OT: Obama is Conservative

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Shadowfax: I agree, but a with one strong caveat: We don’t engage either of these “two nutjobs” (as you put it) on a peer-to-peer basis. Giving either any more credibility is a huge mistake.

I do agree that we need to mend fences, but we also need to be mindful of the European propensity to buy time through ceaseless jawboning.

Let me ask you a question: In your mind, what does this multinational force look like? Is this something done in concert with the UN? With NATO? Both of those organizations have shown a fairly high degree of incompetence and ineptitude when it comes to handling these sorts of problems. Just curious as to your thoughts.

[Shadowfax]

Quick reply as I do have work to do…

I was thinking along the lines of the first Iraq war, in which I think we did a good job, except for not closing the deal on Hussein. I used to support the UN but their recent history shows them just as susceptible to corruption and incompetence as any other large agency. I agree the Euros are a little too enamored of discussing things over tea/wine/beer, which is why I was hoping we’d engage in a BRIEF attempt at diplomacy, hope that the other sides spit in our face and then, hopefully (and I admit to some idealism here) we can rally the troops (metaphorically speaking). I don’t see the downside of a peer to peer discussion–but I am not as strong on the details as many here. I do see an upside–give them their chance to be heard (makes us look good) and to screw up before the world community.

Ok, can’t wait to read the onslaught and attacks. I’ve stolen enough time from my livelihood already…

[Shadowfax]

Quick reply as I do have work to do…

I was thinking along the lines of the first Iraq war, in which I think we did a good job, except for not closing the deal on Hussein. I used to support the UN but their recent history shows them just as susceptible to corruption and incompetence as any other large agency. I agree the Euros are a little too enamored of discussing things over tea/wine/beer, which is why I was hoping we’d engage in a BRIEF attempt at diplomacy, hope that the other sides spit in our face and then, hopefully (and I admit to some idealism here) we can rally the troops (metaphorically speaking). I don’t see the downside of a peer to peer discussion–but I am not as strong on the details as many here. I do see an upside–give them their chance to be heard (makes us look good) and to screw up before the world community.

Ok, can’t wait to read the onslaught and attacks. I’ve stolen enough time from my livelihood already…

[Shadowfax]

Quick reply as I do have work to do…

I was thinking along the lines of the first Iraq war, in which I think we did a good job, except for not closing the deal on Hussein. I used to support the UN but their recent history shows them just as susceptible to corruption and incompetence as any other large agency. I agree the Euros are a little too enamored of discussing things over tea/wine/beer, which is why I was hoping we’d engage in a BRIEF attempt at diplomacy, hope that the other sides spit in our face and then, hopefully (and I admit to some idealism here) we can rally the troops (metaphorically speaking). I don’t see the downside of a peer to peer discussion–but I am not as strong on the details as many here. I do see an upside–give them their chance to be heard (makes us look good) and to screw up before the world community.

Ok, can’t wait to read the onslaught and attacks. I’ve stolen enough time from my livelihood already…

[Shadowfax]

Quick reply as I do have work to do…

I was thinking along the lines of the first Iraq war, in which I think we did a good job, except for not closing the deal on Hussein. I used to support the UN but their recent history shows them just as susceptible to corruption and incompetence as any other large agency. I agree the Euros are a little too enamored of discussing things over tea/wine/beer, which is why I was hoping we’d engage in a BRIEF attempt at diplomacy, hope that the other sides spit in our face and then, hopefully (and I admit to some idealism here) we can rally the troops (metaphorically speaking). I don’t see the downside of a peer to peer discussion–but I am not as strong on the details as many here. I do see an upside–give them their chance to be heard (makes us look good) and to screw up before the world community.

Ok, can’t wait to read the onslaught and attacks. I’ve stolen enough time from my livelihood already…

[Shadowfax]

Quick reply as I do have work to do…

I was thinking along the lines of the first Iraq war, in which I think we did a good job, except for not closing the deal on Hussein. I used to support the UN but their recent history shows them just as susceptible to corruption and incompetence as any other large agency. I agree the Euros are a little too enamored of discussing things over tea/wine/beer, which is why I was hoping we’d engage in a BRIEF attempt at diplomacy, hope that the other sides spit in our face and then, hopefully (and I admit to some idealism here) we can rally the troops (metaphorically speaking). I don’t see the downside of a peer to peer discussion–but I am not as strong on the details as many here. I do see an upside–give them their chance to be heard (makes us look good) and to screw up before the world community.

