this is irony at its finest. obama is satan for wanting to finish what we started in iraq and afghan, but we damn well better "stay the course" in israel?
first of all, obama wants to increase troops in Afghanistan, and I disagree that troops = solving the problem. As for Iraq, I don't see how 18 months to pull out the troops makes sense, while leaving Blackwater's presence there. oh, and he makes no mention of reparations, or any dealing whatsoever with the Iraqi people. once again, you're putting troops on the same level of solving the problem, when the issue is bigger than troop presence.
anyway, you're not making a good comparison in this post. Iraq and Afghanistan both have troops present there. All I was trying to do was to show that once you have involved yourself in the dismantling of a people, then you have to do something to fix it. nothing ironic about that.
I would prefer something between Bush's "yee haw, let's blow up everything" approach and Clinton's "let's fire a few ineffectual missiles into the desert while this fat bitch finishes up this hummer" approach.
Surely, there must be an acceptable medium there.
I guess, I would like the next president to be like the Bush who went after the Taliban, but not the Bush who had to stretch and distort the truth to go into Iraq.
I know you and I will disagree on that. This being America, however, that's allowed.
I know we disagree, and it's fine.
my point is where do you want Obama to go? because he already said he'd go to Afghanistan, and he said military option is on the table for Iran.
Of all the serious candidates, Biden was obviously the right choice. He is strong where Obama is weak.
People want to throw this "he voted for the Iraq War" thing in his face -- but so did a lot of people. And guess what, if presented with the evidence Congress was presented with, I would be scared shitless of a candidate who did NOT vote "yay" on that particular vote.
It's not their fault the intelligence ended up being wrong and/or bogus.
Although, I have to admit. It is troubling Biden supports Israel in its steadfast refusal not to be blown off the map. I mean, what an asshole.
Leaders from around the world, major voices, very smart people. Said that Iraq was not a problem. no need for war.
A person had to be an idiot to fall for the Iraq war.
When it comes to war, you need to use it only as a last resort, how dare they vote for it without finding all the facts, without looking at all the info.
Most of the planet knew that it would be a mistake.
my point is where do you want Obama to go? because he already said he'd go to Afghanistan, and he said military option is on the table for Iran.
I guess my point is I believe Obama is full of shit when he says this.
He's talking tough, because people (like me) believe he is not. He's pandering, plain and simple. Which isn't a sin in politics -- it's a neccesity. But it doesn't mean I have to buy it.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Leaders from around the world, major voices, very smart people. Said that Iraq was not a problem. no need for war.
A person had to be an idiot to fall for the Iraq war.
When it comes to war, you need to use it only as a last resort, how dare they vote for it without finding all the facts, without looking at all the info.
Most of the planet knew that it would be a mistake.
Actually, leaders from around the world said Iraq WAS a problem. They just didn't want to actually deal with it.
A whole bunch of the intelligence Bush used to beat the drums of war came from FOREIGN intelligence sources. Russian intelligence -- RUSSIAN -- was on board with the WMD stuff.
The United Nations claimed he had illicit WMD. Again, just didn't want to do anything about it.
Again, the intelligence turned out to be wrong, or, in some cases, manufactured.
I don't blame any Congressman, in that climate, for voting to authorize the Iraq War. They were bamboozled, just like the rest of us.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
So you didn't believe all the intelligence reports, which you didn't have access to, suggesting Saddam had WMDs?
Or you didn't believe the mere existence of those WMDs warranted removing Saddam from power?
It's an important distinction.
Reports were around, go search them. I read enough to know that I was right to be against the war. Reports stating that saddam was not a threat at that point in time. I would also like to point out that America was in no position to go around removing anyone from power. WMD or not.
I was also against the war in Afghanistan, mainly because I understood that killing more people, will only create more terrorism.
