PDA

View Full Version : BHO's a military expert now.



Okla-homey
7/17/2008, 06:52 PM
He spent a couple of hours in a briefing with Petraeus, and shook some hands in a messhall or two. They say he removed his criticism of the troop surge from his website, so maybe he was fed a serving of humble pie.

The goober.

Curly Bill
7/17/2008, 06:54 PM
Sounds like he's changing. :rolleyes:

olevetonahill
7/17/2008, 06:56 PM
I want CHANGE damit

Curly Bill
7/17/2008, 06:57 PM
I want CHANGE damit

Well yeah, change is the most wonderful thing in the whole wide world.

Who wouldn't want change?

olevetonahill
7/17/2008, 07:00 PM
BHOs Newest website
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jun2004/SpareChange.jpg

Curly Bill
7/17/2008, 07:02 PM
BHOs Newest website
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jun2004/SpareChange.jpg

BHO prolly has this guy lined up to be treasury secretary.

olevetonahill
7/17/2008, 07:05 PM
BHO prolly has this guy lined up to be treasury secretary.

Maybe he can be Ambassador to Nigeria .

Rogue
7/17/2008, 09:36 PM
Naw, we need another angry, old, white d00d.
Again.

AggieTool
7/17/2008, 09:54 PM
Well he's certainly no match for the current military "expert" we have in the White house.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/9/P/bush_dude.jpg

def_lazer_fc
7/17/2008, 10:09 PM
Well he's certainly no match for the current military "expert" we have in the White house.



he's no match for all the "experts" on this board either. :rolleyes:

olevetonahill
7/18/2008, 01:25 AM
he's no match for all the "experts" on this board either. :rolleyes:

Im expert enough to Know I want a fighter In charge when we are in a fight !:D

King Crimson
7/18/2008, 01:37 AM
Im expert enough to Know I want a fighter In charge when we are in a fight !:D

GWB and Ronaldus Maximus, they did a lot of fighting. good point. :D

King Crimson
7/18/2008, 01:39 AM
actually i do think it's kind of funny the trajectory the Obama wagon is taking.

politics as usual, per both. McCain isn't doing himself any favors either.

olevetonahill
7/18/2008, 04:23 AM
actually i do think it's kind of funny the trajectory the Obama wagon is taking.

politics as usual, per both. McCain isn't doing himself any favors either.

Neither of em are

Harry Beanbag
7/18/2008, 07:43 AM
he's no match for all the "experts" on this board either. :rolleyes:

You can say that again.

JohnnyMack
7/18/2008, 08:46 AM
The troop surge reducing violence means we won the war? Cool.

Someone ask W to borrow his "mission accomplished" banner.

Condescending Sooner
7/18/2008, 08:56 AM
the troop surge reducing violence means we won the war? Cool.

Someone ask W to borrow his " mission accomplished" banner.

Did we lose? Or is that just wishful thinking on your part?

picasso
7/18/2008, 09:05 AM
he's no match for all the "experts" on this board either. :rolleyes:

which most certainly includes you.

Obama claimed he wants to invade Pakistan? That's beton Dubya brilliance.

JohnnyMack
7/18/2008, 09:06 AM
Obama claimed he wants to invade Pakistan? That's beton Dubya brilliance.

No. He didn't. Try reading a paper hippie.

picasso
7/18/2008, 09:08 AM
The troop surge reducing violence means we won the war? Cool.

Someone ask W to borrow his "mission accomplished" banner.

we already won the war, dooshbag. it's keeping the mess clean that's been the problem.

picasso
7/18/2008, 09:09 AM
No. He didn't. Try reading a paper hippie.

no thanks, I heard him say it.

Maybe I'll just wait and hear the big 3 network hacks report on what he/they learn on their little "Iraq Holdin the Nuts of Obama trip."

fart.

mdklatt
7/18/2008, 09:14 AM
we already won the war, dooshbag. it's keeping the mess clean that's been the problem.

Great news--we were able to remove the tumor! But now we can't stop your internal bleeding and you're going to die.

picasso
7/18/2008, 09:16 AM
Great news--we were able to remove the tumor! But now we can't stop your internal bleeding and you're going to die.

hey I'm just going by the military definition. not the internet board nerd one.

Okla-homey
7/18/2008, 09:26 AM
Great news--we were able to remove the tumor! But now we can't stop your internal bleeding and you're going to die.

Nope. No fatal hemorraging. Just some isolated low-level violence. Like in DC or Chicago.

The organized stuff has been put down. The key has been the shift in the Iraqi street who decided enough is a flippin' nuff. Not all, but enough moderate support to make the difference. IOW, winning hearts and minds, without burning their huts down.

That and the fact we put enough guys in in order to get out of the Green Zone and go out into the communities and walk a beat. You know, the proven way of making communities safe. We just gotta help them stay on top of it until the Iraqis can pick up the slack...which, in all honesty, might be a generation, albiet with a smaller US presence. Remember, these people are brand-new to this democracy stuff. It takes time to work out the kinks.

And having a force in Iraq for 25 or 30 years is a good thing. It gives pause to those who would foment shenanigans elsewhere in the region.

picasso
7/18/2008, 09:36 AM
so Homey, you mean becoming a police force is differnt than being a war fighting force? oh gee, where's my dork glasses.

mdklatt
7/18/2008, 09:48 AM
And having a force in Iraq for 25 or 30 years is a good thing.

Not according to Maliki. Trying the same thing in Saudi Arabia (and they invited us in the first place) didn't work out so well, either. The "flowering of Middle East democracy" hasn't really gone our way in Palestine. I'm not optimistic it's going to go our way in Iraq, especially considering that every single "official" (i.e. overly optimistic) pre-war predication has been wrong.

Okla-homey
7/18/2008, 09:51 AM
so Homey, you mean becoming a police force is differnt than being a war fighting force? oh gee, where's my dork glasses.

Pic, its all part of the same gig.

Over American history, our forces have spent more time performing the constabulary mission than direct action. The Reconstruction period in the post-war South lasted three times longer than the war. Think of how long we had troops out west to pacify the tribes, how long we had troops in the Phillippines to pacify the tribes. We're still in the Balkans. We're still in Kuwait. We're still in Germany. We're still in Okinawa and Korea.

There is a thing referred to as a spectrum on miltary operations.

It generally involves a build-up, planning and pre-deployment phase, the direct action phase, and the end-game which includes the post-conflict stabilization and eventually the re-deployment phase. The administration boofed that post-conflict stabilization part because they ignored those who tried to tell them it wouldn't be like the GI's entry into France in 1944 who were met by happy Froggies who were willing to blow them on every corner.

Fortunately for America and the Iraqis, the administration appointed the right guy to command in theater and they have done a marvelous job playing catch-up ball to effect an effective end-game strategy. I just think its naive to think we'll have everybody out anytime soon.

Bourbon St Sooner
7/18/2008, 09:52 AM
What's scary is how some people seem to refuse to recognize what's happened in Iraq in the last year and a half. Some seem to cling to believing it's still all Fallujah circa 2006. I think the thought of actually winning in Iraq is a real conundrum for some. It might actually validate GWB in some sort of way.

Okla-homey
7/18/2008, 10:01 AM
What's scary is how some people seem to refuse to recognize what's happened in Iraq in the last year and a half. Some seem to cling to believing it's still all Fallujah circa 2006. I think the thought of actually winning in Iraq is a real conundrum for some. It might actually validate GWB in some sort of way.

When you ride that pony to power, you gotta make sure you keep it well fed and healthy or folks might decide you're a moron. Especially since the donks are on the wrong side on energy policy nowadays and that hits people in the wallet. And for the record, the donk Congress' approval ratings are significantly lower than the White House's. How much have gas prices gone up in the two years since that gang rode into power anyway? I know I beat this drum a lot, but the galdang French use nuclear to create 80% of their electricity. WTF are we waiting on?

I still think history will be kind to W. Yeah, he goofed on the end-game strategy, but put in the proper perspective, it will still be a win. A bunch of nimcompoops in Che t-shirts proclaiming he's the worst president in US history doesn't make it so.

I just wish the admnistration would take affirmative steps to strengthen the dollar. I heard Steve Forbes say yesterday it could be easily done as it has been at times over the last 50 years; 1) stop the presses on new bills; 2) start buying dollars on the international market; and 3) have our allies do so too, which they would because a weak dollar screws them too.

JohnnyMack
7/18/2008, 10:02 AM
Oh goodie, over 4,000 dead and nearly a trillion dollars spent so we can be a police force to a country that has its collective head so far up its *** in terms of developing a functioning government that we'll be lucky to be out of that sandbox about the time Picasso's grandkids get out of high school.

Okla-homey
7/18/2008, 10:11 AM
Oh goodie, over 4,000 dead and nearly a trillion dollars spent so we can be a police force to a country that has its collective head so far up its *** in terms of developing a functioning government that we'll be lucky to be out of that sandbox about the time Picasso's grandkids get out of high school.

We've spent that much on porn, pot and beer in the same period of time. And 4000 dead is a tragedy, but its really a tiny number to lose in a five year conflict. That region is vitally important to our national interests, at least until we figure out how to get by without its resources. A stable Iraq is good for the world.

soonerscuba
7/18/2008, 10:17 AM
I find it funny that people call missing WMDs, 4,000 dead, a trillion dollars of debt, a booted Sec. of Defense and "Mission Accomplished" good, but misunderstood leadership. Bush was war hungry, got greedy, failed and gets the legacy. Whether you like it or not, 80% of the country are not kids in Che shirts, they have provable and genuine disputes as to the national interests of us being in Iraq.

For me, the I have more of a problem with how it is being financed than the actual war.

JohnnyMack
7/18/2008, 10:19 AM
Iraq wouldn't be unstable if it hadn't been for us.

I wouldn't complain at all about the money spent and the lives lost if this were about a fight I believed in (Al Qaida, Afghanistan, etc.)

BillyBall
7/18/2008, 10:20 AM
This thread is much more civil than I anticipated, wheres RLIMC?

Condescending Sooner
7/18/2008, 10:22 AM
I find it funny that people call missing WMDs, 4,000 dead, a trillion dollars of debt, a booted Sec. of Defense and "Mission Accomplished" good, but misunderstood leadership. Bush was war hungry, got greedy, failed and gets the legacy. Whether you like it or not, 80% of the country are not kids in Che shirts, they have provable and genuine disputes as to the national interests of us being in Iraq.

For me, the I have more of a problem with how it is being financed than the actual war.


I find it funny that people forget about constantly violating terms of surrender, ignoring UN resolutions, having and using WMD's, and repeatedly refusing the let arms inspectors do their job. Oh, and he killed a few people.

Tulsa_Fireman
7/18/2008, 10:22 AM
KILL WHITEY

Tulsa_Fireman
7/18/2008, 10:23 AM
I find it funny that people forget about constantly violating terms of ceasefire, ignoring UN resolutions, having and using WMD's, and repeatedly refusing the let arms inspectors do their job. Oh, and he killed a few people.

Fixed for truth that's all too easily ignored.

soonerscuba
7/18/2008, 10:27 AM
KILL WHITEY
Finally, something we can all agree on.

mdklatt
7/18/2008, 10:30 AM
I think the thought of actually winning in Iraq is a real conundrum for some.

Define "winning".

soonerscuba
7/18/2008, 10:35 AM
I find it funny that people forget about constantly violating terms of surrender, ignoring UN resolutions, having and using WMD's, and repeatedly refusing the let arms inspectors do their job. Oh, and he killed a few people.
Israel has done all of these things and more, but that doesn't mean removing their government is a good idea.

I'm not deflecting the idea, but Saddam was good for our interests in that given the choice between a brutal secular dictatorship and an Arabic democracy, we should probably take the secular government (see Palestine).

