"Olevet" Gonna weigh In here

[olevetonahill]

JSM has convinced Me, I was pretty sure before.
I want A comander In Chief Who Hates War. But aint afraid of it either .
If youve seen the Elephant you Know the Horrors of it.
JSM has seen those Horrors.
I hate WAR but If I could, Id do it over again .
JSM will Do everything He can to Keep us OUTA War. But I dont think the Man has a Reverse.
Just My 2 cents

[Scott D]

pipe down over there granpa, you're disturbing the rest of the nursing home.

[olevetonahill]

pipe down over there granpa, you're disturbing the rest of the nursing home.

But I typed slow and quite.:P

[Scott D]

that's not what mary in the next room said when she pressed her call button.

[olevetonahill]

that's not what mary in the next room said when she pressed her call button.

That bitch , Shes just Mad I didnt use a Viagra on her.

[Rogue]

I'm not as convinced as you are OV. He's a born 'n bred military kid...and I have a hard time with him continuing to throw good money after bad in Iraq. AQ wasn't there when we went and we should have been hunting AQ in Afghanistan instead. There just isn't enough polish to make that Iraq turd shine. I'd respect the hell out of him if he'd admit it was the wrong move at the wrong time, but now we have to stick with it. But to keep telling me over and over that "we should have been chasing WMD...errrr....AQ....errrrrr....aw hell we're better off without Saddam Hussein so it's all good" is too much horse crap for me to sift through.

Otherwise I see him as a pretty straight shooter and a guy who tells it like it is. Why he won't do that with Iraq is beyond me.

He's a helluva guy. The fact that he, the guy who thumbed his nose at the GOP for so many years, is now the GOP nominee...actually warms the cockles of my heart quite a bit.

I am more and more encouraged. JM or BO will be a good move, IMO. I hate hearing the "lesser of 2 evils" nonsense every few years. These are both good men and I'm happy for my country right now.

[Hot Rod]

That bitch , Shes just Mad I didnt use a Viagra on her.

Be careful with that stuff. I heard something about 4 hours! :eek:

[Scott D]

That bitch , Shes just Mad I didnt use a Viagra on her.

no that was ruth across the hall. mary's the one who beat you with her cane yesterday.

[olevetonahill]

I tend to agree with you Rogue, But If we Had Just went into Asscrakastan
the AQ would be Hiding In Iraq, And you Know it. If you will think about it.
And IF not we ARE there. Mistake or Not and I, Like Most Other Combat Vets say Finish the Job we Started.
What Im sayin Is I dont think JSM will send Our Young people Into Harms way without a Dayum Good reason .
JMHO

[olevetonahill]

no that was ruth across the hall. mary's the one who beat you with her cane yesterday.

And made me Like it ?:P

[VeeJay]

That bitch , Shes just Mad I didnt use a Viagra on her.

What - you can't lure her into the hot tub?

You're losing your mojo, Old Timer.

[Rogue]

What Im sayin Is I dont think JSM will send Our Young people Into Harms way without a Dayum Good reason .
JMHO

I agree with that right there 100%, man.
It's a huge point in his favor. He's so believable in every other area too.
He's sorta sold out to the GOP in recent years so much that his star lost some luster in my eyes.

[Mandibleclaw]

I think it is more likely McCain would invade Iran even more than Bush. As Rogue eluded to, if McCain were more honest about Iraq, I'm sure his candidacy would benefit from it.

[Rogue]

At least he finished at a more decent hour than she did last night.

[Hot Rod]

She did have a 5 min standing ovation before she spoke, plus they like to clap.

[olevetonahill]

I agree with that right there 100%, man.
It's a huge point in his favor. He's so believable in every other area too.
He's sorta sold out to the GOP in recent years so much that his star lost some luster in my eyes.

bro The way I see it . we Have 2 Choices.
One says No war or something I aint sure.
JSM says ,Im paraphrasing here. No War without Just Cause.
Yall Know some Of My background. I NEVAR want to see another Of our Young Defenders go into Harms way.
But I dayum sure wanta see enough of em willing to Go If Needed. A Man Who has seen the Horrors of it to send em . And Bring em Home Just as soon as Possilble

[olevetonahill]

I think it is more likely McCain would invade Iran even more than Bush. As Rogue eluded to, if McCain were more honest about Iraq, I'm sure his candidacy would benefit from it.