I would first ask America to take a step back. Remember that it was America that created Saddam, in the same way looking at Iran,that it is Americas fault for many of the problems Iran faces today.(CIA overthrow of mossedeq,prop up the shah of iran to control oil)
You see, I understand Americas past, so indeed I question it's future and the way it goes about doing what it does in present times.
So you didn't believe all the intelligence reports, which you didn't have access to, suggesting Saddam had WMDs?
Or you didn't believe the mere existence of those WMDs warranted removing Saddam from power?
It's an important distinction.
ah, so as long as we can't read the reports, we should just accept whatever the federal government tells us is true? if they say canada has nukes pointed at us and they have reports to prove it but cannot show us the reports, we should just assume it's true because we can't see the reports to prove them false?
that's absurd.
no, i didn't believe the iraq intelligence reports.
ah, so as long as we can't read the reports, we should just accept whatever the federal government tells us is true? if they say canada has nukes pointed at us and they have reports to prove it but cannot show us the reports, we should just assume it's true because we can't see the reports to prove them false?
that's absurd.
no, i didn't believe the iraq intelligence reports.
This really isn't the point of what I wrote.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Reports were around, go search them. I read enough to know that I was right to be against the war. Reports stating that saddam was not a threat at that point in time. I would also like to point out that America was in no position to go around removing anyone from power. WMD or not.
I read up on it, too, at the time.
My thinking was (and still is): If Saddam had WMD and connections to terrorists, our government would have been grossly negligent had it done nothing about it.
Now, in retrospect, it's easy to say the reports were wrong. Of course they were. But at the time, we had no reason to debate that intelligence reports coming from almost every respectable intelligence agency IN THE WORLD would all be false.
If you want to argue, "it didn't matter whether Saddam had WMD or not, the war was always unjustifiable" -- that's a valid argument, I suppose.
If you want to argue that some dude in congress should have ignored the best intelligence of the entire planet at the peril of his own nation ... I'm not prepared to concede that argument.
Look, Iraq was a mistake. There's no denying that. What I'm arguing here is how we got to that mistake. I put 99.9 percent of the blame on the liars, not those who fell for the lies.
Obama, had he been in the Senate at that time, and not selling lemonade in Chicago or whatever the hell, would have voted for it, too.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
My thinking was (and still is): If Saddam had WMD and connections to terrorists, our government would have been grossly negligent had it done nothing about it.
Now, in retrospect, it's easy to say the reports were wrong. Of course they were. But at the time, we had no reason to debate that intelligence reports coming from almost every respectable intelligence agency IN THE WORLD would all be false.
If you want to argue, "it didn't matter whether Saddam had WMD or not, the war was always unjustifiable" -- that's a valid argument, I suppose.
If you want to argue that some dude in congress should have ignored the best intelligence of the entire planet at the peril of his own nation ... I'm not prepared to concede that argument.
Look, Iraq was a mistake. There's no denying that. What I'm arguing here is how we got to that mistake. I put 99.9 percent of the blame on the liars, not those who fell for the lies.
Obama, had he been in the Senate at that time, and not selling lemonade in Chicago or whatever the hell, would have voted for it, too.
Ok let me put it this way,
I worry that when the time comes (and it will) when America is at the Point of attacking another country (probably Iran) Biden and the rest of America will once again (like they so often do) fall for the drama.
Another attack in america like 9/11 and you will see how quickly the American people will dumb themselves down and follow whatever the leader on the TV say's.
I remember clearly how sheep like Americans were after 9/11. I remember it well.
I worry that when the time comes (and it will) when America is at the Point of attacking another country (probably Iran) Biden and the rest of America will once again (like they so often do) fall for the drama.
Another attack in america like 9/11 and you will see how quickly the American people will dumb themselves down and follow whatever the leader on the TV say's.
I remember clearly how sheep like Americans were after 9/11. I remember it well.
Barring a direct attack on our soil, I don't think that will happen again anytime soon. Right now, it is politically expedient to be "anti-war." Back then, it was politically expedient to be "pro-war."