I think that it's simply a matter of opinion as to the role of US government abroad, and personally I don't see the cost-benefit to an Iraqi democracy. If the Iraqis surprise me and install a secular government, then good for them, but I doubt that happens.

Condescending Sooner
7/18/2008, 10:48 AM
Israel has done all of these things and more, but that doesn't mean removing their government is a good idea.

I'm not deflecting the idea, but Saddam was good for our interests in that given the choice between a brutal secular dictatorship and an Arabic democracy, we should probably take the secular government (see Palestine).

I think that it's simply a matter of opinion as to the role of US government abroad, and personally I don't see the cost-benefit to an Iraqi democracy. If the Iraqis surprise me and install a secular government, then good for them, but I doubt that happens.

When has Israel violated terms of surrender,used WMD's, ignored UN resolutions, and ignored weapons inspectors? I must have missed that.

soonerscuba
7/18/2008, 11:25 AM
When has Israel violated terms of surrender,used WMD's, ignored UN resolutions, and ignored weapons inspectors? I must have missed that.
They haven't violated terms of surrender in that they haven't been conquered. But, you do realize that UN sanctions apply to the region, including Israel, I would think that an unauthorized nuclear weapons program would violate those sanctions.

I don't care that Israel does this at all, but I wouldn't support overthrowing their government either.

sooner_born_1960
7/18/2008, 11:26 AM
They are cool with the nukes. I told them it was ok.

Harry Beanbag
7/18/2008, 05:18 PM
The fundamental issue that some people fail to grasp, whether for strict partisan reasons or just plain naivete, is that we are fighting a War on Terror. All of it. This isn't a revenge vendetta against OBL, it is a fight to exterminate Islamofascism. Like it or not, Iraq IS one battlefield in the War on Terror. However, Bush totally whiffed on how he sold it in the first place.

At this point, this seems to be as problematic as the "when does life begin" debate that makes the abortion issue impossible to solve.

tommieharris91
7/18/2008, 05:37 PM
I just wish the administration would take affirmative steps to strengthen the dollar. I heard Steve Forbes say yesterday it could be easily done as it has been at times over the last 50 years; 1) stop the presses on new bills; 2) start buying dollars on the international market; and 3) have our allies do so too, which they would because a weak dollar screws them too.

The only actions I want the Fed taking to strengthen the dollar is by raising interest rates. Also, our allies buying dollars on the open market only inflates their currency. Yes, I understand that dollar weakness makes it tougher for the US consumer to buy their exports, but I would think leaders would be more worried about their own people rather than the US. We don't control the worldwide economy like we used to.

soonerscuba
7/18/2008, 07:06 PM
The fundamental issue that some people fail to grasp, whether for strict partisan reasons or just plain naivete, is that we are fighting a War on Terror. All of it. This isn't a revenge vendetta against OBL, it is a fight to exterminate Islamofascism. Like it or not, Iraq IS one battlefield in the War on Terror. However, Bush totally whiffed on how he sold it in the first place.

At this point, this seems to be as problematic as the "when does life begin" debate that makes the abortion issue impossible to solve.
I understand the concept, but I think the crux of the issue for most people that are against the Iraq War beyond partisanship is that many feel that Hussein was pretty good at killing terrorists, primarily because he saw them as a threat to his power. Also, I have a major problem with the War on Terror in that it's impossible to win a war on emotion and seems to be a blank check on executive power. Lastly, why aren't we stealing their oil yet? I want at least one tangible benefit to this mess.

Okla-homey
7/19/2008, 05:26 AM
I understand the concept, but I think the crux of the issue for most people that are against the Iraq War beyond partisanship is that many feel that Hussein was pretty good at killing terrorists, primarily because he saw them as a threat to his power. Also, I have a major problem with the War on Terror in that it's impossible to win a war on emotion and seems to be a blank check on executive power. Lastly, why aren't we stealing their oil yet? I want at least one tangible benefit to this mess.

Tangible benefits? I'll settle for keeping the smart terrorists busy in the region against men who are trained and willing to confront them versus their having an open season on innocent people here.

I understand some people have difficulty relating the absence of a successful attack in the US since 9/11 with the efforts of the administration to keep us safe, but they get an A in that subject on their report card whether anyone likes it or not. And, just as importantly, public safety is the most important job the executive branch performs. It is the job on which everything else depends.

Okla-homey
7/19/2008, 05:28 AM
We don't control the worldwide economy like we used to.

I don't know if we do or we don't. All I know is that when the US economy gets a cold, the rest of the world gets a runny nose.

Rogue
7/19/2008, 08:24 AM
I understand some people have difficulty relating the absence of a successful attack in the US since 9/11 with the efforts of the administration to keep us safe, but they get an A in that subject on their report card whether anyone likes it or not.


If they get an A since 9/11, then the overall grade is a D-minus at best.
Nice try. I don't think you can claim success for not having any terrorist attacks if you don't accept responsibility when there is one. Either you are responsible and accountable, or not. And, frankly, I don't think every act can be prevented so it's not an argument I'd try to make that my guy is so good because nobody's died in a fiery inferno in a few years.

JohnnyMack
7/19/2008, 08:32 AM
Rogue the chickens never come home to roost in the mind of the hawks. They just respond to the threat that's right in front of them. The policy failures that lead us to that point don't matter to military minds.

Harry Beanbag
7/19/2008, 09:35 AM
And, frankly, I don't think every act can be prevented so it's not an argument I'd try to make that my guy is so good because nobody's died in a fiery inferno in a few years.


I totally agree with this statement. Those who do this are painting themselves into a corner with no escape.

yermom
7/19/2008, 09:51 AM
I have a major problem with the War on Terror in that it's impossible to win a war on emotion and seems to be a blank check on executive power. Lastly, why aren't we stealing their oil yet? I want at least one tangible benefit to this mess.

this is pretty much my view. a war on terror is like a war on drugs

if you are going to consider that a war as in "we're at war" then i have a hard time beliving we won't always be "at war"

tommieharris91
7/19/2008, 11:05 AM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080719/D920TOIO0.html

:pop:

Harry Beanbag
7/19/2008, 12:19 PM
No. He didn't. Try reading a paper hippie.


He didn't? The hippie paper I read must have been wrong then.

StoopTroup
7/19/2008, 01:53 PM
Barrack just left Kabul.

Does Afghanastan have any places we could drill for oil?

BTW...

They have great opium.

Harry Beanbag
7/19/2008, 02:17 PM
Heh. I watched part of a thing on the Military Channel the other day that showed 101st Airborne soldiers and Afghan troops cutting and burning marijuana fields. Just another chapter in the GWOT. :)

olevetonahill
7/19/2008, 02:23 PM
Heh. I watched part of a thing on the Military Channel the other day that showed 101st Airborne soldiers and Afghan troops cutting and burning marijuana fields. Just another chapter in the GWOT. :)

Ya we did that in nam to , Oh wait . We just smoked it sorry

JohnnyMack
7/20/2008, 09:25 AM
He didn't? The hippie paper I read must have been wrong then.

He said he would strike terrorist targets in Pakistan if the Pakistani govt. wouldn't. If you consider that "invading Pakistan" then fine. Not sure how that differs from similar operations we're conducting now with W in office.

GrapevineSooner
7/20/2008, 09:38 AM
this is pretty much my view. a war on terror is like a war on drugs

if you are going to consider that a war as in "we're at war" then i have a hard time beliving we won't always be "at war"

Well, here's the way I see it.

Clinton tried to fight it by using the justice system to prosecute those behind the 93 WTC attack. Despite his best efforts, 9/11 happened. You can argue that he didn't take it seriously. But honestly, how many people in the 90's were advocating a full scale invasion of countries that harbored Al Qaida operatives?

On the flip side, Bush is fighting what amounts to a perpetual war with Iraq as a microcosm of the problem that lies therein with the WoT. I think if you pigeon holed him and every "neocon", he would have expected Iraq to have progressed further than it has.

As such, I don't know that we've found a truly beneficial way to fight the threat. And I'm beginning to wonder if such a way even exists. As long as humans and Muslims inhabit the Earth, there's going to be Islamofacism in some form or fashion.

Okla-homey
7/20/2008, 10:25 AM
He said he would strike terrorist targets in Pakistan if the Pakistani govt. wouldn't. If you consider that "invading Pakistan" then fine. Not sure how that differs from similar operations we're conducting now with W in office.

JM,

Please. Hear me out on this. Call me biased if you want, but realize I have personally spent a lot of time on the ground in Afghan and undertand a few things about the region.

The only thing holding 118 million Pakis together is the Pak army. They are willing to acquiesce to covert ops in Pak because they and we have plausible deniability. If we hit a tgt with a Predator directed by a SOF team on the ground in Pak, they can publicly complain and thereby save face. If we roll in there overtly, the Pak army has no cover and the whole thing unravels. The Pak army would have to resist or be overthrown by forces within.

If that happens, we lose Afghan because everything we use to fight in Afghan comes overland by road and rail through Paki via the port of Karachi. Even with the most capable AF on the planet, we are simply incapable of sustaining combat operations in Afghan totally by air. Not to mention creating a wider shooting war.

Therefore, we must insure the current regime in Paki remains in power, or at the very least play no affirmative role in its downfall. Otherwise, we face 118 million ticked off Pakis who absolutely, indisputedly have nukes, and become incapable of conducting substantial ground operations in Afghan to boot.

BHO doesn't seem to "get" that and that fact scares me. A lot.

Harry Beanbag
7/20/2008, 12:55 PM
He said he would strike terrorist targets in Pakistan if the Pakistani govt. wouldn't. If you consider that "invading Pakistan" then fine. Not sure how that differs from similar operations we're conducting now with W in office.



You send troops over the border to kill people and break things without the government's permission it's called an invasion. I hope you don't hurt yourself when you finally fall off Obama's sac.

JohnnyMack
7/20/2008, 02:58 PM
So W invaded Pakistan. Cool.

Okla-homey
7/20/2008, 07:29 PM
So W invaded Pakistan. Cool.

we didn't invade. they invited us in and gave us bases to use there. <sheesh>

GrapevineSooner
7/20/2008, 07:36 PM
In other news, Barack is also a constitutional law scholar (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/barack-obamas-b.html).


Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

So he expects to be President for up to 10 years?

Amazing. ;)

MojoRisen
7/20/2008, 09:33 PM
We've spent that much on porn, pot and beer in the same period of time. And 4000 dead is a tragedy, but its really a tiny number to lose in a five year conflict. That region is vitally important to our national interests, at least until we figure out how to get by without its resources. A stable Iraq is good for the world.

True, 4K were almost lost on 9/11 in perspective, and we spend one trillion dollars a year on illegal aliens... If anything fix one thing at a time.

I am pretty sure we want the fighting over sea's- especially since Terriost who damn us to hell are not going to just forgive and forget -

I think we have 70K on them captured or dead-

JohnnyMack
7/20/2008, 09:39 PM
we didn't invade. they invited us in and gave us bases to use there. <sheesh>

Well by Harry's definition W invaded Pakistan.

def_lazer_fc
7/20/2008, 09:51 PM
This isn't a revenge vendetta against OBL, it is a fight to exterminate Islamofascism. Like it or not, Iraq IS one battlefield in the War on Terror. However, Bush totally whiffed on how he sold it in the first place.


iraq IS one battlefield. now. and a war shouldn't have to be "sold" in the first place. does it not bother any of the warmongers that the "reasons" for this war have changed so many times? never quite got that. well, the first reason didn't pan out. lets change it. nobody buying it? well, lets just change it again. and again. and again, until we have something that sticks.