Dude anyone with 1/2 a brain knows someones gonna have to do something about that wack job over there.

[Mandibleclaw]

You should watch the Obama interview with O'reilly that was on tonite. He made it quite clear he has no problem with militarily engaging terrorists, let's distinguish between political rhetoric and factual positions.

[olevetonahill]

You should watch the Obama interview with O'reilly that was on tonite. He made it quite clear he has no problem with militarily engaging terrorists, let's distinguish between political rhetoric and factual positions.

Is it gonna be on after the Game ?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Be honest, he said it was one of many options. Diplomacy, economic, military, and another that escapes me.

He never said he would kick a terrorist's *** period point blank.

[RADsooner]

What - you can't lure her into the hot tub?

You're losing your mojo, Old Timer.


thats cuz she caint get in the hot tub, it will cause her colostomy bag to ooozz. :eek:

[Mandibleclaw]

According to my handy dandy DirecTV remote, a repeat of the O'Reilly factor should come on at 4 a.m. So if you are a night owl, please watch it.

[olevetonahill]

thats cuz she caint get in the hot tub, it will cause her colostomy bag to ooozz. :eek:

Oh thats just nasty:eek:

[Mandibleclaw]

Be honest, he said it was one of many options. Diplomacy, economic, military, and another that escapes me.

He never said he would kick a terrorist's *** period point blank.

I was surfing the net and I didn't watch it fully, he said no option would be off the table. To voice any more aggressiveness than that would only be blustering, sabre rattling.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

To voice any more aggressiveness than that would only be blustering, sabre rattling.

I want my Commander-in-Chief to sabre rattle when it comes to terrorism.

I WANT him to kick a terrorist's ***, period point blank. I don't want him to *****-foot around, talking about options. I want to know that we will throw a mighty shoe up the *** of Abdullah McCarbomb until his sphincter explodes like a violent sun. I want strength in the face of religious fanaticism that brainwashes its members to the point of finding it acceptable to strap bombs around women and children, sacrificing their lives for some warped sense of salvation, skewed by infusing an agenda, a theology, and the opportunity to program the youth to create a neverending cycle of death.

[Vaevictis]

I want my Commander-in-Chief to take the action that is going to result in the very best outcome. Sometimes that involves a little *** kicking.

What I don't want is for my Commander-in-Chief to be a dude with a hammer seeing every problem as a nail.

[olevetonahill]

Ive said My piece.

[sooner2b09]

You should watch the Obama interview with O'reilly that was on tonite. He made it quite clear he has no problem with militarily engaging terrorists, let's distinguish between political rhetoric and factual positions.

I thought it was funny how Obama avoided O'reilly for so long and when he finally agreed to do an interview looked and sounded nervous.

[Soonerus]

I agree with Olevet...

[soonerinabilene]

I agree with Olevet...

Proof that McCain can unite all of us.;)

[Lott's Bandana]

that's not what mary in the next room said when she pressed her call button.

Is that Mary Parker? I hear she just came into some $$$.




That was sum bad pun there...

[r5TPsooner]

According to my handy dandy DirecTV remote, a repeat of the O'Reilly factor should come on at 4 a.m. So if you are a night owl, please watch it.


I bet Obama and his crew told Bill what he could and couldn't ask. Bill probably pulled a sweerve on them 1/2 way thru the interview though.

O'Reilly really seems like a jerk on air btw.

[TexasSooner01]

I agree with Olevet here too.

The way I see it, no one likes or wants WAR but sometimes it is a necessary evil of life. If we pull out of Iraq now, i feel they would hate us more than they do now. Lets see this thing thru, whether it was the right or wrong to invade in the first place.

I got into a heated talk with a friend of mine the other day b/c he said he is voting for BO b/c he is tired of WAR and thinks BO has some magic power to keep us out of WAR. I disagreed strongly. The way i see it...we can fight this war there in Iraq or here in OUR USA. Me i prefer to keep it over there. Because what I dont want is for 9-11 to happen again.

JM and SP are a good team and their speeches inspire me the most. Unless BO can come off his "socialized medicine is the way to go" rant...JM is gettin my vote.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Lets see this thing thru, whether it was the right or wrong to invade in the first place.