I worry the opposite direction.
I worry that, thanks to the utter blunder in Iraq, Americans will have lost their nerve the next time military action should become neccesary.
It's sort of like the boy who cried wolf.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I wonder if Ed and the boys are still as pro Obama now considering Ed ripped Biden at a 2003 show in Philly for trying to piggyback a bill onto an Amber Alert bill.
This is a little summary of the Rave Act that Ed spoke out against that ngiht:
I'm really sick of this whole 'no matter who it was, you guys would hate him' mentality. at the end of the day you guys don't know anything about me or mrbrian or anyone....
I said the 'majority of the anti obama people'. I don't think it is unreasonable to make that assumption, based on what i read here. You're right, i don't know anything about anyone, i can only go by what they say when they post. The reason i said 'the majority of people' is because i know it is not the case for everyone.
right now, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama plays the same game Bush did... where he fools many Americans into believing so much ridiculous shit, and then everyone finds out 6 years later he's been fucking the world up.
who are you going to turn to then?
Well i hope you are wrong, but if you are not, MrSmith made a comment earlier in this thread that mirrors my thoughts exactly on that question.
If McCain gets in a continues Bush doctrine, in four years we will just be having the same argument we have today (choice between a fake democrat, a hopelessly irrelevant 3rd party guy and Bush IV). if the so called "change" guy gets in, and HE continues with Bush doctrine, the conversation in 4 years will be much different.
Biden, everything Obama has been bashing the administration for this whole time..a "typical" Washington old head...30 years in Washington..so this is the Hope and Change Obama wanted???
piss poor choice...this guarantees a McCain victory in November
I said the 'majority of the anti obama people'. I don't think it is unreasonable to make that assumption, based on what i read here. You're right, i don't know anything about anyone, i can only go by what they say when they post. The reason i said 'the majority of people' is because i know it is not the case for everyone.
I know. I read your posts. So i have no idea why you would take offense to my comment. It wasn't directed at you.
sorry, I didn't mean you, I was mainly talking about catch22 and other people making comments like that.
Well i hope you are wrong, but if you are not, MrSmith made a comment earlier in this thread that mirrors my thoughts exactly on that question.
yeah, i've been thinking about that, too... but I just keep thinking: how can I cast a vote for Obama/Biden and then go to my friends living in Gaza and the West Bank and look at them straight in the face like I didn't just vote for a guy who vowed to make their next 4 years a living hell?
Biden, everything Obama has been bashing the administration for this whole time..a "typical" Washington old head...30 years in Washington..so this is the Hope and Change Obama wanted???
piss poor choice...this guarantees a McCain victory in November
bonehead move Obama
I just love the assumption that anybody whose every had experience in government, basically, is off the table ... a "washington insider."
Should Obama have just tabbed the guy who took his order at Burger King? That guy has never been a "washington old head." Who cares about experience? So long as the guy has never been employed by the federal government.
I know I come off as some nutjob Biden fan on this thread, but I'm not. But the knee-jerk reasons some of you guys give for hating him make no sense.
Who did you expect Obama to tab for VP, Shaquille O'Neal?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Another Democratic Defeat. The choice of Biden as VP is dumb. But then again: Democrats are most skillful in losing election. They are not even smart enough to realize maybe if you pick a politician from a Republican or on-the-edge state and who can carry, you enhance your chances. But Obama picks somebody from...Delaware. How many electoral votes does Delaware have? Whopping three. That would make for a victory, I am sure. Biden is the man who thinks he is a foreign policy expert because he wants to divide Iraq into three mini-states. Oh, yeah? How would he like it if an Arab proposes to divide his precious Delaware into three mini-states? Also, he is like other Senators: a predictable Zionist fanatic. A colleague of mine was once invited to testify before his committee. Biden asked him to join him for lunch afterwards. I asked the colleague if Biden sounded different on Israel in private. He said: no. He was as bad in private as he sound in public. Obama is doing everything possible to get...McCain elected as president.
sorry, I didn't mean you, I was mainly talking about catch22 and other people making comments like that.
yeah, i've been thinking about that, too... but I just keep thinking: how can I cast a vote for Obama/Biden and then go to my friends living in Gaza and the West Bank and look at them straight in the face like I didn't just vote for a guy who vowed to make their next 4 years a living hell?