Okla-homey
7/21/2008, 05:50 AM
iraq IS one battlefield. now. and a war shouldn't have to be "sold" in the first place. does it not bother any of the warmongers that the "reasons" for this war have changed so many times? never quite got that. well, the first reason didn't pan out. lets change it. nobody buying it? well, lets just change it again. and again. and again, until we have something that sticks.

that issue is sooooo 2004. In fact, it formed the crux of the W v. Kerry contest which W won. Let's move on. In 2008, the issue is, "how long shall we fight?"

Harry Beanbag
7/21/2008, 07:48 AM
Well by Harry's definition W invaded Pakistan.

I think you missed the part about having permission. You see Obama said he would do whatever he wanted to do with or without Musharraf's permission.

JohnnyMack
7/21/2008, 09:18 AM
I think you missed the part about having permission. You see Obama said he would do whatever he wanted to do with or without Musharraf's permission.

W had permission for this? Really? Hmm....

http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-34561820080717

picasso
7/21/2008, 09:20 AM
Oh goodie, over 4,000 dead and nearly a trillion dollars spent so we can be a police force to a country that has its collective head so far up its *** in terms of developing a functioning government that we'll be lucky to be out of that sandbox about the time Picasso's grandkids get out of high school.

Jesus will be back by the time I have any grandkids.

And oil does play a role in this police force thing. It might be better if Irania doesn't have it.

SoonerBorn68
7/21/2008, 09:57 AM
So W invaded Pakistan. Cool.

The son-of-a-goat hearder hasn't even been elected yet & he's already making international policy.

Nice.

I think we should invade Canada. They have known terrorists there & their government hasn't captured them yet. :rolleyes:

Harry Beanbag
7/21/2008, 03:04 PM
W had permission for this? Really? Hmm....

http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-34561820080717


You're either reaching for straws or are as clueless on military operations as Barack appears to be.

C&CDean
7/21/2008, 03:07 PM
You're either reaching for straws or are as clueless on military operations as Barack appears to be.

He's both. Don't blame him though. He has trouble seeing reality with all the hills and trees surrounding him.

Harry Beanbag
7/21/2008, 03:13 PM
He's both. Don't blame him though. He has trouble seeing reality with all the hills and trees surrounding him.


Yeah, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was one of the more level headed pinkos on the board before he became one of Obama's apostles.

Chuck Bao
7/21/2008, 03:31 PM
Good grief! When are you going to wake up to the fact that McCain is just offering more of Bush's failed foreign policy.

Name calling other posters pinkos is not going to change that fact.

JohnnyMack
7/21/2008, 03:33 PM
OK so it's not the same thing. Sue me.

The right acts like Obama said he was going to roll tanks down the streets of Karachi when any normal, rational person should understand what the eff he was talking about without the assistance of miniatures and Venn diagrams. Here's his quote:



"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"

That sure sounds more like airstrikes than it does boots on the ground, but I'm not anywhere near as smart as you are.

Chuck Bao
7/21/2008, 03:44 PM
This is an interesting article. It seems that Obama is the true realist in the race for president.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763

Frankly, I'm not sure I like that because, above all, I think democracy should work for everyone. I think people are the same around the world and people deserve their right to be represented.

I hope this is a wake-up call for those who still think the Republicans are the hard core realists and the Democrats are naive, idealistic fo-fos.

On the positive side for Obama, I think some realism needs to be brought to bear in our trade wars. I think that it is not the War on Terrorism so much as our war to get American jobs and our economy strong.

Can you trust an American president whose top advisors have/were representing foreign governments?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
7/21/2008, 03:47 PM
Did we lose? Or is that just wishful thinking on your part?It's what the D's have wanted, but they will totally change their tune if Lil' Barry "wins".:kelvin:

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
7/21/2008, 03:55 PM
Iraq wouldn't be unstable if it hadn't been for us.

(Al Qaida, Afghanistan, etc.)HA...HAHA......LOLHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...Thi nk about what you just said!!!

soonerscuba
7/21/2008, 04:05 PM
Frankly, I'm not sure I like that because, above all, I think democracy should work for everyone. I think people are the same around the world and people deserve their right to be represented.
I disagree. I believe that all people are entitled to organic democracy. If you want the King of England out of your face, grab a third of your countrymen, a rifle and break a few eggs.

As an example, I think Russians are predestined to gravitate toward dictatorship. They lived under the Czar for centuries, propped up the Commies, embraced Democracy for 15 years and are headed right back to an authoritative government in the midst of a steadily growing economy. I am not a multiculturalist, some societies are a civil and smart enough to live under a democracy, some aren't. I don't really feel like paying for people that don't have the will to hold a parliamentary system together.

Curly Bill
7/21/2008, 04:09 PM
I disagree. I believe that all people are entitled to organic democracy. If you want the King of England out of your face, grab a third of your countrymen, a rifle and break a few eggs.

As an example, I think Russians are predestined to gravitate toward dictatorship. They lived under the Czar for centuries, propped up the Commies, embraced Democracy for 15 years and are headed right back to an authoritative government in the midst of a steadily growing economy. I am not a multiculturalist, some societies are a civil and smart enough to live under a democracy, some aren't. I don't really feel like paying for people that don't have the will to hold a parliamentary system together.

Well said. I don't think all people are disposed towards democracy either. Much like I don't think all countries can be economically successful, no matter how much we or others might try to help them.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
7/21/2008, 04:18 PM
Well said. I don't think all people are disposed towards democracy either. Much like I don't think all countries can be economically successful, no matter how much we or others might try to help them.The USA is not in Iraq simply to help create and sustain a democracy.

Curly Bill
7/21/2008, 04:20 PM
The USA is not in Iraq simply to help create and sustain a democracy.

Agree that this is true, and I think it a good thing, cause I don't think those peeps over there are much into the democracy thing.

I think to many of them it sounds good, but I don't think they have it in em to pull it off long-term.

Chuck Bao
7/21/2008, 04:39 PM
I disagree. I believe that all people are entitled to organic democracy. If you want the King of England out of your face, grab a third of your countrymen, a rifle and break a few eggs.

As an example, I think Russians are predestined to gravitate toward dictatorship. They lived under the Czar for centuries, propped up the Commies, embraced Democracy for 15 years and are headed right back to an authoritative government in the midst of a steadily growing economy. I am not a multiculturalist, some societies are a civil and smart enough to live under a democracy, some aren't. I don't really feel like paying for people that don't have the will to hold a parliamentary system together.

Soonerscuba, I don't buy into that notion, at all. I do not believe that some people are naturally, genetically, predisposed or predestined to dictatorship or authoritarian rule.

Make no mistake, the forces against democracy and for some elitist, military rule are growing in power across the world.

In Thailand, it is scary. There is this People's Alliance for Democracy and their goal is to overthrow the government and install a new government that is not democratically elected.

These people and they are largely Bangkokians and middle class think that farmers in the provinces are poor and stupid and can't be trusted to vote for proper candidates.

They have, unfortunately, tried playing the nationistic pride card and nearly turned the ancient Khao Phra Viharn Khmer temple complex into a border war with Cambodia. And, they think they are doing the right thing.

This is an editorial article from the Nation newspaper, which is generally very sympathetic to their cause.


CHANGNOI

Pad: bulldog on a leash or another nail in democracy's coffin

Published on July 21, 2008

Since it was formed in February 2006, and especially since it was revived in May of this year, the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), has become a distinctive force on the political landscape.

Formally, the PAD is simply an alliance of five orators. But as a political phenomenon, the PAD is also what they are saying, how they are saying it, what visual messages they convey, and who is supporting them.

The movement's main stated aim is to overthrow the current government. Normally any movement that professed this aim would be labelled dangerous, even revolutionary, and be strongly handled by the authorities. Strangely that is not happening. Probably that is because we know its true aim is to obstruct Thaksin's overt return to politics.

The movement's longer-term aim is to undermine the central principles of electoral democracy, namely the sovereignty of the people, and the selection of a parliament by the system of one-man, one-vote. The PAD leaders claim that the electorate cannot be trusted with the franchise because the mass of rural people are uneducated and corrupt. They want the elected portion of the lower house reduced to a minority (perhaps 30 per cent), and the remainder filled partly by "retired officials and important people" and partly by ordinary people and workers, selected by appointment. Since the logic of the PAD's proposal is to disenfranchise the rural poor, this new system is likely to favour the rich, the urban, and the higher educated.

In addition, the PAD wants the military to have a permanent role of political oversight. The military would be removed from political control (by making the defence ministry independent of the Cabinet), and granted the right to intervene in politics to check corruption and to protect the monarchy and national sovereignty.

The PAD seems against the freedom of expression, and in favour of the use of abuse and intimidation to limit the freedom of expression. This conclusion is based on the way PAD orators treat academics, actors or other public figures who disagree with its views. This tactic seems to have been quite successful. Some critics have apologised. The press has been generally rather uncritical of PAD's views and activities.

The PAD makes use of military and martial symbolism. Some of the leaders like to wear brown shirts and black shirts that resemble military and paramilitary uniforms. The headbands worn by leaders and followers recall the outfits of traditional warriors, samurai, and jungle fighters. The oversized neckscarf comes from the scouts, village scouts, and jungle fighters. It is not Chamlong's rural-ascetic look but this barracks-chic that distinguishes the movement. Among the supporters, yellow flags, headbands, T-shirts, and caps combine to give the impression of commonality and conformity which is the role of uniforms.

PAD promotes a visceral nationalism reminiscent of the early Phibun era. The nation is a body that is being physically ripped by its enemies (internal and external), causing pain to the citizens, who must rise up in the nation's defence.

The PAD's agitational practice suggests a high degree of organisation, strong financing, access to technology, and skill with sophisticated techniques. The equipment for staging and broadcasting the PAD's message requires high capital cost and running expenses. The crowds are well organised and provisioned. The programming shows strategic planning to sustain support and interest with relatively little novelty. The PAD seems skilled in the techniques and rituals of litigation.

In short, this is not a few people gathered at a street corner with a soap box. Analysing the PAD's audience on the streets and in front of television screens is difficult. There are only stray interviews, plus pictures. Perhaps the single word that emerges from this impressionistic data is "respectable". The crowds are generally smartly dressed. The age profile is quite high, though there are also many families in attendance (and the TV audience may be significantly younger). Head-counting from press photos shows a slight preponderance of women over men. From the few on-site interviews available, the crowds include retirees, public servants, small business people, and senior executives from modern firms. There seem to be relatively few manual workers.

The PAD is clearly well connected to other institutions. One of its leaders is a Democrat MP. Other Democrats have spoken from its stages. So too have academics from some of Bangkok's major universities. A serving general has taken the PAD stage in his full uniform. Other military figures, including General Saprang Kalayanamitra, have been seen backstage and are open in their support.

The PAD seems to be protected, perhaps by friends in important places, but also by virtue of its widespread urban support. No other Bangkok protest has suffered so little harassment. When the prime minister angrily threatened to clear PAD off the streets, the security forces refused to cooperate and the prime minister had to back down. When PAD set up a permanent blockade of roads, the police stood aside and public-opinion surveys were surprisingly lenient over the disruption to traffic. When the protest moved to Government House, the police resistance looked like a token showing designed to fail. This apparent immunity gives weight to PAD's message.

The PAD is flirting with the old agent provocateur's technique of placing its own crudely armed gangs in places where they will be attacked by enemies. This creates violent incidents, apparently initiated by their opponents, though in truth a result of the inherent violence of the PAD itself.

In short, PAD is an anti-democratic movement, supported by high investment and shadowy protection, that exploits the fears of the privileged and a deliberately anti-rational nationalism, and flirts with militarism and violence.

Is PAD a bulldog, let out on a leash for a specific purpose, that will be chained up when the threat from thieves has passed? Or is it another step in the destruction of democracy begun by Thaksin, continued by the coup-makers, and now plunging ahead on the momentum?

picasso
7/21/2008, 05:06 PM
Good grief! When are you going to wake up to the fact that McCain is just offering more of Bush's failed foreign policy.

Name calling other posters pinkos is not going to change that fact.
do you really think Obama can even scratch the surface of what McCain brings to the table concerning geopolitics and foreign policy? I think Obama is still trying to figure out the state of Illinois.

I'd bet McCain would mop the floor with him in a debate, even with Obama's planned response.

Rogue
7/21/2008, 05:15 PM
I'd bet McCain would mop the floor with him in a debate, even with Obama's planned response.

Bet taken. You pick which debate.
v50

tommieharris91
7/21/2008, 05:15 PM
do you really think Obama can even scratch the surface of what McCain brings to the table concerning geopolitics and foreign policy? I think Obama is still trying to figure out the state of Illinois.

I'd bet McCain would mop the floor with him in a debate, even with Obama's planned response.

But all the average American cares about is how pretty Obama talks and that he doesn't come off as a complete retard. :rolleyes:

Okla-homey
7/21/2008, 05:15 PM
do you really think Obama can even scratch the surface of what McCain brings to the table concerning geopolitics and foreign policy? I think Obama is still trying to figure out the state of Illinois.

I'd bet McCain would mop the floor with him in a debate, even with Obama's planned response.

I hope we get to see that, although BHO's handlers have displayed a marked reluctance to engage in that sort of public dialogue. They want the same 'ol scripted challenge and response served up by adoring media types. With Tim Russert gone, there isn't a whiff of a chance for anything approaching a real contest in which both sides' warts would be equally exposed.

Chuck Bao
7/21/2008, 05:16 PM
do you really think Obama can even scratch the surface of what McCain brings to the table concerning geopolitics and foreign policy? I think Obama is still trying to figure out the state of Illinois.

I'd bet McCain would mop the floor with him in a debate, even with Obama's planned response.

Did you read this article?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763

If it is fear tactics that McCain employs during a debate, I agree with you that it could work (not mop the floor but score points).

But the fact is that a nation can't have a strong military for very long without a strong economy. I'm thinking that is the part that Obama mops the floor with McCain.

Curly Bill
7/21/2008, 05:17 PM
But all the average American cares about is how pretty Obama talks and that he doesn't come off as a complete retard. :rolleyes:

You forgot that he wants: CHANGE!!!



Sorry to offend those of you that dislike my use of BHO's very own pet word. I thought it was very cute how he had it on the side of his plane.

tommieharris91
7/21/2008, 05:18 PM
But the fact is that a nation can't have a strong military for very long without a strong economy. I'm thinking that is the part that Obama mops the floor with McCain.
But Obama's gonna raise everyone's taxes. How's that gonna make the economy stronger?

Heck, how is either candidate going to make the US economy stronger? This is where I can't figure out who to vote for.

picasso
7/21/2008, 05:20 PM
Bet taken. You pick which debate.
v50

how about the one about the issues. not just "change."

you honestly think Obama knows **** about foreign policy? my sides are splitting.

Curly Bill
7/21/2008, 05:22 PM
But Obama's gonna raise everyone's taxes. How's that gonna make the economy stronger?

If you're on welfare or public assistance he'll make your economy stronger. ;)

tommieharris91
7/21/2008, 05:23 PM
If you're on welfare or public assistance he'll make your economy stronger. ;)

OK, so he won't raise everyone's taxes. ;)

GrapevineSooner
7/21/2008, 05:29 PM
Yep, somebody's gotta have at leat $600 of disposable income with which to buy earrings. ;)

Chuck Bao
7/21/2008, 05:35 PM
But Obama's gonna raise everyone's taxes. How's that gonna make the economy stronger?

Heck, how is either candidate going to make the US economy stronger? This is where I can't figure out who to vote for.

This is exactly what I've been saying.

Free trade is good and I am typically the first to defend it. But, it can't be at the expense of the environment, the health of the workers and child labor, etc.

Did we not learn anything from the environmental destruction in that small town in Osage Co.?

Does buying your goods cheaply at Walmarts mean that you are okay with people on the other side of the world going through that?

Do you really think lowering corporate tax rates will stop a lot of the US companies from sending jobs overseas?

And, it is not the salaries that matter as much as the substantial and rising cost of health care for US workers. How do you explain so many companies want to contract outside workers without employee benefits?

Obama wants to get tough with the trade partners and do something about the runaway health care costs. I'm not getting the same message from McCain.

Maybe someone cares to enlighten me how McCain would be better for the long-term health and growth prospects of the US economy than Obama.

Rogue
7/21/2008, 05:50 PM
you honestly think Obama knows **** about foreign policy? my sides are splitting.


At least as much as the current regime. See, I like John McC too, just not as much as BHO. I don't think foreign policy is JM's long suit.

Curly Bill
7/21/2008, 05:51 PM
I don't think foreign policy is JM's long suit.

...but it is Obama's?

picasso
7/21/2008, 05:52 PM
Maybe someone cares to enlighten me how McCain would be better for the long-term health and growth prospects of the US economy than Obama.
by keeping the government out of it for starters.

you ever been to a government ran health care facillilly? I have. No choices on Doctors.
Got an appointment? Ok, see ya in 3 months.

burp.

need a referral? ok, come spend all day here and maybe you'll get one. You got a job and can't take that much time off? tough chit jack. belch.

hey hey, I know let's look at Japan. yeah, you use your vacation time when you go to the Doc. better hope you not be having cancer!

And I'm still not buying that fact that Obama will get us out of the Middle East like he's promising some of you folks. ohhhhh be careful.

tommieharris91
7/21/2008, 05:52 PM
This is exactly what I've been saying.

Free trade is good and I am typically the first to defend it. But, it can't be at the expense of the environment, the health of the workers and child labor, etc.

Did we not learn anything from the environmental destruction in that small town in Osage Co.?I don't really understand the point you're trying to make asking this question.

Does buying your goods cheaply at Walmarts mean that you are okay with people on the other side of the world going through that?I don't buy my goods from Wal-Mart, but for different reasons than outsourced workers.

Do you really think lowering corporate tax rates will stop a lot of the US companies from sending jobs overseas? Nope, but a weakening dollar will.

And, it is not the salaries that matter as much as the substantial and rising cost of health care for US workers. How do you explain so many companies want to contract outside workers without employee benefits?Because it costs less for the firm to employ them.

Obama wants to get tough with the trade partners and do something about the runaway health care costs. I'm not getting the same message from McCain.

Maybe someone cares to enlighten me how McCain would be better for the long-term health and growth prospects of the US economy than Obama.

And I answered what I could. My biggest problem with Obama is that I would like to enter the tax bracket which he intends on taxing. My parents are about to enter that bracket. I don't think giving poor people an easy way out will help the economy (and I assume he will use that money to give them stuff instead of paying down the stupidly huge debt run up by Bush). I think access to better education to those who will use it to get further in life is the way to go. I have heard that McCain will do more to increase education availability in places such as Detroit where corporations have outsourced jobs.

My problem with McCain is that he sounds like he won't try to balance the budget and trim some of the "fatty" programs that the US doesn't need. I am also highly against this proposed gas tax holiday, because it won't do anything to lower gas prices. This ideal makes me think he doesn't have at least a basic understanding of current economics.

Rogue
7/21/2008, 05:53 PM
...but it is Obama's?

Nope, I don't think either guy is really solid here. Let's hope the elected picks a Sec of State wisely.

Curly Bill
7/21/2008, 05:56 PM
Nope, I don't think either guy is really solid here. Let's hope the elected picks a Sec of State wisely.

I don't think either is great either, but I think McCain is less likely to do something off the wall stupid.

Chuck Bao
7/21/2008, 06:14 PM
by keeping the government out of it for starters.

you ever been to a government ran health care facillilly? I have. No choices on Doctors.
Got an appointment? Ok, see ya in 3 months.

burp.

need a referral? ok, come spend all day here and maybe you'll get one. You got a job and can't take that much time off? tough chit jack. belch.

hey hey, I know let's look at Japan. yeah, you use your vacation time when you go to the Doc. better hope you not be having cancer!

And I'm still not buying that fact that Obama will get us out of the Middle East like he's promising some of you folks. ohhhhh be careful.

I somehow don't think a government run health care system will quickly diminish the number of US doctors and your waiting time. Maybe, it would over a long enough time.

Surely eliminating malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs would be a good start and have an immediate impact.

I'm sure you already know that US and foreign drug companies charge a big premium for new drugs sold in the US just because they can and insurance covers it. They are selling the same drugs substantially discounted elsewhere. In effect, that is just another big disincentive for hiring American workers.

Rogue
7/21/2008, 06:22 PM
Here's the question that my unfair and, arguably, unbalanced mind wants to know from both candidates about foreign policy: "how will your foreign policy efforts differ from the current administration's?"
"In what ways, if any, will they be similar?"

Curly Bill
7/21/2008, 06:28 PM
Here's the question that my unfair and, arguably, unbalanced mind wants to know from both candidates about foreign policy: "how will your foreign policy efforts differ from the current administration's?"
"In what ways, if any, will they be similar?"

Let me paraphrase BHO's answer: "I'd change the whole damn thing, cause I like me some change. Now, someone pass the arugula." ;)

soonerscuba
7/21/2008, 06:29 PM
Those lauding the foreign policy accomplishments of McCain need to be aware that if Joe Lieberman ain't in his ear explaining the difference between Sunni and Shiite and how it relates to Iran the man is screwed.

Saying you are a foreign policy expert and being one are different things, neither are, but I personally feel that Obama would be a bit more agile in the approach to diplomacy/war and is better equipped for on the job training.

Curly Bill
7/21/2008, 06:30 PM
Those lauding the foreign policy accomplishments of McCain need to be aware that if Joe Lieberman ain't in his ear explaining the difference between Sunni and Shiite and how it relates to Iran the man is screwed.

Sunni, Shiite...all terrorist. Kill'em all.

Curly Bill
7/21/2008, 06:31 PM
I'm just glad that BHO made his week-long trip over there so he now is a foreign policy expert. :rolleyes:

JohnnyMack
7/21/2008, 08:37 PM
by keeping the government out of it for starters.

you ever been to a government ran health care facillilly? I have. No choices on Doctors.
Got an appointment? Ok, see ya in 3 months.

burp.

need a referral? ok, come spend all day here and maybe you'll get one. You got a job and can't take that much time off? tough chit jack. belch.

hey hey, I know let's look at Japan. yeah, you use your vacation time when you go to the Doc. better hope you not be having cancer!

And I'm still not buying that fact that Obama will get us out of the Middle East like he's promising some of you folks. ohhhhh be careful.

Either you're not as smart as you think you are or you're just truly ignorant as to what Obama is proposing in terms of healthcare. Surely you're not simple enough to think he's going to eliminate insurance companies and just privatize the whole thing, do you? What he's proposing isn't govt. run healthcare it's govt. subsidized insurance for people who can't afford it. There's a difference.

<picasso> belch </picasso>

JohnnyMack
7/21/2008, 08:38 PM
I hope we get to see that, although BHO's handlers have displayed a marked reluctance to engage in that sort of public dialogue. They want the same 'ol scripted challenge and response served up by adoring media types.

:rolleyes:

Like he got from Charlie Gibson and Clinton's little toady?

SoonerBorn68
7/21/2008, 08:39 PM
What he's proposing isn't govt. run healthcare it's govt. subsidized insurance for people who can't afford it. There's a difference.

<picasso> belch </picasso>

So, he's for the government paying for health care for illegals?

