Is Obama finished?

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by Flash G

"Cut & Run" is a cute, two dollar term devised by Conservatives against any type of withdrawl.

But the fact is, Bush himself declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. So, if we decide to leave FOUR years after the declaration of "Mission Accomplished", that's not cutting & running. That's not surrendering. It's just right-wing propaganda.


.

You may view "cut and run" as a cute two dollar term. Surrender and defeat no matter how it's phrased makes no sense (cents).

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by pla_time

In the final analysis, there are many fewer suicide bombers who are atheists than there are who are ardently religious.

I have to agree. They committed suicide without having to blow themselves up!

Let me explain this. I was referring to the Christian religious precept of Eternal Life. By not believing they were committing spiritual suicide.

I didn't post this to start a discussion on religion.

[fishguy]

Originally Posted by apk919

if you think the economy is worse now than during the Carter Administration, you've got a short memory. Now that was a serious recession!

+1
I was in my early teens when jimmy was in office.
i recall gas lines at the pump.
I also recall interest rates on mortgages in the high teens.

these are just what i saw, i am sure that the few zealouts here will dispute those observations and somehow put the blame elsewhere.


what i see in this thread is amazing, and typical of all the political threads.
it shows the blindness of people to only see things one way; their own way.
these political threads are the same as if it were a religious thread and one guy was trying to tell the other guy why he should change his religion to his;
its not the correct approach, and its not going to happen.
we are all different and see things differently, why is that so hard to accept.
while i see complete stupidity by a few here, not so much in what they think, but the way they present themselves.

there are 2 who are particularly foolish.

the thing that amazes me is that there are a few here who think they are actually making a difference in convincing others.

[glb]

Originally Posted by fitfan

one could argue that we lived as the rest of the world does, and as a resualt postioned america in leadership and participation in the rest of the world. as things stand now - the US has no credability in the ROW, and thats a cause and effect on Lotus raising msrp on the cars. the US is throughly getting its butt kicked right now. so again - one could argue our current situation if far worse than thoose examples.

so a few alternative arguments might look like:

compare the dollar exchange rates since this adminstration

compare the US fatalities since during this adminstration

compare domestic vs. foriegn trade and production

compare "nationalized" jobs

Good stuff.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by fitfan

one could argue that we lived as the rest of the world does, and as a resualt postioned america in leadership and participation in the rest of the world. as things stand now - the US has no credability in the ROW, and thats a cause and effect on Lotus raising msrp on the cars. the US is throughly getting its butt kicked right now. so again - one could argue our current situation if far worse than thoose examples.

so a few alternative arguments might look like:

compare the dollar exchange rates since this adminstration

Better yet, compare inflation rates (more pertinent when determining the effect of rising prices on goods and services)... it's way lower than during the Carter Admin.

Originally Posted by fitfan

compare the US fatalities since during this adminstration

I suppose you mean combat fatalities? Yeah, then maybe it's better to compare the Bush Admin with the Johnson Admin

Originally Posted by fitfan

compare domestic vs. foriegn trade and production

US GDP growth has been much higher during the Bush Admin than the Carter Admin. As long as this is the case, does it really matter if we trade more with the rest of the world? Are you against economic development in India and China?

Originally Posted by fitfan

compare "nationalized" jobs

I'm not sure what you mean by this... what jobs are being "nationalized" in the US?

Originally Posted by glb

Good stuff.

Not really, as you can see.

[glb]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

I said "cut and run" because that's what they want to do. I didn't say they were being anti-American and pro-terrorist, you brought that up. I just think that they are dead wrong.

The sophomoric nonsense he said did nothing to my argument. I was asking a genuine question not setting a trap. If someone wants to use the argument that the war is costing too much they should have some idea what the new plan will cost.

Read my previous posts. I give lot's of facts.

Did you see the little face sticking out its tongue? I was just fooling with you. You take this stuff way too seriously. Your're sitting safely at your computer. Thank a soldier. They're being shot at while you type your reply so that you can sit there free to answer this post.