Ok, can’t wait to read the onslaught and attacks. I’ve stolen enough time from my livelihood already…

[afx114]

[quote=Shadowfax]I was thinking along the lines of the first Iraq war, in which I think we did a good job, except for not closing the deal on Hussein.[/quote]

If anything, the current conflict in Iraq underscores what a good decision is was to not continue onto Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait. All the analysts at the time said it would create a power vacuum, which is exactly what we have now.

[afx114]

[quote=Shadowfax]I was thinking along the lines of the first Iraq war, in which I think we did a good job, except for not closing the deal on Hussein.[/quote]

If anything, the current conflict in Iraq underscores what a good decision is was to not continue onto Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait. All the analysts at the time said it would create a power vacuum, which is exactly what we have now.

[afx114]

[quote=Shadowfax]I was thinking along the lines of the first Iraq war, in which I think we did a good job, except for not closing the deal on Hussein.[/quote]

If anything, the current conflict in Iraq underscores what a good decision is was to not continue onto Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait. All the analysts at the time said it would create a power vacuum, which is exactly what we have now.

[afx114]

[quote=Shadowfax]I was thinking along the lines of the first Iraq war, in which I think we did a good job, except for not closing the deal on Hussein.[/quote]

If anything, the current conflict in Iraq underscores what a good decision is was to not continue onto Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait. All the analysts at the time said it would create a power vacuum, which is exactly what we have now.

[afx114]

[quote=Shadowfax]I was thinking along the lines of the first Iraq war, in which I think we did a good job, except for not closing the deal on Hussein.[/quote]

If anything, the current conflict in Iraq underscores what a good decision is was to not continue onto Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait. All the analysts at the time said it would create a power vacuum, which is exactly what we have now.

[gandalf]

Allan’s questions later. Meantime, I have a quick question for surveyor and jfiq:

In response to a question about foreign policy, you made a big stink (several posts) about a comment Obama made in a speech re: dropping a ‘bomb’ on Pearl Harbor. The implication you were making is we have a sitting US Senator and candidate for US President who doesn’t know what happened at Pearl Harbor. It’s absurd on its face.

In the YouTube clip of Obama’s speech, there was actually a confused pause as he read through this portion. For what it’s worth, the incident seemed like a public speaking error to me, even a typo in the speech (leaving the ‘s’ off of ‘bomb’).

Today, something equally absurd came up. John McCain suggested Iraq and Pakistan share a border. Here is a clip of his statements:

Now, I don’t for one minute believe John McCain doesn’t know the geography of the Middle East. We’re at war over there and have large numbers of troops deployed in both countries. So it seemed like a public speaking error to me. I’m not a partisan. I’m making the same call, both candidates.

Would you like to retract the characterizations of Mr. Obama you made earlier on this post? They were ridiculous. Here’s your best chance to save face and admit that your comments were ridiculous.

Or would you like to criticize Mr. McCain, a candidate for US President, for making such an absurd statement? Certainly, somebody who doesn’t know where Iraq and Afghanistan are on a map has no business being Commander-in-Chief of US forces deployed in those countries. You would agree?

If you apply the same standard to both candidates, you’ll need to pick one or the other. I think both are simple mistakes that have been exaggerated and amplified for partisan purposes, and to the detriment of our political discourse.

Where do you stand?

[gandalf]

Allan’s questions later. Meantime, I have a quick question for surveyor and jfiq:

In response to a question about foreign policy, you made a big stink (several posts) about a comment Obama made in a speech re: dropping a ‘bomb’ on Pearl Harbor. The implication you were making is we have a sitting US Senator and candidate for US President who doesn’t know what happened at Pearl Harbor. It’s absurd on its face.

In the YouTube clip of Obama’s speech, there was actually a confused pause as he read through this portion. For what it’s worth, the incident seemed like a public speaking error to me, even a typo in the speech (leaving the ‘s’ off of ‘bomb’).

