No such thing occurred. You were talking about Bush’s policies vis-a-vis Iraq FIRST and I disagree that these caused any such rise in oil prices. THEN, you talked about Bush’s weak-dollar policies and I agree that this has had an effect but it POSTDATED the housing crisis.
That is clearly not what I said. Reread.
???
Did not hear it and will not vote for him. I would have voted for Hillary over McCain but now that Hillary is out, I am not going to wait to see who McCain chooses for VP, I will vote for him. My opposition to McCain in the beginning was based on several factors. These factors remain but are put into a different context by Obama’s candidacy. There is no way that I want another left-leaning, blame America Carteresque disaster running the country. His voting record is all that we have to go on and I am not encouraged.
[quote]I won’t even refer to the despicable practice of going back into the past to dig out who said what about whom. Such bad form.
Attack the message, not who might have said what eons ago.
i should note here how, in various threads, how several posters are villified by the most underhanded methods. Just because they stand for what they believe in. And, it must be said, while delivering coherant & logical backup for their arguments. At least they do their homework, which does not mean relying exclusively upon hearsay, conjecture, and outright fabrication. [/quote]
Well, you just did refer to it. And I wasn’t being despicable. I was pointing out some very true things said about John McCain by some very prominent members of our community. It was a form of honor, actually. If some nobody had said that, I wouldn’t have deigned (sp?) to quote them. None of the remarks quoted ridiculed either TC or Fred.
And I hope you’re not referring to me with that vilification remark. If you are, back up YOUR argument, por favor. (If you were referring to my comments about Fred’s attending a ritualistic Illuminati orgy and communing with the emperor, that was a joke - although he probably has engaged in the former at some point!)
I give more “back up” for my arguments than just about anyone on this forum. A lot of it’s sources rather than line by line argumentative refutation. That’s because I have a JOB and a LIFE. I’d rather spend what little spare time I have outside of working, keeping myself healthy and keeping my wife happy AQUIRING and DISSEMINATING information - rather than spinning it. And sometimes, yes, my “back up” is direct quotes. That’s called citation.
No such thing occurred. You were talking about Bush’s policies vis-a-vis Iraq FIRST and I disagree that these caused any such rise in oil prices. THEN, you talked about Bush’s weak-dollar policies and I agree that this has had an effect but it POSTDATED the housing crisis.
That is clearly not what I said. Reread.
???
Did not hear it and will not vote for him. I would have voted for Hillary over McCain but now that Hillary is out, I am not going to wait to see who McCain chooses for VP, I will vote for him. My opposition to McCain in the beginning was based on several factors. These factors remain but are put into a different context by Obama’s candidacy. There is no way that I want another left-leaning, blame America Carteresque disaster running the country. His voting record is all that we have to go on and I am not encouraged.[/quote]
I can’t wait to see the look on your face when Obama wins the presidential election. Sounds like an occasion for a party to me. Or, in your case, a wake.
We should call it the ‘Total Repudiation’ party, methinks. No matter how you slice it it’s going to hurt.
I will take my chances. Don’t count your chickens before they have hatched however. And even if Obama wins… which I do not know that he will… what will he change? with regard to Iraq? and in many ways, by then, it will be too late… the Iraqi regime looks pretty solid these days… Iran will not go away as a problem… and perhaps only a Democrat will have the credibility to take it on. After all, Clinton for welfare reform. Could not have been done by a Republican president. Perhaps, the peace-loving Obama will finally bring about our “salvation” with attacks on Syria and Iran that a Bush or McCain could never effect? Maybe you are right… maybe I should be voting for Obama after all… Thanks for the advice!
I will stand by what I say. Put me down on that score. I still think that there is more in common between Bush and McCain and I never have understood this popularity of McCain among liberals. There are areas where I have my concerns. His effort to unite 14 senators to get most of Bush’s judicial appointments through was brilliant. Cooperation on other more issues? doesn’t make me happy but look at Bush and pharmaceutical coverage, his grand bargain with Teddy Kennedy on education reform. See. They are similar. Not what true conservatives want. Ditto for immigration.
I missed that. Sounds amusing. Where can I find the original quote?
[quote=“fred smith”]Sort of like how losing the Senate hurt? hahaha.
I will take my chances. Don’t count your chickens before they have hatched however. And even if Obama wins… which I do not know that he will… what will he change? with regard to Iraq? and in many ways, by then, it will be too late… the Iraqi regime looks pretty solid these days… Iran will not go away as a problem… and perhaps only a Democrat will have the credibility to take it on. After all, Clinton for welfare reform. Could not have been done by a Republican president. Perhaps, the peace-loving Obama will finally bring about our “salvation” with attacks on Syria and Iran that a Bush or McCain could never effect? Maybe you are right… maybe I should be voting for Obama after all… Thanks for the advice![/quote]
Well, for one thing, you’re not going to get your permanent, boot-on-the-neck Israeli-style occupation. That alone will throw a monkey wrench in your world view.
Now that the Iraqi people have caught on to what their “liberators” are really up to your odds of avoiding a Bastille Day Iraqi style are looking slimmer by the day:
[quote]
“This agreement is so meager and poor, it achieves only the American security benefits and nothing for Iraq or the Iraqi people,” said parliamentarian Umar Abdul Satar, a member of the main Sunni political bloc. “I don’t know how the government will persuade itself or the parliament or the people.” . . .