StoopTroup
7/21/2008, 08:41 PM
I would get rid of Physician Assistants and make sure RN's can't write RX's either.

Tulsa_Fireman
7/21/2008, 08:42 PM
I would give me some viagra for the all-night sexytime.

JohnnyMack
7/21/2008, 08:47 PM
So, he's for the government paying for health care for illegals?

I do not know the answer to that. I will look that up. Are illegals eligible for Medicare/Medicaid?

Tulsa_Fireman
7/21/2008, 08:48 PM
I don't think they are.

They just don't pay at all. THAT'S your healthcare crisis. Hillcrest's illegal-filled emergency room.

Whet
7/21/2008, 09:08 PM
Finally, some good information on Obama!
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=2144&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=


The Greatest Obama Story Ever Told (http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=2144&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=)
CHAPTER 1 - THE BEGINNING OF THE START

Barack Obama was born Steven Urkel in a log cabin near Springfield, Illinois. His father was a militant piano tuner from one of those African countries where they change the national boundaries every other week. His mother was a loan officer at the Oppressed Proletariat Bank and Trust Company where she spent her days rejecting loans to people who had little more to cling to than God and guns. As a communist, she hated that her job forced her to oppress the poor and disenfranchised; but, also as a communist, she loved power and control so she threw herself into her work with alacrity. His father, not finding a large number of militant pianos in the American Great Plains, left the fledgling family for places with more bellicose musical tastes, leaving young Steven and his mom to fight capitalism alone. ~
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Steve_Urkel.jpgGrowing up as part of a mixed race heritage, young Steven began to notice racism in his daily life. One day, for example, he and one of his white friends bought shirts at the local Imperialist-Mart discount store. His friend's had one of those little tags in it that said "Inspected by Number 35 to ensure your satisfaction." Young Steven found a tag in his that said "Number 35 made sure you got a faulty shirt because you're part black." This was a real eye-opener for Steven, who had previously spent a lot of time squinting.
He began to question his values and those of the people around his, especially when it came to shirts. It was the late 1960s when Black Nationalism and Afro-Centrism began to emerge into the American consciousness along with a lot of other high-sounding poop.
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Old_Lady.jpg
His grandmother was going into trances and making predictions like "Steven, er, Barack - someday you'll throw me under a bus!"
Steven got caught up in the excitement of the times and decided to change his name to Muhammad Alley; Muhammad because he had heard the name in one of those "Mummy" movies and Alley after the place where he spent most of his time. Unfortunately, this name sounded very similar to that of a famous person of that era and was probably already copyrighted. The young man was devastated; he thought he would never have a cool sounding hip name; but, as fate would have it, he was watching an old low-budget World War II movie one day. One of the characters, a Japanese soldier, kept shouting in a kind of pseudo-Japanese dialect "Barack A Bomba! Barack A Bomba!" which was apparently supposed to mean "Bomb the Baracks!" Bad as the movie was, it turned out to be the young man's inspiration! Barack Obama was born!

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Bugs_Daffy.gifAs a teenager, young Barack's two best friends were named Bugs and Daffy. Daffy was black and Bugs was white. Bugs was always getting the better of Daffy and Barack felt that this was because Daffy was black. Barack was conflicted, as someome who has changed his named so many times at that age is wont to be; one day, his asked his mother "Mom, why can't we have hope and change instead of despair and sameness?" His mother replied, "Just a minute son! I have to stamp "REJECTED" on this loan application! Boo Ha Ha Ha Ha!"

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Mother_John_Kerry.jpgThe incident had a profound affect on young Barack. Not only had he not noticed his mother had a laugh like a cartoon villain but she was handing out loan rejections to people who had not even applied. Furthermore, his grandmother was going into trances and making strange predictions like "Steven, er, Barack - someday you'll throw me under a bus!" Barack just knew that the answer for the world had to be hope and change, regardless of the fact that the answer had nothing to do with the question. "Sometimes," Barack reasoned, "you have to answer a question you can answer instead of the one you are asked!" This would turn out to be a pivotal insight for him, for then as now he never had the answers to many of the questions he was asked. But with his phenomenal judgement, he knew - he just knew - that hope and change was the answer and that he was the one he was waiting for.

But how? How could he take meaningless platitudes and turn them into a marketing campaign that everyone would think meant something because it apparently meant nothing but everyone would pretend it was meaningful because they didn't want everyone else to think that they had missed the point? Who in this world makes promises that can't be delivered on but are never called on it because everyone either forgets them or never believed them in the first place?
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/McGovern_Clinton.jpg
The toughest thing might be getting rid of President McGovern. That guy could be in office for years!
This modus operandi would never be successful in the world of banking or even piano tuning. After all, if you promise someone their piano would sound like Liberace but instead ended up sounding like a drawer full of flatware falling down the stairs, people are not going to give you repeat business as dad discovered a decade earlier.

The answer came to him like a stinkbomb exploding prematurely in his face. The year was 1972 and a Presidential race was on. McGovern. Nixon. Hot air. Baloney. Bald faced lies. And regardless of all the BS (or maybe because of it), one of these boobs was going to be handed the most important job in the world after the Jackson Five's road manager: President of the United States! Barack found his answer: he was going to become President and MAKE the world HOPE er have HOPE and CHANGE! The toughest thing might be getting rid of President McGovern. That guy could be in office for years!

Phantasm
7/22/2008, 05:31 PM
heh! so cool!

PhilTLL
7/22/2008, 06:42 PM
I'm just glad that BHO made his week-long trip over there so he now is a foreign policy expert. :rolleyes:

I see. So he doesn't take a trip and therefore you claim he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. He takes this apparently vital excursion, and you then decide it's meaningless and didn't prove anything. Brilliant!

Then again, you do keep ranting in what I assume is supposed to be a class-issue/out-of-touch way about "arugula" when you apparently intend to vote for someone who has a net worth of over $40 million (and a wife with at least three times that). You know, just like how your guy leads on 'Merican Family Values, like protecting the sanctity of marriage by finding a new wife before the old one knows she's out of the picture. Cognitive dissonance must be a hell of a drug.

olevetonahill
7/22/2008, 06:47 PM
Bet taken. You pick which debate.
v50

They aint gonna Debate cause they cant agree On HOW .
Kinda shows the Differance right there
:pop:

olevetonahill
7/22/2008, 06:48 PM
I see. So he doesn't take a trip and therefore you claim he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. He takes this apparently vital excursion, and you then decide it's meaningless and didn't prove anything. Brilliant!

Then again, you do keep ranting in what I assume is supposed to be a class-issue/out-of-touch way about "arugula" when you apparently intend to vote for someone who has a net worth of over $40 million (and a wife with at least three times that). You know, just like how your guy leads on 'Merican Family Values, like protecting the sanctity of marriage by finding a new wife before the old one knows she's out of the picture. Cognitive dissonance must be a hell of a drug.

When are you gonna get a Clue ?:rolleyes:

Okla-homey
7/22/2008, 07:00 PM
Okay, as if we didn't have enough reasons to question this guy's competency to be the leader of the Free World. Getta loada this!

Today, after having a few days to observe its effects first-hand, BHO was asked by reporters if the surge worked.

He said "yes." As well he should since sectarian and anti-US violence is down 80% from pre-surge levels, Sunni and Shia are both active participants in government, roving Al-Q death squads have been quashed out of existence, Iraqi military and cops becoming increasingly effective and displaying resolve to take their country back from the third country thugs, the Iraqi economy starting to take hold, kids are going to school, the lights and a/c are on, etc., etc.

Then he was asked a very direct question: "If you knew then what you now know, would you still have opposed the surge?"

BHO said, "yes" :eek:

Even little Katie Couric almost crapped herself. She followed up twice herself and BHO just stammered around and said something to the effect the "policy change" made the difference.

Now folks, I admit I'm biased, but if that son-of-a-goatherder had only answered "No" to that second question, I might have been inclined to cut him some slack in the future. It would have been refreshing. You know, a politician admitting, faced with indisputable facts, that he was wrong. That, BTW, ain't flip-floppin'.

As it is, BHO is a) either in deep denial and therefore unwilling to accept the truth of the matter or 2) he is so wedded to the notion the GWOT is bad, he refuses to accept reality.

FWIW, in the law, we call either of those things "insane delusions" and they are admissable as evidence to prove a person is incompetent.

Hope and Change baby. Hope and Change.

olevetonahill
7/22/2008, 07:04 PM
Homester
ur preaching to the choir and Ya aint gonna "change" The Atheist
Just sayin

Frozen Sooner
7/22/2008, 07:05 PM
He probably doesn't have any kind of position at all on the the Iraq-Pakistan border situation.

SoonerBorn68
7/22/2008, 07:09 PM
The SOGH is still playing to the far, far left. Keep on with your arrogance nObama--even the dumbest of your base will finally see the pompous pretender you are.

SoonerBorn68
7/22/2008, 07:09 PM
He probably doesn't have any kind of position at all on the the Iraq-Pakistan border situation.

Prolly not, but he can name 10 more states than I can.

Rogue
7/22/2008, 07:12 PM
Homey, I'm gonna call BS on the notion that you woulda cut him some slack. You've shown no inkling over the past many months that you will even consider it.

Again, The Iraq was not any part of the GWOT until we destabilized it. The GWOT was in the "stans." Still is.

Okla-homey
7/22/2008, 07:19 PM
Again, The Iraq was not any part of the GWOT until we destabilized it. The GWOT was in the "stans." Still is.

Even if that were true, (which it ain't), there is a very important aspect of the American Way of War that we've clung too for about 150 years. "You break it, you fix it."

Again, that whole "illegal war" dealio is 2004. That's over and decided. Now, it's about the future of the region. We can't just stick our heads up our collective kiesters and ignore reality. Like BHO appears quite willing to do.

Lord save us from this trainwreck of a "leader."

Rogue
7/22/2008, 07:41 PM
Point taken, Homey. I agree that we have some compelling moral reasons to unf*uck what we started. I wish I knew what the finish line will look like though. Seems to be a never-ending repair job now.

olevetonahill
7/22/2008, 07:45 PM
Point taken, Homey. I agree that we have some compelling moral reasons to unf*uck what we started. I wish I knew what the finish line will look like though. Seems to be a never-ending repair job now.

Its simple Bro
WE dont leave till the Job Is done and Iraq Is a stable entity
If we do then weve tossed away over 4K american Lives .
Simple

StoopTroup
7/22/2008, 07:48 PM
Even if that were true, (which it ain't), there is a very important aspect of the American Way of War that we've clung too for about 150 years. "You break it, you fix it."


See Homey...

That's where GW lost me.

He listened to his Father. Who does that? GHB told him he'd be responsible for fixing it. What the hell did he know. (1000 points of light :rolleyes: )

I wouldn't have held GW responsible.

I think getting rid of Saddam and his Sons was the right thing to do...we just stayed to long afterwards. We should have gone "Hey Kofi...you were right...no WMD's. I think it's all clear for you guys now. :D ".

I still don't think it's our job to fix it.

I would have rather put money into rebuilding the Twin Towers and telling the World FU.

olevetonahill
7/22/2008, 07:52 PM
See Homey...

That's where GW lost me.

He listened to his Father. Who does that? GHB told him he'd be responsible for fixing it. What the hell did he know. (1000 points of light :rolleyes: )

I wouldn't have held GW responsible.

I think getting rid of Saddam and his Sons was the right thing to do...we just stayed to long afterwards. We should have gone "Hey Kofi...you were right...no WMD's. I think it's all clear for you guys now. :D ".

I still don't think it's our job to fix it.

I would have rather put money into rebuilding the Twin Towers and telling the World FU.