I'm on the same page as you in relation to the Israel issue. I don't find what the israelis are doing acceptable. I believe that they are the instigators of the continuing violence. They can make things better there but they choose not to. They will not bend an inch. It seems simple to me, Israel has to withdraw from the occupied territories. Then they can work on the other problems.
Can you tell me why you think the palestinians and israelis will be better off under McCain?
have you not read/heard this speech? it's quite jaw-dropping.
Yes i have read that before.
As a Obama supporter, I think I can honestly say the undivided Jersulem issue is a backtrack in positions.
He made it seem like the Middle East was open for negotiations. He also made it seem like he understood what was at the heart of the matter. One issue is Israel. If he is going to hold firm with the current obvious politics, then I don't see how he is going to get any movement there. If he comes into the negotiation with one firm position like undivided Jerusalem as a precondition, how does he expect anyone to be willing to talk to him? No one wants to talk just to talk, they want a settlement of some kind.
I am disappointed with Obama's middle east statements after all the rhetoric about fairness and fresh starts. The conflict will not end without US pressure, and it seems like none will come from Obama if he personally believes that Arab East Jerusalem should just be gifted to Israel. This is one of the main issues, and these statements show either his inexperience, or his willingness to trade principles for votes.
Is Israel the 51st State in America ? Why do we always have to act like we are the be all and end all. Our own country is in a big enough mess as it is. Why don't we consider the interests of other nations in the world instead of playing (..what others may see as ) favoritism to a particular country?
You said yesterday that you were thinking of supporting Obama until Biden was announced as the VP. Obama gave this speech in June 08?
Also, as much as it troubles me with what's happening to the palestinian people, i don't think that it is something that will be up the top of peoples 'why i am or are not voting for a certain cadidate.' They have bigger issues closer to home. We can't be everything to everyone and the sooner we realize that, the better. I know that probably sounds selfish, but we have to start looking after number one sometime yes?
As a Obama supporter, I think I can honestly say the undivided Jersulem issue is a backtrack in positions.
He made it seem like the Middle East was open for negotiations. He also made it seem like he understood what was at the heart of the matter. One issue is Israel. If he is going to hold firm with the current obvious politics, then I don't see how he is going to get any movement there. If he comes into the negotiation with one firm position like undivided Jerusalem as a precondition, how does he expect anyone to be willing to talk to him? No one wants to talk just to talk, they want a settlement of some kind.
I am disappointed with Obama's middle east statements after all the rhetoric about fairness and fresh starts. The conflict will not end without US pressure, and it seems like none will come from Obama if he personally believes that Arab East Jerusalem should just be gifted to Israel. This is one of the main issues, and these statements show either his inexperience, or his willingness to trade principles for votes.
Is Israel the 51st State in America ? Why do we always have to act like we are the be all and end all. Our own country is in a big enough mess as it is. Why don't we consider the interests of other nations in the world instead of playing (..what others may see as ) favoritism to a particular country?
yeah, his speech is ridiculous...
other than this speech, though, things he said about Palestinians include him saying something along the lines of the Palestinian suffering being self-inflicted.
You said yesterday that you were thinking of supporting Obama until Biden was announced as the VP. Obama gave this speech in June 08?
I was hoping for a VP who was not so radically supportive of Israel. we got Biden, though.