Few Iraqis believe American troops have plans to leave anytime soon in significant numbers, however. And many are beginning to suspect that the U.S. pledge not to establish permanent bases simply means it will push for decades-long military leases on the many sprawling U.S. facilities already sitting on the edge of major cities. [/quote]
Your predictions that the threat of the Iraqis turning on us are always imminent is belied by the fact that they never achieve fruition. Likewise, the wording will vary from traditional status of forces agreements and even with such a treaty there will be problems Korea? Japan? but whether it is “securing Iraq’s borders” or some other such nomenclature, we will be staying perhaps not in “permanent bases” but rather “long-term ones” instead?
Scott McClellan was never one of us. Also, what is the big deal? Did he say Bush lied? about wmds in Iraq? the threat of wmds? the threat posed by Saddam? Not to my knowledge. Anyway… what is a fit of insanity? and when has it been exhibited? and given that you are usually there for the bouts of drunkenness (fredfests), what more importantly is your point regarding the latter? haha
Who was it who killed 4,100 American soldiers and wounded over 30,000 the last five years and is continuing to kill and wound Americans? I’m pretty sure they were almost all Iraqis.
Well, then my goodness, why should we have an alliance with Japan or Germany?
Things have gone up and down and back up again. Deep in my heart, I believe that this war is now won and that most of our original goals in Iraq are achievable. I have never felt the same way about Afghanistan. I simply do not see how we can win there the way we have and will in Iraq. The best we can hope to do in Afghanistan is keep the lid on and deny its terroritory to terrorists.
[quote=“fred smith”]Well, then my goodness, why should we have an alliance with Japan or Germany?
Things have gone up and down and back up again. Deep in my heart, I believe that this war is now won and that most of our original goals in Iraq are achievable. I have never felt the same way about Afghanistan. I simply do not see how we can win there the way we have and will in Iraq. The best we can hope to do in Afghanistan is keep the lid on and deny its terroritory to terrorists.[/quote]
Have & will? Isn’t that a contradiction? Given that the present tense of that statement is still in flux?
As for Afghan, if we’re merely there to keep the lid on, much as The Russians, The Brits, The Mongols, The Persians, and god knows who else already tried, and failed? How are we to succeed where others have failed? Will? Firepower? Dollar bills?
I should also use this opportunity to berate any and all of our NATO allies that just are not putting in their fare share. How is it that tiny militaries such as that of Canada and the Netherlands are taking up the slack?
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]As for Afghan, if we’re merely there to keep the lid on, much as The Russians, The Brits, The Mongols, The Persians, and god knows who else already tried, and failed? How are we to succeed where others have failed? Will? Firepower? Dollar bills?
I should also use this opportunity to berate any and all of our NATO allies that just are not putting in their fair share. How is it that tiny militaries such as that of Canada and the Netherlands are taking up the slack?[/quote]
Maybe because they did not figured out what you wrote in your first paragraph in due time?
[quote=“games”][quote=“TheGingerMan”]As for Afghan, if we’re merely there to keep the lid on, much as The Russians, The Brits, The Mongols, The Persians, and god knows who else already tried, and failed? How are we to succeed where others have failed? Will? Firepower? Dollar bills?
I should also use this opportunity to berate any and all of our NATO allies that just are not putting in their fair share. How is it that tiny militaries such as that of Canada and the Netherlands are taking up the slack?[/quote]
Maybe because they did not figured out what you wrote in your first paragraph in due time? [/quote]
A very valid point. Small militaries are quite often deployed sheerly for political purposes, with narry a glance at the historical record.
[quote]BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq’s national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.
The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. It came a day after Iraq’s prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.
President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.
U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie’s statement.[/quote]
Iraq has already made the US agree to let contractors be liable (in Iraq) for their crimes, and now this!
Looks like this isn’t quite the boot-on-neck situation Fred Smith thought it was!
Yep, the Iraqis are serious. They really, really do want their country back.
[quote=“Slate”]Maliki stated this week that he would not sign any treaty allowing U.S. armed forces to remain on his nation’s soil—the current accord, known as a Status of Forces Agreement, expires at the end of this month—unless it includes a timetable for their withdrawal.
Obama has called for just such a timetable. McCain has opposed one, famously saying that a substantial number of U.S. combat troops might need to stay in Iraq for another 100 years.
When asked about Maliki’s statement, McCain told reporters that it had been mistranslated—to which Maliki responded that, no, the English version was correct. At that point, some of McCain’s supporters said that the prime minister wasn’t serious, that he’d been forced by political constituencies to demand a timetable. Maliki again insisted that he meant what he’d said. (Even if he was caving to political pressures, one could infer that this suggests a majority of Iraqis and their major parties want us to commit to getting out in the not-too-distant future.)
It’s a rather awkward situation for McCain, who did publicly say four years ago at the Council on Foreign Relations that if an elected government of Iraq asked us to leave, “I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave,” adding, “I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”[/quote]
[quote]SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?
Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business. But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.[/quote]
I’ll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing the chickenhawks denounce Bush-Cheney for being a pair of surrender monkeys who lack the wherewithal to fight them over there.
[quote=“McClachy”]The United States and Iraq are nearing completion of negotiations on a security agreement that would pull American troops out of Iraqi cities by next July and foresees all U.S. combat troops gone from Iraq by 2011, according to two Iraqi officials who are familiar with the negotiations.
“The tactical team is finished and it’s a closed deal, but remember that we’ve been through this before and every time we close a deal it’s reopened,” said a senior official who’s been participating in the talks.
The official said that the deal, once completed, would be perhaps the most restrictive agreement the United States had with a country where it had troops.
“We’ve seen all the status of forces agreements with other countries,” the official said. “This is the best that the Americans have conceded.”
The official asked not to be identified because the deal is still being negotiated.
Another official, Ali al Adeeb, a senior member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, said he’d been briefed on the negotiations and he confirmed the details.[/quote]