I know you aint sayin to Bail :eek:
This reminds Me of Nam In the Fact that the American Public wants to toss away the 4k Plus Just like they Did the 58 K plus in Nam :mad:
We are there for better or worse
Please God and the american Public lets Not have a repeat of The Nam Ok ?:(

Frozen Sooner
7/22/2008, 07:54 PM
Prolly not, but he can name 10 more states than I can.

Is one of them Czechoslovakia?

olevetonahill
7/22/2008, 07:58 PM
Is one of them Czechoslovakia?

No 1 of em is the state Of Insanity
just sayin

StoopTroup
7/22/2008, 08:20 PM
I know you aint sayin to Bail :eek:
This reminds Me of Nam In the Fact that the American Public wants to toss away the 4k Plus Just like they Did the 58 K plus in Nam :mad:
We are there for better or worse
Please God and the american Public lets Not have a repeat of The Nam Ok ?:(

Well...I don't think we can bail at this point.

GW commited us way back.

I liked the original idea GHB had with the added Saddam Death.

The Middle East Countries will never allow Iraq to be America's "Jewel in the Desert". We'll have to stay there forever defending our attempt at Freedom for the Iraqius People.

If you want to call that cut and run...then fine. I think it was worth the lives of our Servicemen and Women to oust Saddam and his Sons. I'm also OK with using our Troops to keep Iraq from falling into Iran or any other Middle Eastern Country. I just think we should have used the U.N. as the middleman and allowed them to re-enter Iraq. Having other Countries involved would possibly have sped up stabilizing the area IMO.

Kofi is an a$$-clown but I think they would have bit on the bait as soon as we tossed it to them. We could have then leveraged our way out.

I could be wrong. I would have liked to have seen something different is all.

I'm not gonna compare Vietnam to Iraq. We all know the North was being supplied just like the North Koreans were in the 50's. We were being tested.

We're being tested again now in many different ways because of our length of stay in Iraq.

I don't like it. I do like how most of the American Public has responded to our Troops as they come Home from Iraq. We learned a valuable lesson from the history of the 60's. I think we are all better for it. I hope it never happens again. The folks who still think they way they acted to our Troops when they came Home from Vietnam should be given mental evaluations and put into an asylum IMO.

Sooner_Havok
7/22/2008, 08:21 PM
Can I get a summary of this thread please?

Rogue
7/22/2008, 08:24 PM
Can I get a summary of this thread please?

-Barack Obama is a dummy-head.
-No he isn't.
-Yes he is.
-I said no.
-Neener neener boo boo.

StoopTroup
7/22/2008, 08:25 PM
Can I get a summary of this thread please?

Some Folks think Obama has good intentions...

Some Folks think McCain will keep us safe.

Sooner_Havok
7/22/2008, 08:28 PM
-Barack Obama is a dummy-head.
-No he isn't.
-Yes he is.
-I said no.
-Neener neener boo boo.


Some Folks think Obama has good intentions...

Some Folks think McCain will keep us safe.

Hmmm, another gem then huh?

StoopTroup
7/22/2008, 08:29 PM
You know...

America has always been really good at kickin' A$$...

We just kind of suck at being fair after it's all over.

The folks who are there to mop up the aftermath always have it rough. The guidelines are so complicated and filled with politics.

olevetonahill
7/22/2008, 08:31 PM
Some Folks think Obama has good intentions...

Some Folks think McCain will keep us safe.

I believe Both of your statements
just sayin

StoopTroup
7/22/2008, 08:32 PM
I believe Both of your statements
just sayin

Good.

For a minute I though you were fixing to shell shock on me and I don't want to be responsible for that.

olevetonahill
7/22/2008, 08:34 PM
You know...

America has always been really good at kickin' A$$...

We just kind of suck at being fair after it's all over.

The folks who are there to mop up the aftermath always have it rough. The guidelines are so complicated and filled with politics.

Yea WE really ****ed Over Germany , Italy and the Japs :rolleyes:

olevetonahill
7/22/2008, 08:36 PM
Good.

For a minute I though you were fixing to shell shock on me and I don't want to be responsible for that.

Yup I believe that Brack has Good intentions ( as in the road to hell )
I also believe that JM will continue to keep Us safe :D

StoopTroup
7/22/2008, 08:42 PM
Yup I believe that Brack has Good intentions ( as in the road to hell )
I also believe that JM will continue to keep Us safe :D

Thank God we're back where this thing started. :D

JohnnyMack
7/22/2008, 09:18 PM
I also believe that JM will continue to keep Us safe :D

I'm gonna do my best! :D

JohnnyMack
7/22/2008, 09:21 PM
Okay, as if we didn't have enough reasons to question this guy's competency to be the leader of the Free World. Getta loada this!

Today, after having a few days to observe its effects first-hand, BHO was asked by reporters if the surge worked.

He said "yes." As well he should since sectarian and anti-US violence is down 80% from pre-surge levels, Sunni and Shia are both active participants in government, roving Al-Q death squads have been quashed out of existence, Iraqi military and cops becoming increasingly effective and displaying resolve to take their country back from the third country thugs, the Iraqi economy starting to take hold, kids are going to school, the lights and a/c are on, etc., etc.

Then he was asked a very direct question: "If you knew then what you now know, would you still have opposed the surge?"

BHO said, "yes" :eek:

Even little Katie Couric almost crapped herself. She followed up twice herself and BHO just stammered around and said something to the effect the "policy change" made the difference.

Now folks, I admit I'm biased, but if that son-of-a-goatherder had only answered "No" to that second question, I might have been inclined to cut him some slack in the future. It would have been refreshing. You know, a politician admitting, faced with indisputable facts, that he was wrong. That, BTW, ain't flip-floppin'.

As it is, BHO is a) either in deep denial and therefore unwilling to accept the truth of the matter or 2) he is so wedded to the notion the GWOT is bad, he refuses to accept reality.

FWIW, in the law, we call either of those things "insane delusions" and they are admissable as evidence to prove a person is incompetent.

Hope and Change baby. Hope and Change.

I would think you would want him to stick to his convictions? No? Guess since he didn't come around to your way of thinking he must be an idiot. ;)

BHO never said the GWOT is bad, that's a simplistic twisting of the truth on your part.

Frozen Sooner
7/23/2008, 12:22 AM
-Barack Obama is a dummy-head.
-No he isn't.
-Yes he is.
-I said no.
-Neener neener boo boo.

You forgot

-John McCain has great foreign policy credentials
-Although he thinks Chechoslovakia still exists and that Iraq and Pakistan share a border.

tommieharris91
7/23/2008, 12:49 AM
You forgot

-John McCain has great foreign policy credentials
-Although he thinks Chechoslovakia still exists and that Iraq and Pakistan share a border.

It would be even worse if he spelled it this way.

Frozen Sooner
7/23/2008, 12:54 AM
True. Then again, I'm not touting my foreign policy credentials. :D Always forget that damn z.

olevetonahill
7/23/2008, 01:49 AM
True. Then again, I'm not touting my foreign policy credentials. :D Always forget that damn z.

then get back in yer Igloo ;)

def_lazer_fc
7/23/2008, 03:09 AM
that issue is sooooo 2004. In fact, it formed the crux of the W v. Kerry contest which W won. Let's move on. In 2008, the issue is, "how long shall we fight?"

you didn't say whether or not you had a problem with it. if not, you sure let bygones be bygones on an EXTREME level.

def_lazer_fc
7/23/2008, 03:10 AM
Yeah, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was one of the more level headed pinkos on the board before he became one of Obama's apostles.

this is where you and dean make out i think.

olevetonahill
7/23/2008, 04:02 AM
Def why do you try so hard to be an ******* ?

Harry Beanbag
7/23/2008, 07:27 AM
He probably doesn't have any kind of position at all on the the Iraq-Pakistan border situation.


It would have to be a wide stance. :)

Harry Beanbag
7/23/2008, 07:27 AM
this is where you and dean make out i think.


This is really lame, even by your standards. :rolleyes:

picasso
7/23/2008, 09:33 AM
I would think you would want him to stick to his convictions? No? Guess since he didn't come around to your way of thinking he must be an idiot. ;)


he did say in hindsight he would still vote no for the surge. that sounds to me like he doesn't want to admit he was wrong ("change!"). or, would he rather the violence there continue to escalate?

I'm confused Barrax.

StoopTroup
7/23/2008, 09:42 AM
I imagine Obama is somewhat perplexed when he votes for something like a surge.

I think it would be hard to campaign on being against the War in Iraq and vote on the surge.

If he wasn't running for POTUS...I'm sure by now he could vote to make things better without consequence.

He's probabaly briefed about every dickwheel's attempt to spin his position.

That must really suck.

shaun4411
7/23/2008, 09:56 AM
He spent a couple of hours in a briefing with Petraeus, and shook some hands in a messhall or two. They say he removed his criticism of the troop surge from his website, so maybe he was fed a serving of humble pie.

The goober.

was it maybe a couple hours later he changed his mind on that? moveon.org punks threatening him by threatening campaign monies. he'll have to pander to the ultra more liberal than him wackjobs for the next few months.

Echoes
7/23/2008, 12:38 PM
Hey guys,

Just wanted to throw in my two cents about the surge.

I see this argument quite often and wanted to throw in some information on what I think. McCain voted for the Surge and champions it. He says it did work, blah blah. We all know this.

My point is, this surge was not some stroke of military genious. It's certainly not a sound military tactic in getting us closer to our goal of withdrawal of occupation of the country. Think about it. We have the best troops in the world. Of course effectively doubling our numbers ( I don't know exactly how many more we sent over there, but it was much much more) will lower the violence. For instance, if we have 12 troops doing a street sweep in a city, and now we double that number to 24, that gives us twice the chance to find weapons/illegals/information, etc. to cut down on violence.

I just don't get why McCain is heralded as a military genious for supporting this. Everyone with any sense at all will tell you, doubling our troop numbers in a war is going to cut down on violence. How is that a radical new strategy? It's not. It was pretty easy to see that it would certainly cut down on violence.

The question is, has it gotten us closer to removing our occupation of Iraq? Has it made America safer? Has it cut down on the costs in Iraq?

No, no, and no. As soon as we remove our troops, the violence there will go back up. We should have removed them 8 months ago.

Just fyi, I am undecided in my voting, and this post wasn't intending to support Obama or McCain. More of just a point on the Surge.

Echoes
7/23/2008, 12:45 PM
Okay, as if we didn't have enough reasons to question this guy's competency to be the leader of the Free World. Getta loada this!

Today, after having a few days to observe its effects first-hand, BHO was asked by reporters if the surge worked.

He said "yes." As well he should since sectarian and anti-US violence is down 80% from pre-surge levels, Sunni and Shia are both active participants in government, roving Al-Q death squads have been quashed out of existence, Iraqi military and cops becoming increasingly effective and displaying resolve to take their country back from the third country thugs, the Iraqi economy starting to take hold, kids are going to school, the lights and a/c are on, etc., etc.

Then he was asked a very direct question: "If you knew then what you now know, would you still have opposed the surge?"

BHO said, "yes" :eek:

Even little Katie Couric almost crapped herself. She followed up twice herself and BHO just stammered around and said something to the effect the "policy change" made the difference.

Now folks, I admit I'm biased, but if that son-of-a-goatherder had only answered "No" to that second question, I might have been inclined to cut him some slack in the future. It would have been refreshing. You know, a politician admitting, faced with indisputable facts, that he was wrong. That, BTW, ain't flip-floppin'.

As it is, BHO is a) either in deep denial and therefore unwilling to accept the truth of the matter or 2) he is so wedded to the notion the GWOT is bad, he refuses to accept reality.