1. What you define as "cut and run" means an intelligent reaction to reality to most of us. The republicans like to re-phrase (see Doublespeak) many things, in skewed ways. E.g. Death Tax; it's actually an inheritance tax.

2. I assume that you are saying the admin officials (not me) who made those statements/smears are wrong, and I appreciate you saying that.

3. Steve: our opinions differ.

4. Whatever the plan, it will cost less in lives and $$ than what we are currently doing (with NO plan). There are alternate ways to have a force in the middle east, and we already have a base in Saudi Arabia.

Unless you are contending that things are going well in Iraq, you must see this as true.

Manuals on dealing with counter-insurgencies and occupations state that the ratio of troops to area/population would require us to have about 350,000 troops in Iraq. All we are doing now is providing anti-American sentiment and targets. (BTW, Gen. Shinseki was axed for using this number...)

So, that leads to some questions:

a. If this was so important, we did we start this fight on the cheap? Why couldn't we have waited for enough troops, armor and equipments? Why did relatives have to buy equipment for their loved ones in Iraq?

b. Are you willing to draft another 282,000 troops. (One support person for ?each four troops is reqd).

(I know why we rushed in, but can guarantee you will not like the answer.)



5. I've read your posts and do not see many "facts". Most of the "facts" here have come from people who will not be voting for McCain.

6. You are right; not only did I not notice the emoticon, I didn't really know what that one means in this context. Sorry.

7. I take this seriously because our country is in serious trouble, due to how people voted in the last election. Hence, my original post.

8. I (like the rest of us, including you) was actually safer before the invasion. This is per the National Intelligence Estimate that our govt publishes.

Al Queda is resurgent, int'l terrorism is up, other indices are bad and much of this is attributed to our actions in Iraq (which forced us to ignore much of Afghanistan).

As other posters here have pointed out to you, we were facing no threat from Iraq.

This invasion has exacerbated the terrorism situation.

PS: I thank every service person I meet. I don't use the term "soldier" as we have Marines there as well. "Troops" is appropriate, as I am told.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

You may view "cut and run" as a cute two dollar term. Surrender and defeat no matter how it's phrased makes no sense (cents).

We were defeated the day we invaded Iraq on the ground. That was a critical mistake. Nothing can change that now, we must cut our losses and let what may, happen.

'Greg

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

If we weren't fighting in Iraq we'd be fighting the terrorists elsewhere . . . like San Diego. You may not be seeing it because you choose not to. The Iraq war has become a magnet for the terrorists. They know that if they can beat us there that they can win. Views like yours encourage them to keep fighting ( I'm not saying you're unpatriotic, just wrong). They know they can't beat us with conventional means and that they depend on beating us with a Viet Nam style approach . . . by letting the anti war left do it for them.

oh i see it... the only comment i can make to that is that i have had exposour to knowledge on this topic that is not in the public or private realm - so i dissagree with you because we had, are, and will continue to fight terrorist elsewhere (and i generally back that 100%), and Iraq war has little do with that fighting. in fact - the strategist are mostly in agreement that the iraq "war - invasion - marshal law - whatever you want to call it action" has created more "terrorist" then eliminated. and to make it an even finer point - the "war" in iraq has not a lot to do with counter terr. in iraq itself - so in this case, i respectfully disagree, and not in opinion, with the basis of your statement above. you are confussing multiple issues, types, actions and resualts.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by apk919

Originally Posted by apk919
if you think the economy is worse now than during the Carter Administration, you've got a short memory. Now that was a serious recession!

+1

Originally Posted by fishguy

+1
I was in my early teens when jimmy was in office.
i recall gas lines at the pump.
I also recall interest rates on mortgages in the high teens.

Let's not forget double digit unemployment.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by Greg

We were defeated the day we invaded Iraq on the ground. That was a critical mistake. Nothing can change that now, we must cut our losses and let what may, happen.

