men cannot even fathom the thought of cutting a chickens head off, and preparing it for food. With this kind of pussification, how can we be expected to be fierce, and savage enough to kill the fierce savages that would kill us?

They didn't have any problem explaining this to them boys back in '41. They knew what they had to do.

Our populace is softer than a marshmallow over an open flame.

The Mad Crapper
09-02-2010, 07:05 AM
Our populace is softer than a marshmallow over an open flame.

Rest assured a culling of the herd is coming--- soon.