FWIW, in the law, we call either of those things "insane delusions" and they are admissable as evidence to prove a person is incompetent.

Hope and Change baby. Hope and Change.


What is the big deal about this? Just as I posted a second ago, it's obvious the surge worked. No one can deny sending a ton of more young men over there is going to cut the violence down.

He later said he wouldn't vote for it if he had the chance again? Why? Easy. Because we should have been preparing to withdraw the past 8 months, not sending more young men over there, prolonging our stay and increasing the death toll.

Inclined to cut him some slack? lol. I am inclined to beleive you would never cut him some slack.

Furthermore, I don't see how this brings into question his competency. There are certainly other reasons to question it (business deals, preachers anyone?) but I wouldn't question it over this. At least he knows high school geography.

Frozen Sooner
7/23/2008, 12:58 PM
Hey guys,

Just wanted to throw in my two cents about the surge.

I see this argument quite often and wanted to throw in some information on what I think. McCain voted for the Surge and champions it. He says it did work, blah blah. We all know this.

My point is, this surge was not some stroke of military genious. It's certainly not a sound military tactic in getting us closer to our goal of withdrawal of occupation of the country. Think about it. We have the best troops in the world. Of course effectively doubling our numbers ( I don't know exactly how many more we sent over there, but it was much much more) will lower the violence. For instance, if we have 12 troops doing a street sweep in a city, and now we double that number to 24, that gives us twice the chance to find weapons/illegals/information, etc. to cut down on violence.

I just don't get why McCain is heralded as a military genious for supporting this. Everyone with any sense at all will tell you, doubling our troop numbers in a war is going to cut down on violence. How is that a radical new strategy? It's not. It was pretty easy to see that it would certainly cut down on violence.

The question is, has it gotten us closer to removing our occupation of Iraq? Has it made America safer? Has it cut down on the costs in Iraq?

No, no, and no. As soon as we remove our troops, the violence there will go back up. We should have removed them 8 months ago.

Just fyi, I am undecided in my voting, and this post wasn't intending to support Obama or McCain. More of just a point on the Surge.

Dude, the surge is magical. You don't question the surge. The surge is so magical that it's responsible for things that happened four months before it started. Like the Anbar Awakening.

shaun4411
7/23/2008, 12:59 PM
Hey guys,

Just wanted to throw in my two cents about the surge.

I see this argument quite often and wanted to throw in some information on what I think. McCain voted for the Surge and champions it. He says it did work, blah blah. We all know this.

My point is, this surge was not some stroke of military genious. It's certainly not a sound military tactic in getting us closer to our goal of withdrawal of occupation of the country. Think about it. We have the best troops in the world. Of course effectively doubling our numbers ( I don't know exactly how many more we sent over there, but it was much much more) will lower the violence. For instance, if we have 12 troops doing a street sweep in a city, and now we double that number to 24, that gives us twice the chance to find weapons/illegals/information, etc. to cut down on violence.

I just don't get why McCain is heralded as a military genious for supporting this. Everyone with any sense at all will tell you, doubling our troop numbers in a war is going to cut down on violence. How is that a radical new strategy? It's not. It was pretty easy to see that it would certainly cut down on violence.

The question is, has it gotten us closer to removing our occupation of Iraq? Has it made America safer? Has it cut down on the costs in Iraq?

No, no, and no. As soon as we remove our troops, the violence there will go back up. We should have removed them 8 months ago.

Just fyi, I am undecided in my voting, and this post wasn't intending to support Obama or McCain. More of just a point on the Surge.


http://www.usasoda.com/images/ccsurge1.JPG

Frozen Sooner
7/23/2008, 01:01 PM
Do not mock the surge.

picasso
7/23/2008, 01:05 PM
Mike, I'm not dancing in happiness about the surge or anything going on in Iraq. Other than Saddam is gone and Iran doesn't control the oil. But, you seem smug about something that actually seems to be working over in that mess.

And so do some politicians.

And it seems like the media is talking more about Asscrackistan. hmmmmmm.

Frozen Sooner
7/23/2008, 01:18 PM
Mike, I'm not dancing in happiness about the surge or anything going on in Iraq. Other than Saddam is gone and Iran doesn't control the oil. But, you seem smug about something that actually seems to be working over in that mess.

And so do some politicians.

And it seems like the media is talking more about Asscrackistan. hmmmmmm.

I seem smug?

It must be because the guy with the "foreign policy credentials" is trying to take credit for the "surge" doing something it couldn't have actually done as the thing it is supposed to have done occurred before it started.

Echoes
7/23/2008, 01:23 PM
I don't speak for Mike, but for me it is pretty easy to feel Smug about it. People talk about the 'surge' like it was such a genious move and that Washington himself was running our army.

We sent way more people over there. That's it. It cut down on violence in the short term, because we have great soldiers and now much more are over their. It also will, in the long run, create many more deaths of young American men and women. It has substantially increased our spending over there, which vastly increases our national debt and cuts spending in other areas that are needed. It puts incalculable tolls on many American families who have loved ones over there.

So what did the surge really do? It's easy to see. It provided a very quick fix to a problem that should have never been created in the first place. The fix was more cosmetic in anything, as everyone knew it would provide the statistic 'Violence since the surge has been cut down by X amount'. That's it. That's the biggest and most trumpeted benefit from the surge. What about the negatives? I can name 10, off the top of my head. Not to mention all the +'s and -'s, it really doesn't even do what it says it will, and cut down violence. Since this surge has prolonged the war even further, the death toll will actually be higher.

Don't be swooned by 'the surge'. It's not the end all military strategy people will have you believe. Saying it is a military strategy is really a joke, and an insult to our great military and leaders of the past.

edit: typo.

C&CDean
7/23/2008, 01:58 PM
You libs seriously crack me up. GWB could cure cancer, eliminate AIDS (your most feared disease), and let every person have every other person's money so that we're all the drones you so heartily wish we could be and he'd still be a schmuck.

If you're saying **** was working over there even before the surge then that even speaks more highly of what we've been doing over there. Maybe you silly boys will get your wish and The Prophet Brack will be our next prez. Then what are you going to say when the exact same **** is going down?

I know what I'll say. "Meh."

JohnnyMack
7/23/2008, 01:59 PM
I just don't get why McCain is heralded as a military genious for supporting this. Everyone with any sense at all will tell you, doubling our troop numbers in a war is going to cut down on violence. How is that a radical new strategy? It's not. It was pretty easy to see that it would certainly cut down on violence.

The question is, has it gotten us closer to removing our occupation of Iraq? Has it made America safer? Has it cut down on the costs in Iraq?

No, no, and no. As soon as we remove our troops, the violence there will go back up. We should have removed them 8 months ago.


True dat.

The problem is that the hawks don't see it that way. All they is "eliminate the enemy". If the enemy isn't in front of you, you've won. This GWOT isn't something that can be WON by laying waste to everything that moves in Iraq. It will take some serious adjustments in our policies towards many of the nations that comprise the middle east.

PhilTLL
7/23/2008, 02:05 PM
You libs seriously crack me up. GWB could cure cancer, eliminate AIDS (your most feared disease)

Haw haw! Cause all them libruls is gay and all gays either gots or fears the AIDS! Haw haw! ...amirite??

shaun4411
7/23/2008, 02:07 PM
SMUG ALERT!!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/21/1002itsahybrid.jpg/776px-1002itsahybrid.jpg

C&CDean
7/23/2008, 02:08 PM
Doleo?

Tulsa_Fireman
7/23/2008, 03:43 PM
True dat.

The problem is that the hawks don't see it that way. All they is "eliminate the enemy". If the enemy isn't in front of you, you've won. This GWOT isn't something that can be WON by laying waste to everything that moves in Iraq. It will take some serious adjustments in our policies towards many of the nations that comprise the middle east.

But isn't the point to "eliminate the enemy" as best we can while training Iraqi police and regulars to the point where eventually Iraqis can assume the role we're currently in?

The role they're taking on more and more every day?

It ain't black and white, no matter what side of the aisle you're on. The surge worked for obvious reasons. When we leave, violence may very well increase. But the end result, the way I understand it, is to have the Iraqis ready to fill in the gaps that are left by our gradual troop withdrawal so that there isn't a loss of presence. So that when we're gone to the point of almost no boots on the ground, there isn't a loss of security. So it's not OMG, US is gone lets kill t3h worldz!, it's a seamless, gradual transition that's taking place as we speak.

EDIT/ADD: And I'm not a military genius, just a dumb ol' fireman. But given the track record, I have a hard time seeing that very thing happening in a magical 16 months as our guy Obama claims is right. That WOULD leave a vacuum of force presence. That WOULD result in an instant sh*tpot of violence. And WOULD, in my humble opinion, cheapen the lives lost by not walking away from a finished product. Not walking away from a safe, well-governed Iraq.

Sooner_Havok
7/23/2008, 03:48 PM
Doleo?

I can pretend to be him.


Now that I am here, this thread is the shiz-nite!

Echoes
7/23/2008, 04:29 PM
You libs seriously crack me up. GWB could cure cancer, eliminate AIDS (your most feared disease), and let every person have every other person's money so that we're all the drones you so heartily wish we could be and he'd still be a schmuck.

If you're saying **** was working over there even before the surge then that even speaks more highly of what we've been doing over there. Maybe you silly boys will get your wish and The Prophet Brack will be our next prez. Then what are you going to say when the exact same **** is going down?

I know what I'll say. "Meh."

I really try to not come across as to much of a liberal. I am pro pulling out from over there, and I know that is a liberal stance so it certainly comes across that way, but I try to take a moderate stance in most instances.

I don't hate Bush or anything like that. Overall, I think he has done a bad job in many instances, but I don't think he did anything bad on purpose. He did the best with what he was given at the time.

If Obama does win and messes up as bad as Bush has, you can count on me being in here complaining :)

Rogue
7/23/2008, 04:56 PM
:les: Get off the fence man. Either you're with us or you're against us.
There is no room for "moderates." ;)

Harry Beanbag
7/23/2008, 05:38 PM
My point is, this surge was not some stroke of military genious. It's certainly not a sound military tactic in getting us closer to our goal of withdrawal of occupation of the country. Think about it. We have the best troops in the world. Of course effectively doubling our numbers ( I don't know exactly how many more we sent over there, but it was much much more) will lower the violence. For instance, if we have 12 troops doing a street sweep in a city, and now we double that number to 24, that gives us twice the chance to find weapons/illegals/information, etc. to cut down on violence.

So you don't even know how many troops were sent over there, but you know for sure it wasn't a sound military tactic? Wow. And since you have no idea how many troops are even there, I'm pretty sure you have no idea how having just a few more or units with different specialties would allow the commanders to disperse and control areas more effectively. It's not just numbers man.

FYI, the giant surge sent approximately 25,000 more troops to Iraq, which was about a 20% increase.



I just don't get why McCain is heralded as a military genious for supporting this.

If I'm not mistaken, McCain was calling for more troops years before the surge actually happened. I don't know that everyone is heralding him as a military genius, but he's certainly not a military imbecile like Barracks Obama.



Everyone with any sense at all will tell you, doubling our troop numbers in a war is going to cut down on violence. How is that a radical new strategy? It's not. It was pretty easy to see that it would certainly cut down on violence.

Tell that to the Soviets in 1980's Afghanistan, or possibly us after Barracks Obama gets his wish and sends hundreds of thousands of troops there.



The question is, has it gotten us closer to removing our occupation of Iraq?

**** yes it has if our goal is to leave them a stable country. What happens after we leave will be up to them. To say different is idiotic, unless all you care about is just leaving the country and nothing else.

We are withdrawing troops every month. Earlier this year it was 5,000 a month then was held for a short time to see what happened. Starting this fall the withdrawals will be sped up last I heard.