18 violated UN resolutions that resulted in the breaking of a ceasefire say it was the right thing to do regardless of intelligence, WMDs, or presence/lack thereof of a terrorist network. Clinton OR George H.W. Bush didn't have the balls to step up and finish the job and left a rattlesnake for Dubya to deal with.

Intelligence that WMDs existed, intelligence that the entire world agreed with, is actually somewhat of a moot point, in my opinion.

[Scott D]

18 violated UN resolutions that resulted in the breaking of a ceasefire say it was the right thing to do regardless of intelligence, WMDs, or presence/lack thereof of a terrorist network. Clinton OR George H.W. Bush didn't have the balls to step up and finish the job and left a rattlesnake for Dubya to deal with.

Intelligence that WMDs existed, intelligence that the entire world agreed with, is actually somewhat of a moot point, in my opinion.

George H.W. finished the job he went there to do. His goal was to get the Iraq army out of Kuwait, and that was what he did.

[Veritas]

I'm watching the O'Reilly interview right now (thanks for the time, MandibleClaw).

I'm no Obama supporter, but O'Reilly is such an asswipe. There's a sharp juxtaposition between Obama's eloquence and O'Reilly's abrasiveness. Obama is so damned likeable and intelligent. His ability to deal will Bill's bull**** is impressive. I wish he was a conservative.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Which in turn resulted in 18 U.N. resolutions establishing the terms of the ceasefire between the Coalition and the Iraqi army which were promptly spit on by the former Iraqi regime.

Given the current state of affairs, reinforced by history, I think you can easily look at the circumstances and infer that H.W. Bush, regardless of his stated mission, didn't finish the job. Yes, you're right in the fact that he limited the conflict to driving the Iraqi army from Kuwait. He's on record mentioning the exact same concerns many have had regarding the invasion up to the current state of affairs, a loss of international support, an extended urban conflict, et cetera.

And granted, it's the sparkling clear view of hindsight. But given the comparison of then to now, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that he failed to finish the job. He addressed the most pronounced issue. And left the remainder for international squabbles, partisan posturing, ineffective diplomacy, and with no anticipation of a weak kneed attempt at the preservation of the ceasefire from hostilities.

[Scott D]

Which in turn resulted in 18 U.N. resolutions establishing the terms of the ceasefire between the Coalition and the Iraqi army which were promptly spit on by the former Iraqi regime.

Given the current state of affairs, reinforced by history, I think you can easily look at the circumstances and infer that H.W. Bush, regardless of his stated mission, didn't finish the job. Yes, you're right in the fact that he limited the conflict to driving the Iraqi army from Kuwait. He's on record mentioning the exact same concerns many have had regarding the invasion up to the current state of affairs, a loss of international support, an extended urban conflict, et cetera.

And granted, it's the sparkling clear view of hindsight. But given the comparison of then to now, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that he failed to finish the job. He addressed the most pronounced issue. And left the remainder for international squabbles, partisan posturing, ineffective diplomacy, and with no anticipation of a weak kneed attempt at the preservation of the ceasefire from hostilities.

saying he didn't finish the job is like saying Reagan didn't finish the job with the USSR, because Russia is more sovietlike now than at any point in the last 20 years.

[soonerbrat]

Be careful with that stuff. I heard something about 4 hours! :eek:

YOU GO NOW..YOU BE HERE FOUR HOUR!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

saying he didn't finish the job is like saying Reagan didn't finish the job with the USSR, because Russia is more sovietlike now than at any point in the last 20 years.

No it's not. Not even remotely.

Eastern Europe is an assembly of states struggling to express their autonomy and crying out for freedom and representation on the world stage now, instead of a quiet wall of communist red. Due to the collapse, Russia enjoys an albeit corrupt, market economy now. Privatization rules the day for many industries.

Apples and oranges. The proliferation of mutually assured destruction and the following detente defined our relationship with the Bear. A swift victory in 100 hours with contingencies for further aggression defined our relationship with Iraq. Which was promptly tested, and whose test was promptly ignored short of lobbing a few tomahawk missiles in the general vicinity.

Again, hindsight is clear as crystal. But given that and the current situation, H.W. Bush and Clinton both had the onus laid upon them to finish what was started. Neither chose that path for numerous reasons. Dubya did, backed by what ended up being questionable intelligence, but he always had the basic qualification of why we packed up and left in the first place. Of why force was the appropriate response, even though it was a decade late in coming.

[Big Red Ron]

You should watch the Obama interview with O'reilly that was on tonite. He made it quite clear he has no problem with militarily engaging terrorists, let's distinguish between political rhetoric and factual positions.
He also cannot admit a mistake, a huge character flaw IMO. The surge has worked better than anyone, even John McCain and Gen. Petraeus.

Obama agreed it has been successful but didn't vote for it. He wouldn't even say, I was right about not going into Iraq in the first place but I was wrong about the surge.

[Big Red Ron]

No it's not. Not even remotely.

Eastern Europe is an assembly of states struggling to express their autonomy and crying out for freedom and representation on the world stage now, instead of a quiet wall of communist red. Due to the collapse, Russia enjoys an albeit corrupt, market economy now. Privatization rules the day for many industries.

Apples and oranges. The proliferation of mutually assured destruction and the following detente defined our relationship with the Bear. A swift victory in 100 hours with contingencies for further aggression defined our relationship with Iraq. Which was promptly tested, and whose test was promptly ignored short of lobbing a few tomahawk missiles in the general vicinity.

Again, hindsight is clear as crystal. But given that and the current situation, H.W. Bush and Clinton both had the onus laid upon them to finish what was started. Neither chose that path for numerous reasons. Dubya did, backed by what ended up being questionable intelligence, but he always had the basic qualification of why we packed up and left in the first place. Of why force was the appropriate response, even though it was a decade late in coming.
You are absolutely correct here. The first Bush took our troops out of Iraq because there was a treaty signed and the UN was to enforce. Iraq broke several parts and deserved everything they got. The UN is a joke, they slap the wrists of dictators and despots and leave the actual enforcement to others.

[Vaevictis]

No it's not. Not even remotely.

Eastern Europe is an assembly of states struggling to express their autonomy and crying out for freedom and representation on the world stage now, instead of a quiet wall of communist red. Due to the collapse, Russia enjoys an albeit corrupt, market economy now. Privatization rules the day for many industries.


I think he's referring to their internal "security" policies which are increasingly draconian and their increasingly aggressive stance on the world stage.

Granted, their economy is "market" officially, but generally speaking, the "market-ness" of each sector is directly proportional to how much it can contribute to or threaten Vladimir Putin's power base.

Russia is intent on becoming a serious power on the world stage again. I think they're absolutely terrified of the EU marginalizing them. (Basically, take a look at the EU's path. They're in the Articles of Confederation stage, and working on a federal government. France and Germany are building the next United States.)

Things are going to get ugly, methinks, and it ain't saber-rattling that's going to carry the day. The big stick is only one component of "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

[Mandibleclaw]

I guess I watched a different interview because I clearly heard Obama say that part of the surge worked. So can we all have a little clarity and examine what the point of the surge was about. It was to reduce violence so the Iraqi government could get laws passed and stabilized. Of course our military did an outstanding job, Obama has recognized that, it is the Iraqi government that has failed to complete the mission. So it would be nice if both sides would put aside their political biases and stop spinning candidate's statements and positions.

:edit:
So to say the surge didn't work isn't a reflection of a failure on our part but that of the Iraqi government. At minute 5:10 Obama says the military succeeded but the Iraqi government hasn't.

qJH2n4aFEhA

[Big Red Ron]

I guess I watched a different interview because I clearly heard Obama say that part of the surge worked. So can we all have a little clarity and examine what the point of the surge was about. It was to reduce violence so the Iraqi government could get laws passed and stabilized. Of course our military did an outstanding job, Obama has recognized that, it is the Iraqi government that has failed to complete the mission. So it would be nice if both sides would put aside their political biases and stop spinning candidate's statements and positions.

:edit:
So to say the surge didn't work isn't a reflection of a failure on our part but that of the Iraqi government. At minute 5:10 Obama says the military succeeded but the Iraqi government hasn't.

qJH2n4aFEhAYet he refuses to admit he voted wrong on the surge in the first place.

[Scott D]

No it's not. Not even remotely.

