nice link there, i watch the show quite frequently... but they are assuming things and taking liberties with some of what he has said and painting with a broad brush.
Obama has said, pretty clearly, that he wants to end the occupation of Iraq, as quickly as is responsibly possible, and keep a small force in the "region" (which is what we have had for decades now) to address any concerns that may arise and to help maintain regional stablilty. which is exactly what the general says in his testimony of the origial post. testimony that a few of you seem to support, myself included. so how is it the general is right by saying the exact same thing as Obama, but Obama is a war monger?
Obama wants more than just a small presence in the region from all that I have read on him including the link I just posted to you. Apparently I'm not the only one who has this opinion of Obama, just look at all the articles I've posted with people stating the same concerns that I have.
What Obama is saying in pep rally speeches and what Obama's actual plans are saying seem to be contradictory.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
as far as all this bullshit about "not cutting off funding with troops in harms way"
can't they (congress) NOT sign or pass any bills funding the war,
but instead sign SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ONLY FOR WITHDRAWAL?
What is so hard about that?
Surely the congress has the power to declare specific funds appropriations.
That is why i find this to be a bunk argument.
Draft up a budget and put in it that it is ONLY for withdrawal.
Problem solved.
Exactly!! Some people want to act like Congress doesn't power of the purse but they in fact do. There is already money they could use to begin a withdrawal and all this talk of 'cut and run', 'more death and chaos if we leave' or 'stay there if al Qaeda is there' is only politicing straight outta the pages of the republican handbook.
Politicians have think tanks to come up with this crap and the public buys it hook, line and sinker. They want to continue this war so it will line the pockets of their war profittering benefactors. Whether it be Democrat or Republican....both parties are pros are selling bullshit to suit their agenda. I am so frustrated about this because I really thought people had widely started to wake up to this fact after seeing how Bush and co so easily sold this war and it was based on pure crap. But sadly, it seems that they think it's only republicans who are guilty of things like this and view the democrats as on their side.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
One thing the US military learned from the cold war was rapid troop deployment. THe US army bragged that it could be anywhere in the world in 24 hours. I see no reason to assume the reverse isn't true.
It's easy getting somewhere...the problem occurs when you pack up all this shit to go there, bring in more shit when you decide to stay awhile, invite some more friends over because you think that would be cool, they bring more shit with them...suddenly there's a bunch of shit and people there.
Yes, they can be anywhere in the world in 24 hours...but you have to read all the caveats. Projecting a limited force can be done quite rapidly, and limited is the key word. However, invading and occupying a country the size of Iraq was not something done in 24 hours of man and equipment moving. The actual build-up for the initial invasion took over a year. So, the army can project a limited force anywhere in the world within 24 hours....however they have been projecting force towards Iraq for five plus years now. That's a lot of 24 hours of movement there.
That said, the occupation needs to come some sort of resolution soon. However, you're not going to wake up one morning to hear that all the troops came home over night.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
as far as all this bullshit about "not cutting off funding with troops in harms way"
can't they (congress) NOT sign or pass any bills funding the war,
but instead sign SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ONLY FOR WITHDRAWAL?
What is so hard about that?
Surely the congress has the power to declare specific funds appropriations.
That is why i find this to be a bunk argument.
Draft up a budget and put in it that it is ONLY for withdrawal.
Problem solved.
It's called VETO!!!!! Obama has tried repeatedly to pass legislation for withdrawal, joined by other Dems like Kennedy and Kucinich. They constantly get veto'd
Problem not solved...not until Obama takes office.
Problem not solved...not until Obama takes office.
Oh.
Okay.
I can't wait.
Like i've said before,
either he's the best liar they've ever found
OR
he is the most naive, yet well intentioned, candidate this country has had in a half century or more ... and the Powers That Be are going to be thrilled when the race riots that follow his untimely death allow them to implement martial law.
But i just find it hard to believe that he is either that naive, or that well intentioned. The three things i find hardest to swallow about all this hype are
1. The massive amounts of money he is taking from the very same interests he claims to be fighting. Some of that money which has come directly from the institutions which own the Federal Reserve (Citibank, JPMorganChase)
2. His talk about NAFTA, and then the story about the internal memo from the canadian diplomat meeting where Canada was told not to worry about his stance on NAFTA, that it was just public posturing. On the other hand, maybe he is totaly fucking naive, and doesn't understand shit like this.
“Our relationship is so strong and so deep that it’s not dependent on which party is in power, either in Canada or the U.S. Our relationship transcends politics.” AND THEN “I don’t think it’s in danger of being rescinded or changed substantially. It’s been a great benefit to both our countries,” said Wilkins. “While you’ve had some comments about it, one way or the other … I think NAFTA will prevail.”
3. Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of his supervisors. I find this one particularly troubling, although it is hard for me to reconcile some of Mr. Brzezinski's more recent statements against what he has said in past decades. Maybe he really is old and soft. But i fear he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Qatar and Kuwait...two places that were key in the build-up prior to the invasion. Uzbekistan is probably also in the mix.
and poland, you forgot poland heh heh heh
i know poland isn't close, i couldn't resist
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
It's called VETO!!!!! Obama has tried repeatedly to pass legislation for withdrawal, joined by other Dems like Kennedy and Kucinich. They constantly get veto'd
Problem not solved...not until Obama takes office.
there's already money there for the troops to come home!!!!
problem solved w a filibuster or impeachment
and obama tried once or twice, not really what i'd call 'repeatedly' he also has voted to fund the war thru 2009
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
It's easy getting somewhere...the problem occurs when you pack up all this shit to go there, bring in more shit when you decide to stay awhile, invite some more friends over because you think that would be cool, they bring more shit with them...suddenly there's a bunch of shit and people there.