Today, something equally absurd came up. John McCain suggested Iraq and Pakistan share a border. Here is a clip of his statements:

Now, I don’t for one minute believe John McCain doesn’t know the geography of the Middle East. We’re at war over there and have large numbers of troops deployed in both countries. So it seemed like a public speaking error to me. I’m not a partisan. I’m making the same call, both candidates.

Would you like to retract the characterizations of Mr. Obama you made earlier on this post? They were ridiculous. Here’s your best chance to save face and admit that your comments were ridiculous.

Or would you like to criticize Mr. McCain, a candidate for US President, for making such an absurd statement? Certainly, somebody who doesn’t know where Iraq and Afghanistan are on a map has no business being Commander-in-Chief of US forces deployed in those countries. You would agree?

If you apply the same standard to both candidates, you’ll need to pick one or the other. I think both are simple mistakes that have been exaggerated and amplified for partisan purposes, and to the detriment of our political discourse.

Where do you stand?

[gandalf]

Allan’s questions later. Meantime, I have a quick question for surveyor and jfiq:

In response to a question about foreign policy, you made a big stink (several posts) about a comment Obama made in a speech re: dropping a ‘bomb’ on Pearl Harbor. The implication you were making is we have a sitting US Senator and candidate for US President who doesn’t know what happened at Pearl Harbor. It’s absurd on its face.

In the YouTube clip of Obama’s speech, there was actually a confused pause as he read through this portion. For what it’s worth, the incident seemed like a public speaking error to me, even a typo in the speech (leaving the ‘s’ off of ‘bomb’).

Today, something equally absurd came up. John McCain suggested Iraq and Pakistan share a border. Here is a clip of his statements:

Now, I don’t for one minute believe John McCain doesn’t know the geography of the Middle East. We’re at war over there and have large numbers of troops deployed in both countries. So it seemed like a public speaking error to me. I’m not a partisan. I’m making the same call, both candidates.

Would you like to retract the characterizations of Mr. Obama you made earlier on this post? They were ridiculous. Here’s your best chance to save face and admit that your comments were ridiculous.

Or would you like to criticize Mr. McCain, a candidate for US President, for making such an absurd statement? Certainly, somebody who doesn’t know where Iraq and Afghanistan are on a map has no business being Commander-in-Chief of US forces deployed in those countries. You would agree?

If you apply the same standard to both candidates, you’ll need to pick one or the other. I think both are simple mistakes that have been exaggerated and amplified for partisan purposes, and to the detriment of our political discourse.

Where do you stand?

[gandalf]

Allan’s questions later. Meantime, I have a quick question for surveyor and jfiq:

In response to a question about foreign policy, you made a big stink (several posts) about a comment Obama made in a speech re: dropping a ‘bomb’ on Pearl Harbor. The implication you were making is we have a sitting US Senator and candidate for US President who doesn’t know what happened at Pearl Harbor. It’s absurd on its face.

In the YouTube clip of Obama’s speech, there was actually a confused pause as he read through this portion. For what it’s worth, the incident seemed like a public speaking error to me, even a typo in the speech (leaving the ‘s’ off of ‘bomb’).

Today, something equally absurd came up. John McCain suggested Iraq and Pakistan share a border. Here is a clip of his statements:

Now, I don’t for one minute believe John McCain doesn’t know the geography of the Middle East. We’re at war over there and have large numbers of troops deployed in both countries. So it seemed like a public speaking error to me. I’m not a partisan. I’m making the same call, both candidates.

Would you like to retract the characterizations of Mr. Obama you made earlier on this post? They were ridiculous. Here’s your best chance to save face and admit that your comments were ridiculous.

Or would you like to criticize Mr. McCain, a candidate for US President, for making such an absurd statement? Certainly, somebody who doesn’t know where Iraq and Afghanistan are on a map has no business being Commander-in-Chief of US forces deployed in those countries. You would agree?

If you apply the same standard to both candidates, you’ll need to pick one or the other. I think both are simple mistakes that have been exaggerated and amplified for partisan purposes, and to the detriment of our political discourse.

Where do you stand?

[Author]

Posts