Has it made America safer?

That one is debatable.


Has it cut down on the costs in Iraq?

Obviously not.

JohnnyMack
7/23/2008, 09:10 PM
Tell that to the Soviets in 1980's Afghanistan, or possibly us after Barracks Obama gets his wish and sends hundreds of thousands of troops there.

Who said anything about hundreds of thousands of troops? Long as we have B-52s, JDAMs, etc., we can keep them in check in those regions.

Besides, BHO needs to have as many ground troops as possible at his disposal so he can begin his invasion of Pakistan.

Vaevictis
7/24/2008, 01:03 AM
If I'm not mistaken, McCain was calling for more troops years before the surge actually happened.

I wouldn't call him a genius, just someone who has the good sense to recognize that maybe there was a connection between the fact that things weren't going so well, and the fact that we had waaaay less boots on the ground than most experts would recommend in that situation.

IIRC, we had something like 35-40% of the troop levels recommended by our own military's counter-insurgency texts. Now, I know those things aren't necessarily gospel, but when you've got experts saying one thing and you decide to do something significantly different, you're either (1) way smarter than the experts or (2) you're not. I think it's pretty clear which it was ;)

I'm not a huge McCain fan -- mostly because he started pandering after he lost in 2000 -- but I have to give him credit for having the good sense to connect the dots on that one.

Whet
7/24/2008, 01:12 PM
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/cartoons/EmptySuit-Md.jpg

JohnnyMack
7/24/2008, 01:14 PM
That's cool. A year and half old cartoon. Rock on.

Whet
7/24/2008, 01:49 PM
when it fits, it fits, regardless of age!

OULenexaman
7/24/2008, 02:34 PM
and does it ever....I remember when Ludacris was in Chicago for a concert, if you want to call it that, and BHO who is a big fan of his was seen hanging out with him all afternoon on Michigan Ave...having lunch and stuff...a sample of the great work of Ludicris...

[Verse - Ludacris]
It's time to saddle up the Tontos cause I'm the Lone Ranger
I eat dinner with Jews but don't talk to strangers
I'm just a few albums from filling your disc changer
If you ever think of stoppin me - BLOW IT OUT YOUR ***!
I'm a hustler by nature but criminal by law
Any charges set against me, chunk it up and stand tall
Next year I'm lookin into buyin Greenbriar Mall
You probably own a lot of proper-ty! BLOW IT OUT YOUR ***!
C'mon and take a look, he's got gigantic balls!
Plus his money keeps flowin like Niagara Falls

That's right folks....these are the lyrics that will ring through the Oval Office if BHO is elected...

soonerscuba
7/24/2008, 02:39 PM
and does it ever....I remember when Ludacris was in Chicago for a concert, if you want to call it that, and BHO who is a big fan of his was seen hanging out with him all afternoon on Michigan Ave...having lunch and stuff...a sample of the great work of Ludicris...

[Verse - Ludacris]
It's time to saddle up the Tontos cause I'm the Lone Ranger
I eat dinner with Jews but don't talk to strangers
I'm just a few albums from filling your disc changer
If you ever think of stoppin me - BLOW IT OUT YOUR ***!
I'm a hustler by nature but criminal by law
Any charges set against me, chunk it up and stand tall
Next year I'm lookin into buyin Greenbriar Mall
You probably own a lot of proper-ty! BLOW IT OUT YOUR ***!
C'mon and take a look, he's got gigantic balls!
Plus his money keeps flowin like Niagara Falls

That's right folks....these are the lyrics that will ring through the Oval Office if BHO is elected...
This is a joke, right?

OULenexaman
7/24/2008, 02:45 PM
no.....it was all over the news...up here...search the archives in the Chicago Sun-Times....there were pictures.... all smiling and laughing...he will probably perform for him at the Inauguaral Ball...

soonerscuba
7/24/2008, 02:49 PM
no.....it was all over the news...up here...search the archives in the Chicago Sun-Times....there were pictures.... all smiling and laughing...he will probably perform for him at the Inauguaral Ball...
So, now his issue is that he listens and met a musician that has lyrics you don't like? That is a stretch to not like a guy of epic proportions, that would make the DU forums proud for most unreasonable thing to nitpick about in the history of American government.

Whet
7/24/2008, 03:01 PM
No, it is a pattern of behavior and association with his type of "friends" that make Barry what he is.......

soonerscuba
7/24/2008, 03:08 PM
No, it is a pattern of behavior and association with his type of "friends" that make Barry what he is.......
So, now he is a Muslim, radical-Christian, gun-hating, tax raising, food stealing, smoking, too healthy, birth certificateless, illegal property dealing, gang banger?

The Obama haters are going to run into the "Clinton Problem", which is that when you hate someone so fiercely and cling to all negatives as gospel, when something does happen, people won't care, and may take away your majority in Congress for your trouble.

C&CDean
7/24/2008, 03:11 PM
No, it is a pattern of behavior and association with his type of "friends" that make Barry what he is.......

Johnny Mack and his butt buddies ain't looking at his entire body of work. All they see is "he black and he not Bush." Each time their boy takes another giant **** in his pants all they can say is "that all you got?"

In all honesty, I've never seen allegedly intelligent people supporting someone who is so unproven - and more importantly - disproven. Ever. Brack is a ****ing schmo and his apostles are slurping up his horse**** like it's holy water.

Next he'll have JM and the boys strapping on TNT and blowing themselves up in the name of Brack...

soonerscuba
7/24/2008, 03:13 PM
Johnny Mack and his butt buddies ain't looking at his entire body of work. All they see is "he black and he not Bush." Each time their boy takes another giant **** in his pants all they can say is "that all you got?"

In all honesty, I've never seen allegedly intelligent people supporting someone who is so unproven - and more importantly - disproven. Ever. Brack is a ****ing schmo and his apostles are slurping up his horse**** like it's holy water.

Next he'll have JM and the boys strapping on TNT and blowing themselves up in the name of Brack...
Homo + Barack = Terrorist. That's impressive, even for you.

C&CDean
7/24/2008, 03:15 PM
You calling JM a homo now? He's gonna kick your ***.

OULenexaman
7/24/2008, 03:22 PM
jeeze.....a lot of new knuckleheads around here these days....got your hands full Dean....Hussein Obama...god save us.

JohnnyMack
7/24/2008, 03:35 PM
This thread is now awesome.

soonerscuba
7/24/2008, 03:39 PM
This thread is now awesome.
Not as awesome as the time I saw McCain and Tek-9 at 31 Flavors.

C&CDean
7/24/2008, 03:40 PM
jeeze.....a lot of new knuckleheads around here these days....got your hands full Dean....Hussein Obama...god save us.

Nah, these knuckleheads have been here for a while. And even collectively, they don't add one drop of water to my bucket. They're silly, misguided, and completely full of wrong, but they're kinda cute at the same time.

JohnnyMack
7/24/2008, 03:43 PM
Not as awesome as the time I saw McCain and Tek-9 at 31 Flavors.

What about the time Hillary and L'il Kim got in that tussle at that strip club.

Whet
7/24/2008, 03:59 PM
That wasn't L'il Kim - that was Oprah!

mdklatt
7/24/2008, 04:16 PM
You calling JM a homo now? He's gonna kick your ***.

To be fair, JM is only gay for Dean.

C&CDean
7/24/2008, 04:21 PM
To be fair, JM is only gay for Dean.

Well me, and some random Tulsa cop - or some Village People dude driving a cruiser wearing a cop uniform.

Animal Mother
7/24/2008, 04:22 PM
To be fair, JM is only gay for Dean.



Anything with a pulse and an opposing opinion is the ghey with Dean.

mdklatt
7/24/2008, 04:24 PM
Anything with a pulse is the ghey for Dean.

Well, he is a sexy beast. :hot:

C&CDean
7/24/2008, 04:29 PM
Anything with a pulse and an opposing opinion is the ghey with Dean.

No, only men who give/take it in the pooper are the gay with Dean.

Animal Mother
7/24/2008, 04:31 PM
Well, he is a sexy beast. :hot:

Dean doesn't look like Ben Kingsley!!!!

JohnnyMack
7/24/2008, 04:31 PM
To be fair, JM is only gay for Dean.

Not true! I have a bigger man crush on AD than Dean does on Dumbledore.

mdklatt
7/24/2008, 06:05 PM
Dean doesn't look like Ben Kingsley!!!!

Actually, he kinda does with the shaved head. :texan:

Sooner_Havok
7/24/2008, 06:57 PM
Hey, did we invade Iraq or Afghanistan first?

Okla-homey
7/24/2008, 07:41 PM
Rasmussen is reporting only about 30% percent of people polled think this trip enlightened BHO. The rest think his mind was already made-up and it was a campaign stunt.

The American people, on the whole, usually get it right.

In other news, the Big 3 networks have been silent on the fact two of the hottest bands in Germany opened for BHO in Berlin, kinda like that deal in Oregon. Would he have drawn those enormous crowds otherwise? I dunno, he hasn't yet.

The Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid Congress is still sitting at the unprecedentedly low approval rating of 9%. Single digit. I'd say the "mandate" they claimed as they swept to power by running against the President has pretty much swirled on down the bowl.

Prolly has something to do with the fact they appear to be a bunch of hand-wringing weenies who won't tackle big issues because they are skeered they might alienate their base. Meanwhile, we're staring down the barrel of >$5.00 a gallon gas by Labor Day because they don't want to allow off-shore drilling.

Here's one more snippet. If Europe, or even the rest of the world, does in fact have a crush on Obama, what does that signal? Might it be because they long for the days of an impotent and indecisive US cowering behind our oceanic ramparts so they are free to do whatever strikes their fancy? Kinda like during the Carter administration?

I for one happen to believe many excesses and atrocities don't come to pass because there isn't a tin pot dictator on the planet who can lay his head down at night in his imperial palace without worrying about the Division Ready Brigade of the 82d Airborne Division landing on his polo field with only 48 hrs notice. Not to mention fire and steel launched from so high he can't even hear the engine noise, let alone see the strike aircraft on his coconut radar scope. Just ask Khaddafi about that.

In his campaign speech on foriegn soil, BHO talked about "tearing down walls" between the rich and the poor, etc., blah, blah, blah. (plagiarizing Ronaldus Maximus) and the krauts cheered.

Back when RWR made that historic speech, the Germans gave him polite golf claps and whispered to each other Ronnie was batsh*t for thinking the Germany's could ever be re-united. Guess what? RWR kept the heat on and it came to pass. Much to the Germans' surprise. Yeah, I know, the left says it was inevitable, but I know this: We modernized our forces and armed ourselves to the flippen teeth with M-1A's, BFV's, F-18's, B-1B's, F-117's, H-60's, AH-64's and built a half dozen more CVN's supported by dozens of brand-new uber-lethal SSN's and they threw in the dang towel without firing a shot.

We need resolve, not kumbaya.

Just say no to the goatherders son.

I'm Okla-homey, and I approve this message.

Curly Bill
7/24/2008, 07:46 PM
Brack is the black Jimmuh Carter...yup, I think that's it.

Sooner_Havok
7/24/2008, 07:48 PM
Rasmussen is reporting only about 30% percent of people polled think this trip enlightened BHO. The rest think his mind was already made-up and it was a campaign stunt.

The American people, on the whole, usually get it right.



I get to use this again, in a better context? Thank you Homey!


Wanna know something kinda funny I just figured out?

Around 20% of US Americans thought Nixon was doing "A heck of a job" before he officially resigned.

Around 20% of US Americans say they have seen a ghost.

Around 20% US Americans believe they, or a close friend/relative have seen a UFO.

And Around 20% of US Americans believe "Brack" is a secret muslim.