Also, as much as it troubles me with what's happening to the palestinian people, i don't think that it is something that will be up the top of peoples 'why i am or are not voting for a certain cadidate.' They have bigger issues closer to home. We can't be everything to everyone and the sooner we realize that, the better. I know that probably sounds selfish, but we have to start looking after number one sometime yes?
it's a shame, seeing as how you can't deny the fact that the Middle East, northern Africa, the Islamic world, etc etc etc depends heavily on our role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
it's a shame, seeing as how you can't deny the fact that the Middle East, northern Africa, the Islamic world, etc etc etc depends heavily on our role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
Comments
anyway, you're not making a good comparison in this post. Iraq and Afghanistan both have troops present there. All I was trying to do was to show that once you have involved yourself in the dismantling of a people, then you have to do something to fix it. nothing ironic about that.
my point is where do you want Obama to go? because he already said he'd go to Afghanistan, and he said military option is on the table for Iran.
Leaders from around the world, major voices, very smart people. Said that Iraq was not a problem. no need for war.
A person had to be an idiot to fall for the Iraq war.
When it comes to war, you need to use it only as a last resort, how dare they vote for it without finding all the facts, without looking at all the info.
Most of the planet knew that it would be a mistake.
I guess my point is I believe Obama is full of shit when he says this.
He's talking tough, because people (like me) believe he is not. He's pandering, plain and simple. Which isn't a sin in politics -- it's a neccesity. But it doesn't mean I have to buy it.
for the least they could possibly do
Actually, leaders from around the world said Iraq WAS a problem. They just didn't want to actually deal with it.
A whole bunch of the intelligence Bush used to beat the drums of war came from FOREIGN intelligence sources. Russian intelligence -- RUSSIAN -- was on board with the WMD stuff.
The United Nations claimed he had illicit WMD. Again, just didn't want to do anything about it.
Again, the intelligence turned out to be wrong, or, in some cases, manufactured.
I don't blame any Congressman, in that climate, for voting to authorize the Iraq War. They were bamboozled, just like the rest of us.
for the least they could possibly do
Not all of us.
So you didn't believe all the intelligence reports, which you didn't have access to, suggesting Saddam had WMDs?
Or you didn't believe the mere existence of those WMDs warranted removing Saddam from power?
It's an important distinction.
for the least they could possibly do
Reports were around, go search them. I read enough to know that I was right to be against the war. Reports stating that saddam was not a threat at that point in time. I would also like to point out that America was in no position to go around removing anyone from power. WMD or not.
I was also against the war in Afghanistan, mainly because I understood that killing more people, will only create more terrorism.
I would first ask America to take a step back. Remember that it was America that created Saddam, in the same way looking at Iran,that it is Americas fault for many of the problems Iran faces today.(CIA overthrow of mossedeq,prop up the shah of iran to control oil)
You see, I understand Americas past, so indeed I question it's future and the way it goes about doing what it does in present times.
ah, so as long as we can't read the reports, we should just accept whatever the federal government tells us is true? if they say canada has nukes pointed at us and they have reports to prove it but cannot show us the reports, we should just assume it's true because we can't see the reports to prove them false?
that's absurd.
no, i didn't believe the iraq intelligence reports.
This really isn't the point of what I wrote.
for the least they could possibly do
I read up on it, too, at the time.
My thinking was (and still is): If Saddam had WMD and connections to terrorists, our government would have been grossly negligent had it done nothing about it.
Now, in retrospect, it's easy to say the reports were wrong. Of course they were. But at the time, we had no reason to debate that intelligence reports coming from almost every respectable intelligence agency IN THE WORLD would all be false.
If you want to argue, "it didn't matter whether Saddam had WMD or not, the war was always unjustifiable" -- that's a valid argument, I suppose.
If you want to argue that some dude in congress should have ignored the best intelligence of the entire planet at the peril of his own nation ... I'm not prepared to concede that argument.
Look, Iraq was a mistake. There's no denying that. What I'm arguing here is how we got to that mistake. I put 99.9 percent of the blame on the liars, not those who fell for the lies.
