- This topic has 1,260 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 13, 2009 at 10:08 AM #468893October 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM #468177
NotCranky
ParticipantOctober 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM #468361ParticipantOctober 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM #468719ParticipantOctober 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM #468791ParticipantOctober 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM #469004ParticipantOctober 13, 2009 at 2:10 PM #468182Arraya
Participant[quote=Russell]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw[/quote]
LOL…
October 13, 2009 at 2:10 PM #468366Participant[quote=Russell]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw[/quote]
LOL…
October 13, 2009 at 2:10 PM #468724Participant[quote=Russell]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw[/quote]
LOL…
October 13, 2009 at 2:10 PM #468796Participant[quote=Russell]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw[/quote]
LOL…
October 13, 2009 at 2:10 PM #469009Participant[quote=Russell]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw[/quote]
LOL…
October 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM #468197ucodegen
ParticipantMy point was that liberals see the shades of gray in life. Conservatives are the ones who always claim that one has to make the best of the hand that God dealt. Period.
‘Couldn’t be more wrong. I also notice that this statement seems awfully black and white in and of itself. I hope it is not representative of the shades of gray that liberals see.
The fringes on both sides are black and white and the large middle(gray) which is considered both/either ‘liberal’ and/or ‘conservative’.. is largely ignored. Again, religion is brought into the situation and it it does not belong there.
So I find it very rich that a conservative, 34 years since the end of a lost conflict would still argue “what if”.
What-ifs are only useful to learn. A person is forever doomed to repeat the past if they don’t learn from it. That said, the past is nothing to dwell upon or live in.. it is just.. the past.
Now the conservatives have the gall to blame Obama for conflicts that Bush started and screwed up since the beginning. Those wars have already been screwed up beyond repair.
Where? I don’t see any such ‘blaming’. I do see Conservatives bringing up issues.. ie potentially leaving Iraq in the lurch without a good exit plan (almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq) Also it seems that Obama is literally following what Bush was likely to have done, with respect to both wars, would a third term be possible. Under those circumstances; questions about Obama’s plans w/respect to Afghanistan and Obama’s buildup are valid. Additionally, questions about the platform that Obama ran on with respect to both wars are valid.. particularly since his election platform with respect to these wars contributed to Obama’s win. A ramp up in armed forces does not look like the ‘negotiated exit’ he was stating during the election. Does Obama’s rhetoric on the wars match his current actions?
Some important notes:
The ramp-up in Afghanistan is considerably larger than the amount carried in the press. The numbers you are seeing in the press are the ‘fighting’ troups and do not include logistics and the large increase in the number of Army Corps of Engineers. Take the published number (20,000) and triple it.Strategically, the condition of Iraq is more important than Afghanistan(To the US, Europe and Asia). Afghanistan has minimal resources. On the other hand, Iraq has considerable resources (both oil and uranium). Should an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda gain power in Iraq, they will not need to raise funds to commit terror on other countries. Neither would they need to import uranium for a nuclear or dirty bomb. Leaving Iraq ‘in the lurch’ may create a large enough power vacuum to allow an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda to achieve power.
NOTE: With the recent advances in oil sands/shale processing, the importance of Iraqi oil to the US has significantly diminished. Europe is one of the primary consumers of Middle East oil.October 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM #468381ParticipantMy point was that liberals see the shades of gray in life. Conservatives are the ones who always claim that one has to make the best of the hand that God dealt. Period.
‘Couldn’t be more wrong. I also notice that this statement seems awfully black and white in and of itself. I hope it is not representative of the shades of gray that liberals see.
The fringes on both sides are black and white and the large middle(gray) which is considered both/either ‘liberal’ and/or ‘conservative’.. is largely ignored. Again, religion is brought into the situation and it it does not belong there.
So I find it very rich that a conservative, 34 years since the end of a lost conflict would still argue “what if”.
What-ifs are only useful to learn. A person is forever doomed to repeat the past if they don’t learn from it. That said, the past is nothing to dwell upon or live in.. it is just.. the past.
Now the conservatives have the gall to blame Obama for conflicts that Bush started and screwed up since the beginning. Those wars have already been screwed up beyond repair.
Where? I don’t see any such ‘blaming’. I do see Conservatives bringing up issues.. ie potentially leaving Iraq in the lurch without a good exit plan (almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq) Also it seems that Obama is literally following what Bush was likely to have done, with respect to both wars, would a third term be possible. Under those circumstances; questions about Obama’s plans w/respect to Afghanistan and Obama’s buildup are valid. Additionally, questions about the platform that Obama ran on with respect to both wars are valid.. particularly since his election platform with respect to these wars contributed to Obama’s win. A ramp up in armed forces does not look like the ‘negotiated exit’ he was stating during the election. Does Obama’s rhetoric on the wars match his current actions?
Some important notes:
The ramp-up in Afghanistan is considerably larger than the amount carried in the press. The numbers you are seeing in the press are the ‘fighting’ troups and do not include logistics and the large increase in the number of Army Corps of Engineers. Take the published number (20,000) and triple it.Strategically, the condition of Iraq is more important than Afghanistan(To the US, Europe and Asia). Afghanistan has minimal resources. On the other hand, Iraq has considerable resources (both oil and uranium). Should an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda gain power in Iraq, they will not need to raise funds to commit terror on other countries. Neither would they need to import uranium for a nuclear or dirty bomb. Leaving Iraq ‘in the lurch’ may create a large enough power vacuum to allow an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda to achieve power.