Eastern Europe is an assembly of states struggling to express their autonomy and crying out for freedom and representation on the world stage now, instead of a quiet wall of communist red. Due to the collapse, Russia enjoys an albeit corrupt, market economy now. Privatization rules the day for many industries.

Apples and oranges. The proliferation of mutually assured destruction and the following detente defined our relationship with the Bear. A swift victory in 100 hours with contingencies for further aggression defined our relationship with Iraq. Which was promptly tested, and whose test was promptly ignored short of lobbing a few tomahawk missiles in the general vicinity.

Again, hindsight is clear as crystal. But given that and the current situation, H.W. Bush and Clinton both had the onus laid upon them to finish what was started. Neither chose that path for numerous reasons. Dubya did, backed by what ended up being questionable intelligence, but he always had the basic qualification of why we packed up and left in the first place. Of why force was the appropriate response, even though it was a decade late in coming.

the problem with using your hindsight argument is that you can lay all kinds of blame that may or may not be deserved. such as.

FDR's fault we were involved in WWII
Eisenhower's fault that Iran is where it is now (see british manipulation and fear of communism)
Truman's fault that Korea was a cluster****.

the list can go on and on. GHWB said his goal was to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait at the request of his oil buddies in Kuwait. He got his little coalition that had a ton of support, and he did what he said he was going to do and no more.

[Mandibleclaw]

Yet he refuses to admit he voted wrong on the surge in the first place.

The surge did not work, violence was reduced but that wasn't the goal of the surge. So why should he admit he was wrong about something that didn't work?

[Vaevictis]

I always thought that reducing violence *was* one of the goals of the surge, given that reducing violence is a prerequisite for everything else.

EDIT: Actually, let me clarify further.

The goal of the surge was to reduce violence to levels that would permit us to try to implement further policy. In this regard, it was successful.

Failure to implement that policy is another story entirely, and should be regarded as a policy failure, not a failure of the surge.

[Veritas]

FDR's fault we were involved in WWII
Eisenhower's fault that Iran is where it is now (see british manipulation and fear of communism)
Truman's fault that Korea was a cluster****.
I don't know if we want to threadjack in this direction but Scott...I'd tend to argue that those three statements are at least partially true, especially the last one.

Japan punched first, but we pushed them into it. Eisenhower buckled to the dying Empire. Truman should have stayed the hell out of MacA's way when he pushed back on China (although MacA's fence of nuclear waste idea was completely idiotic).

[Mandibleclaw]

I always thought that reducing violence *was* one of the goals of the surge, given that reducing violence is a prerequisite for everything else.

EDIT: Actually, let me clarify further.

The goal of the surge was to reduce violence to levels that would permit us to try to implement further policy. In this regard, it was successful.

Failure to implement that policy is another story entirely, and should be regarded as a policy failure, not a failure of the surge.

Perhaps from the mouth of a Republican columnists my point can be better made.

Those who today stridently insist that the surge has succeeded also say they are especially supportive of the president, Petraeus and the military generally. But at the beginning of the surge, both Petraeus and the president defined success in a way that took the achievement of success out of America's hands.

The purpose of the surge, they said, is to buy time -- "breathing space," the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/by_bushs_own_standard_surge_ha.html

It's my opinion that the goal posts have been once again moved by the Bush administration to claim some sort of shallow political victory to call the surge successful.

Pardon the threadjack as well. :)

[Vaevictis]

Mandibleclaw, your post is entirely consistent with my position.

Iraqi political reconciliation is somewhat beyond the bounds of the military's purview. However, a reduction in violence was necessary before such a thing could even be attempted. The surge was the policy intended to implement this reduction in violence, and it succeeded.

The policy to implement political reconciliation should be regarded a separate from the surge, and so should its success or failure.

[Vaevictis]

In other words, by and large with a few bumps here and there, the military has been very successful in holding up its responsibilities and executing the policy that has been assigned to it.

The larger failure of policy in Iraq is better laid at the feet of other arms of our executive -- the Oval Office and State Department, for example.

[Mandibleclaw]

So it's not a black or white issue, it is not a success nor is it a failure but the political parties seem insistent in depicting it one way or another.

[Vaevictis]

It just depends on where you draw the lines.