'Greg

That's easy for you to say being safe in Boulder, CO. It won't be very nice for the people that put their a** on the line to back us. They'll be slaughtered after we leave. Not one country will ever trust us again. Our word will mean nothing.

[LARRY]

Our word?

To who?

The Iraqi people who want us out?

We are as patriotic as you are.

We want our ground soldiers to leave Iraq safely.

Let the Navy carrier guys do their thing in the safety of the skies.

Bring these 19 year old Army soldiers home now.

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by apk919

Not really, as you can see.

honestly, i don't have time to start new topics, or post here in the next few days. - i really won't start talking about new ones. you all over the map man! ...lets go drive our cars someday soon and talk more about this over coffee

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by fitfan

oh i see it... the only comment i can make to that is that i have had exposour to knowledge on this topic that is not in the public or private realm - so i dissagree with you because we had, are, and will continue to fight terrorist elsewhere (and i generally back that 100%), and Iraq war has little do with that fighting. in fact - the strategist are mostly in agreement that the iraq "war - invasion - marshal law - whatever you want to call it action" has created more "terrorist" then eliminated. and to make it an even finer point - the "war" in iraq has not a lot to do with counter terr. in iraq itself - so in this case, i respectfully disagree, and not in opinion, with the basis of your statement above. you are confussing multiple issues, types, actions and resualts.

The government of North Viet Nam said after we left that they were about to capitulate but the anti war demonstrations keep them in the war. Let's not be so naive as to believe that our enemys in Iraq don't understand this fact.

Name the strategists that said that the war has created more terrorists then it eliminated. Post their quotes.

[Kjakk]

"Carter legalized home-brewing when he signed the congressionally approved bill into law in February 1979. Home-brewing led to a renewal of appreciation for beer styles largely unseen due to the dominance of the large brewing companies and prefaced a leap in the number of U.S. micro-breweries beginning in the late 1980s"

Any other bad stuff related to Carter must be overlooked due to this.

[LARRY]

ezmoney writes:

"The government of North Viet Nam said after we left that they were about to capitulate but the anti war demonstrations keep them in the war. Let's not be so naive as to believe that our enemys in Iraq don't understand this fact.

Name the strategists that said that the war has created more terrorists then it eliminated. Post their quotes."


Here you go...


Can the War on Terror Be Won?
How to Fight the Right War

Philip H. Gordon

From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2007


PHILIP H. GORDON is Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution. His latest book is Winning the Right War: The Path to Security for America and the World (Times Books, 2007), from which this essay is drawn.

Less than 12 hours after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush proclaimed the start of a global war on terror. Ever since, there has been a vigorous debate about how to win it. Bush and his supporters stress the need to go on the offensive against terrorists, deploy U.S. military force, promote democracy in the Middle East, and give the commander in chief expansive wartime powers. His critics either challenge the very notion of a "war on terror" or focus on the need to fight it differently. Most leading Democrats accept the need to use force in some cases but argue that success will come through reestablishing the United States' moral authority and ideological appeal, conducting more and smarter diplomacy, and intensifying cooperation with key allies. They argue that Bush's approach to the war on terror has created more terrorists than it has eliminated -- and that it will continue to do so unless the United States radically changes course.

Almost entirely missing from this debate is a concept of what "victory" in the war on terror would actually look like. The traditional notion of winning a war is fairly clear: defeating an enemy on the battlefield and forcing it to accept political terms. But what does victory -- or defeat -- mean in a war on terror? Will this kind of war ever end? How long will it take? Would we see victory coming? Would we recognize it when it came?