NOTE: With the recent advances in oil sands/shale processing, the importance of Iraqi oil to the US has significantly diminished. Europe is one of the primary consumers of Middle East oil.October 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM #468739ParticipantMy point was that liberals see the shades of gray in life. Conservatives are the ones who always claim that one has to make the best of the hand that God dealt. Period.
‘Couldn’t be more wrong. I also notice that this statement seems awfully black and white in and of itself. I hope it is not representative of the shades of gray that liberals see.
The fringes on both sides are black and white and the large middle(gray) which is considered both/either ‘liberal’ and/or ‘conservative’.. is largely ignored. Again, religion is brought into the situation and it it does not belong there.
So I find it very rich that a conservative, 34 years since the end of a lost conflict would still argue “what if”.
What-ifs are only useful to learn. A person is forever doomed to repeat the past if they don’t learn from it. That said, the past is nothing to dwell upon or live in.. it is just.. the past.
Now the conservatives have the gall to blame Obama for conflicts that Bush started and screwed up since the beginning. Those wars have already been screwed up beyond repair.
Where? I don’t see any such ‘blaming’. I do see Conservatives bringing up issues.. ie potentially leaving Iraq in the lurch without a good exit plan (almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq) Also it seems that Obama is literally following what Bush was likely to have done, with respect to both wars, would a third term be possible. Under those circumstances; questions about Obama’s plans w/respect to Afghanistan and Obama’s buildup are valid. Additionally, questions about the platform that Obama ran on with respect to both wars are valid.. particularly since his election platform with respect to these wars contributed to Obama’s win. A ramp up in armed forces does not look like the ‘negotiated exit’ he was stating during the election. Does Obama’s rhetoric on the wars match his current actions?
Some important notes:
The ramp-up in Afghanistan is considerably larger than the amount carried in the press. The numbers you are seeing in the press are the ‘fighting’ troups and do not include logistics and the large increase in the number of Army Corps of Engineers. Take the published number (20,000) and triple it.Strategically, the condition of Iraq is more important than Afghanistan(To the US, Europe and Asia). Afghanistan has minimal resources. On the other hand, Iraq has considerable resources (both oil and uranium). Should an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda gain power in Iraq, they will not need to raise funds to commit terror on other countries. Neither would they need to import uranium for a nuclear or dirty bomb. Leaving Iraq ‘in the lurch’ may create a large enough power vacuum to allow an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda to achieve power.
NOTE: With the recent advances in oil sands/shale processing, the importance of Iraqi oil to the US has significantly diminished. Europe is one of the primary consumers of Middle East oil.October 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM #468811ParticipantMy point was that liberals see the shades of gray in life. Conservatives are the ones who always claim that one has to make the best of the hand that God dealt. Period.
‘Couldn’t be more wrong. I also notice that this statement seems awfully black and white in and of itself. I hope it is not representative of the shades of gray that liberals see.
The fringes on both sides are black and white and the large middle(gray) which is considered both/either ‘liberal’ and/or ‘conservative’.. is largely ignored. Again, religion is brought into the situation and it it does not belong there.
So I find it very rich that a conservative, 34 years since the end of a lost conflict would still argue “what if”.
What-ifs are only useful to learn. A person is forever doomed to repeat the past if they don’t learn from it. That said, the past is nothing to dwell upon or live in.. it is just.. the past.
Now the conservatives have the gall to blame Obama for conflicts that Bush started and screwed up since the beginning. Those wars have already been screwed up beyond repair.
Where? I don’t see any such ‘blaming’. I do see Conservatives bringing up issues.. ie potentially leaving Iraq in the lurch without a good exit plan (almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq) Also it seems that Obama is literally following what Bush was likely to have done, with respect to both wars, would a third term be possible. Under those circumstances; questions about Obama’s plans w/respect to Afghanistan and Obama’s buildup are valid. Additionally, questions about the platform that Obama ran on with respect to both wars are valid.. particularly since his election platform with respect to these wars contributed to Obama’s win. A ramp up in armed forces does not look like the ‘negotiated exit’ he was stating during the election. Does Obama’s rhetoric on the wars match his current actions?
Some important notes:
The ramp-up in Afghanistan is considerably larger than the amount carried in the press. The numbers you are seeing in the press are the ‘fighting’ troups and do not include logistics and the large increase in the number of Army Corps of Engineers. Take the published number (20,000) and triple it.Strategically, the condition of Iraq is more important than Afghanistan(To the US, Europe and Asia). Afghanistan has minimal resources. On the other hand, Iraq has considerable resources (both oil and uranium). Should an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda gain power in Iraq, they will not need to raise funds to commit terror on other countries. Neither would they need to import uranium for a nuclear or dirty bomb. Leaving Iraq ‘in the lurch’ may create a large enough power vacuum to allow an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda to achieve power.
NOTE: With the recent advances in oil sands/shale processing, the importance of Iraqi oil to the US has significantly diminished. Europe is one of the primary consumers of Middle East oil. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.