From my point of view, "the surge" is a military component (policy) of a larger policy in the region. The surge can succeed and still have the larger policy fail.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

From my point of view, "the surge" is a military component (policy) of a larger policy in the region. The surge can succeed and still have the larger policy fail.

But it's not.

What is it, 18 or 19 Iraqi provinces that have been sufficiently stabilized and staffed by now trained Iraqis to put the control of said provinces fully under the control of the Iraqis themselves? The most recent of which, al Anbar, home of the former bloodbaths known as Ramadi and Fallujah? So bloody in fact, that as little as two years ago, reporters were speaking of supposed top secret USMC intelligence reports that stated that control of this province was impossible short of a 50-60,000 troop infusion into the region.

But check this out. The Surge. The Al-Anbar Awakening. Whether one spawned the other or met in pure serendipitous fashion, you'll have to decide on your own. But isn't that a prime example of a facet of the overall policy of the region enabling a once thought lost vital aspect of overall regional policy?

Looks like it to me.

[Vaevictis]

But it's not.

And I'm not saying it is. It's pretty clear that the surge did what it was supposed to. The Anbar Awakening thing at the same time, regardless of the cause, is a good thing, and it's a good thing it happened when it did. It essentially multiplied the effects of the surge.

Things are looking up. That's nice. This is also where we keep faltering -- the military keeps doing it's job, and the civilian administration keeps failing to seal the deal.

The military can win the peace, but it's politics and diplomacy that keeps it. And it's a damn good thing that we're having an administration change, because unlike the Bush administration, I think both McCain and Obama know this and it'll show.

Fortuitous timing indeed.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Things are looking up. That's nice. This is also where we keep faltering -- the military keeps doing it's job, and the civilian administration keeps failing to seal the deal.

But isn't that exactly what's happening as more and more Iraqi provinces are signed off to sole Iraqi control? More and more provinces where Iraqis are defending and keeping the peace, allowing more and more provinces the stability to participate in the electoral process and daily government, which in turn, speeds the process like a snowball down the hill of war and strife to the sweet valley of prosperity? All BECAUSE of the Surge and al Anbar Awakening? Because of the Iraqi people stepping up to finally begin claiming their country as their own?


The military can win the peace, but it's politics and diplomacy that keeps it. And it's a damn good thing that we're having an administration change, because unlike the Bush administration, I think both McCain and Obama know this and it'll show.

Fortuitous timing indeed.

I'm a believer that it's showing right now. Not throughout the entire country, but through a step by step effort, one province at a time.

[Vaevictis]

All BECAUSE of the Surge and al Anbar Awakening? Because of the Iraqi people stepping up to finally begin claiming their country as their own?

*ALL* because of? I dunno. I'll grant it certainly had something to do with it.


I'm a believer that it's showing right now. Not throughout the entire country, but through a step by step effort, one province at a time.

We'll see. There's a difference between folks getting sick of the bull**** the insurgents have been pulling and being willing to stick with it in a few years when the sectarian tensions threaten to boil over again.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really trying to talk down what's going on. It's just... don't call the game yet, cause it's not over. We seem to be winning the peace. Awesome, sincerely. But it remains to be seen whether it can be kept.

[Big Red Ron]

Perhaps from the mouth of a Republican columnists my point can be better made.


It's my opinion that the goal posts have been once again moved by the Bush administration to claim some sort of shallow political victory to call the surge successful.

Pardon the threadjack as well. :)
Dude, that was written almost exactly a year ago. The surge has been far more successful than was originally thought.

[Scott D]

I don't know if we want to threadjack in this direction but Scott...I'd tend to argue that those three statements are at least partially true, especially the last one.

Japan punched first, but we pushed them into it. Eisenhower buckled to the dying Empire. Truman should have stayed the hell out of MacA's way when he pushed back on China (although MacA's fence of nuclear waste idea was completely idiotic).

oh they're all true, however we're not saying any of those three men didn't have the balls to do "what should have been done". Revisionist history is bull****, no matter who it comes from.

[Rogue]

This is one of the better discussions about Iraq and politics I've seen on the SO for a long time. Props to Vaevictis and mandibleclaw for being so level headed.

Me, I'm sort of a partisan hack at times so I'll try to show some restraint and keep this discussion going.

My observation so far is that mandible is spot on.