Obama, had he been in the Senate at that time, and not selling lemonade in Chicago or whatever the hell, would have voted for it, too.
for the least they could possibly do
Ok let me put it this way,
I worry that when the time comes (and it will) when America is at the Point of attacking another country (probably Iran) Biden and the rest of America will once again (like they so often do) fall for the drama.
Another attack in america like 9/11 and you will see how quickly the American people will dumb themselves down and follow whatever the leader on the TV say's.
I remember clearly how sheep like Americans were after 9/11. I remember it well.
Barring a direct attack on our soil, I don't think that will happen again anytime soon. Right now, it is politically expedient to be "anti-war." Back then, it was politically expedient to be "pro-war."
I worry the opposite direction.
I worry that, thanks to the utter blunder in Iraq, Americans will have lost their nerve the next time military action should become neccesary.
It's sort of like the boy who cried wolf.
for the least they could possibly do
This is a little summary of the Rave Act that Ed spoke out against that ngiht:
http://www.saveyourfreedoms.us/syf/RAVEAct.htm
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/04/11/191/77208#002401
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
Well i hope you are wrong, but if you are not, MrSmith made a comment earlier in this thread that mirrors my thoughts exactly on that question.
Biden, everything Obama has been bashing the administration for this whole time..a "typical" Washington old head...30 years in Washington..so this is the Hope and Change Obama wanted???
piss poor choice...this guarantees a McCain victory in November
bonehead move Obama
I just love the assumption that anybody whose every had experience in government, basically, is off the table ... a "washington insider."
Should Obama have just tabbed the guy who took his order at Burger King? That guy has never been a "washington old head." Who cares about experience? So long as the guy has never been employed by the federal government.
I know I come off as some nutjob Biden fan on this thread, but I'm not. But the knee-jerk reasons some of you guys give for hating him make no sense.
Who did you expect Obama to tab for VP, Shaquille O'Neal?
for the least they could possibly do
he would have gotten my vote...and i'm not kidding
Can you tell me why you think the palestinians and israelis will be better off under McCain?
thanks.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432
have you not read/heard this speech? it's quite jaw-dropping.
As a Obama supporter, I think I can honestly say the undivided Jersulem issue is a backtrack in positions.
He made it seem like the Middle East was open for negotiations. He also made it seem like he understood what was at the heart of the matter. One issue is Israel. If he is going to hold firm with the current obvious politics, then I don't see how he is going to get any movement there. If he comes into the negotiation with one firm position like undivided Jerusalem as a precondition, how does he expect anyone to be willing to talk to him? No one wants to talk just to talk, they want a settlement of some kind.
I am disappointed with Obama's middle east statements after all the rhetoric about fairness and fresh starts. The conflict will not end without US pressure, and it seems like none will come from Obama if he personally believes that Arab East Jerusalem should just be gifted to Israel. This is one of the main issues, and these statements show either his inexperience, or his willingness to trade principles for votes.
Is Israel the 51st State in America ? Why do we always have to act like we are the be all and end all. Our own country is in a big enough mess as it is. Why don't we consider the interests of other nations in the world instead of playing (..what others may see as ) favoritism to a particular country?
You said yesterday that you were thinking of supporting Obama until Biden was announced as the VP. Obama gave this speech in June 08?
Also, as much as it troubles me with what's happening to the palestinian people, i don't think that it is something that will be up the top of peoples 'why i am or are not voting for a certain cadidate.' They have bigger issues closer to home. We can't be everything to everyone and the sooner we realize that, the better. I know that probably sounds selfish, but we have to start looking after number one sometime yes?
other than this speech, though, things he said about Palestinians include him saying something along the lines of the Palestinian suffering being self-inflicted.
I was hoping for a VP who was not so radically supportive of Israel. we got Biden, though.
it's a shame, seeing as how you can't deny the fact that the Middle East, northern Africa, the Islamic world, etc etc etc depends heavily on our role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...