It is essential to start thinking seriously about these questions, because it is impossible to win a war without knowing what its goal is. Considering possible outcomes of the war on terror makes clear that it can indeed be won, but only with the recognition that this is a new and different kind of war. Victory will come not when foreign leaders accept certain terms but when political changes erode and ultimately undermine support for the ideology and strategy of those determined to destroy the United States. It will come not when Washington and its allies kill or capture all terrorists or potential terrorists but when the ideology the terrorists espouse is discredited, when their tactics are seen to have failed, and when they come to find more promising paths to the dignity, respect, and opportunities they crave. It will mean not the complete elimination of any possible terrorist threat -- pursuing that goal will almost certainly lead to more terrorism, not less -- but rather the reduction of the risk of terrorism to such a level that it does not significantly affect average citizens' daily lives, preoccupy their thoughts, or provoke overreaction. At that point, even the terrorists will realize their violence is futile. Keeping this vision of victory in mind will not only avert considerable pain, expense, and trouble; it will also guide leaders toward the policies that will bring such a victory about.

[Kjakk]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

+1


Let's not forget double digit unemployment.

I dont think you have the facts on that;

1977 7.05
1978 6.07
1979 5.85
1980 7.18

these are the numbers I got.

In '82 and '83 they were at about 9.5 and that was the highest I found. BTW that was during Reagan.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by LARRY

Our word?

To who?

The Iraqi people who want us out?

We are as patriotic as you are.

We want our ground soldiers to leave Iraq safely.

Let the Navy carrier boys do their thing in the safety of the skies.

Bring these 19 year olds home now.

Who did the poll that determined how many Iraqi citizens want us out? Post the results. What about the will of the Iraqi government? They want us to stay. They represent the Iraqi people.

Who questioned your patriotism?

Our ground soldiers will leave safely after we win, and they won't have to go back.

Who and what do you propose that we bomb? Should we use daisy cutters and carpet bomb their cities? Do you propose using smart bombs when the enemy is among the civilian population? We have used an extraordinary amount of restraint to limit civilian casualties. This is war. People die. I don't want to totally destroy Iraq just to bring our troops home.

These 19 year olds (many are older) are all volunteers. Many reenlist and go back to the fight multiple times.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

That's easy for you to say being safe in Boulder, CO. It won't be very nice for the people that put their a** on the line to back us. They'll be slaughtered after we leave. Not one country will ever trust us again. Our word will mean nothing.

No country trusts us already. Nothing will change. The damage is already done, more people were slaughtered by our decision to invade that were by the most ruthless of dictatorship regimes, but the sad fact of collateral damage is completely acceptable to you, in spite of the complete lack of ability to "win the war." No one was backing us really anyway. We had a coalition of the coerced and bribed. This was a unilateral action, and it did more harm than good, contrary to our stated goals.

'Greg

[Kjakk]

Originally Posted by apk919

Better yet, compare inflation rates (more pertinent when determining the effect of rising prices on goods and services)... it's way lower than during the Carter Admin.



I suppose you mean combat fatalities? Yeah, then maybe it's better to compare the Bush Admin with the Johnson Admin



US GDP growth has been much higher during the Bush Admin than the Carter Admin. As long as this is the case, does it really matter if we trade more with the rest of the world? Are you against economic development in India and China?



I'm not sure what you mean by this... what jobs are being "nationalized" in the US?



Not really, as you can see.

Here is some info on GDP rates also. Not exactly the slam dunk for Bush either from what I can tell.

"Under Jimmy Carter America's GDP growth was was 9.4% where under George Bush GDP growth has been 10.2%. These are the numbers where Republicans strut around talking about how great an economic President George Bush has been versus Jimmy Carter. Well I'll tell you one thing, I think I could get a group of 6th grade students to realize that to incur 24% more debt to generate .08% GDP growth is how you bankrupt nations. To justify tax deferrals upon future children (the proper labeling of what is known as "The Bush Tax Cuts") you need GDP growth of 25% or more to cost/justify national debt growth of 24% or more. The financing cost on the debt accumulation is far higher than the .08% GDP growth we've gotten. "

[NMRJock]

This thread is spiraling out of control. The topic is (was) Obama's chances at securing the nomination.

I think they're good.