Libs like me want to claim we never should have gone to Iraq under the reasons we were given, the goals keep changing and being revised to suit the desire to claim that the invasion and occupation was, and remains, what we should be doing irrespective of the last set of stated goals. I'm left to conclude that there is either a secret agenda that none of us paeons can understand cause we're too simple or that our leaders are too damn stubborn to admit that this **** just ain't gonna work. Either nobody is levelling with us or our leaders are messed up. WMD and AQ had nothing to do with the initial invastion. Or we would have blown it up and left. They just weren't there to blow up in the first place so the occupation must have been the goal.

I want to hear JM say that we were in the wrong battlefield to begin with.
LIKE BILL FUGGIN OREILLY JUST SAID IN THAT VIDEO!!! But he has maintained that it was the right move.

Now, BILL-O wants Obama to admit that he was right about us invading the wrong country in the first place, but wrong about the surge. In part, he was. Most of us underestimated Petraeus and the surge. But he's also right, the ends don't justify the means. Maybe I should say "the ends don't YET justify the means." Even the end (we're better off without Saddam) doesn't seem to justify the means of the long drawn out war. Because Iraq has not taken over their own country which was the whole goal of the surge. So, we stabilized the heck out of the place, finally won some hearts and minds, and now they are completely dependent on us. Face it, democracy may not work in Iraq. We created a vacuum there and it's as bad as it ever was. Except with less electricity, clean water, intact buildings, and stable government. Saddam was mentally unstable, but his regime was solid and Arabs, for whatever reason, keep choosing dictatorships. Democracy must be demanded from within, not assigned from a bunch of foreigners. We can't make their culture prefer self-government. They don't embrace it, hell they don't even seem to want to give it a try while we're there with guns and tanks to make sure it has a chance. ****em, they'll either decide they want it on their own or it just ain't gonna work.


Now, if we want to go around invading places and toppling governments because they violate UN sanctions, commit atrocities against mankind, and need military stabilization, there are several countries to choose from. Darfur, anyone?

[Rogue]

Oh, and if we want to kick some terr'ist ***, let's refocus on Afghanistan/Pakistan/Syria/Iran and kick some terr'ist ***.

[Mandibleclaw]

I like to consider myself a moderate with dem leanings, if we could ever get both sides talking and dropping some of the political rancor we might actually start getting some things done.

I wish some on the right would give Obama a fair chance and listen to some of his ideas, I don't expect you to agree with all of them but at least concede on some issues when he is dead on. Obviously this goes for the left as well. :)

/preach over

[Big Red Ron]

I like to consider myself a moderate with dem leanings, if we could ever get both sides talking and dropping some of the political rancor we might actually start getting some things done.

I wish some on the right would give Obama a fair chance and listen to some of his ideas, I don't expect you to agree with all of them but at least concede on some issues when he is dead on. Obviously this goes for the left as well. :)

/preach over
The job is too important and meaningful to take a leap of faith on someone with Obama's lack of experience and collection of shady characters (William C. Ayers, Rezko, Wright, etc...) that helped his rise. Perhaps in another decade or a term as a governor he could prove himself.

I just can't, it'd be like if Republicans put Palin up for POTUS with McCain as her veep. I couldn't vote for someone with such a thin resume. Although she does come without the cast of scary characters.

[JohnnyMack]

Police use hot spots all the time to control outbreaks of crime. Doesn't eliminate crime, just reduces it in a specific area. Anyone who equates the surge reducing violence to "winning" isn't being honest with themselves.

[KC//CRIMSON]

"YOU CAN'T WIN AN OCCUPATION"

[soonerscuba]

Has O'Reilly changed his interview style for Obama? If not, I won't even bother. TIA.

[soonerscuba]

"YOU CAN'T WIN AN OCCUPATION"
I think the Native Americans disagree.

[Scott D]

did we ever find out what colostomy bag olevet was dippin into?

[olevetonahill]

did we ever find out what colostomy bag olevet was dippin into?

Are you Baiting Me :P

[Scott D]

don't try to play sly with us olevet... we know you were burning the early evening oil with them gals in the retirement community. getting the rocks off before matlock ended.

[olevetonahill]

don't try to play sly with us olevet... we know you were burning the early evening oil with them gals in the retirement community. getting the rocks off before matlock ended.

But I can still get em Off :P