Yes, they can be anywhere in the world in 24 hours...but you have to read all the caveats. Projecting a limited force can be done quite rapidly, and limited is the key word. However, invading and occupying a country the size of Iraq was not something done in 24 hours of man and equipment moving. The actual build-up for the initial invasion took over a year. So, the army can project a limited force anywhere in the world within 24 hours....however they have been projecting force towards Iraq for five plus years now. That's a lot of 24 hours of movement there.
That said, the occupation needs to come some sort of resolution soon. However, you're not going to wake up one morning to hear that all the troops came home over night.
at least some people understand this is a complex situation...
just yelling "out of iraq" is not going to cut it folks...
we come in... burn the place down... then want to leave the mess as quickly as possible for the iraqi people to deal with... good job america
i want them home tommorow... but i do not feel that would be the appropriate way to do it at this point...
Comments
Obama wants more than just a small presence in the region from all that I have read on him including the link I just posted to you. Apparently I'm not the only one who has this opinion of Obama, just look at all the articles I've posted with people stating the same concerns that I have.
What Obama is saying in pep rally speeches and what Obama's actual plans are saying seem to be contradictory.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
can't they (congress) NOT sign or pass any bills funding the war,
but instead sign SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ONLY FOR WITHDRAWAL?
What is so hard about that?
Surely the congress has the power to declare specific funds appropriations.
That is why i find this to be a bunk argument.
Draft up a budget and put in it that it is ONLY for withdrawal.
Problem solved.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Exactly!! Some people want to act like Congress doesn't power of the purse but they in fact do. There is already money they could use to begin a withdrawal and all this talk of 'cut and run', 'more death and chaos if we leave' or 'stay there if al Qaeda is there' is only politicing straight outta the pages of the republican handbook.
Politicians have think tanks to come up with this crap and the public buys it hook, line and sinker. They want to continue this war so it will line the pockets of their war profittering benefactors. Whether it be Democrat or Republican....both parties are pros are selling bullshit to suit their agenda. I am so frustrated about this because I really thought people had widely started to wake up to this fact after seeing how Bush and co so easily sold this war and it was based on pure crap. But sadly, it seems that they think it's only republicans who are guilty of things like this and view the democrats as on their side.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, they can be anywhere in the world in 24 hours...but you have to read all the caveats. Projecting a limited force can be done quite rapidly, and limited is the key word. However, invading and occupying a country the size of Iraq was not something done in 24 hours of man and equipment moving. The actual build-up for the initial invasion took over a year. So, the army can project a limited force anywhere in the world within 24 hours....however they have been projecting force towards Iraq for five plus years now. That's a lot of 24 hours of movement there.
That said, the occupation needs to come some sort of resolution soon. However, you're not going to wake up one morning to hear that all the troops came home over night.
It's called VETO!!!!! Obama has tried repeatedly to pass legislation for withdrawal, joined by other Dems like Kennedy and Kucinich. They constantly get veto'd
Problem not solved...not until Obama takes office.
Oh.
Okay.
I can't wait.
Like i've said before,
either he's the best liar they've ever found
OR
he is the most naive, yet well intentioned, candidate this country has had in a half century or more ... and the Powers That Be are going to be thrilled when the race riots that follow his untimely death allow them to implement martial law.
But i just find it hard to believe that he is either that naive, or that well intentioned. The three things i find hardest to swallow about all this hype are
1. The massive amounts of money he is taking from the very same interests he claims to be fighting. Some of that money which has come directly from the institutions which own the Federal Reserve (Citibank, JPMorganChase)
2. His talk about NAFTA, and then the story about the internal memo from the canadian diplomat meeting where Canada was told not to worry about his stance on NAFTA, that it was just public posturing. On the other hand, maybe he is totaly fucking naive, and doesn't understand shit like this.
3. Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of his supervisors. I find this one particularly troubling, although it is hard for me to reconcile some of Mr. Brzezinski's more recent statements against what he has said in past decades. Maybe he really is old and soft. But i fear he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
and poland, you forgot poland heh heh heh
i know poland isn't close, i couldn't resist
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
there's already money there for the troops to come home!!!!
problem solved w a filibuster or impeachment
and obama tried once or twice, not really what i'd call 'repeatedly' he also has voted to fund the war thru 2009
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yes a withdrawal... and a re-distribution of troops outside iraq borders
you are for the war in iraq.
lets make that clear
hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha....
you have no clue what you are talking about, thanks for the laugh
at least some people understand this is a complex situation...
just yelling "out of iraq" is not going to cut it folks...
we come in... burn the place down... then want to leave the mess as quickly as possible for the iraqi people to deal with... good job america
i want them home tommorow... but i do not feel that would be the appropriate way to do it at this point...
if FIVE years is your idea of "as quickly as possible", what is your definition of "staying for a while" ?
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Again, no one is proposing a withdrawal where everyone is home tomorrow. No need to exaggerate.
And none of us is simply yelling 'out of Iraq'. Just scroll up a bit and reread
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde