Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
gandalf
ParticipantAllan, question about improving conditions in Iraq, here are my views:
First, we should not be making a political issue out of Iraq here in America. “The Surge” has become some sort of new ‘loyalty-test’ for these new-age republicans, as they are never ones to miss a chance to play politics with foreign policy. I despise the McCarthyism.
Second, my uneducated view, I think improvements have as much to do with changes in tactics, better leadership under Petraus, reduction in ethnic conflict, separation of population into enclaves with control of traffic, Al Qaeda mistakes in country and Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda, etc. I don’t think 30,000 troops makes all that much of a difference given the overall numbers in uniform plus about as many on private payroll. Seems like we finally started figuring out how to fight this war around 2005. It’s good. So we should be able to drawdown our forces, correct? Iraq has improved, time to start leaving, correct?
What happens in Iraq is a sideshow, and doesn’t mitigate the larger strategic problem in the region. Iraq was not connected to 9/11. Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq. Neither is Zawahiri. Afghanistan is once again a narco-state controlled by drug lords. The Taliban are regrouping. Pakistan with its nukes is as big an issue as ever. Iran is stronger. Don’t even get me started about the Saudis, I told you what I think we should do there… (crazy, I know). So yeah, Iraq improving is good news. But it has diverted our attention and left us strategically weaker in our efforts against the real enemy: Sunni/Wahhabi Arab extremists and Al Qaeda. I should point out that it also left us weaker in terms of leverage with allies and other nations, and destroyed our credibility and moral standing.
Make no mistake about it, Iraq was about establishing a forward base in the heart of the middle east and controlling oil reserves.
An alternative post-9/11 plan would have been to reengineer our energy infrastructure, and go after AQ with ruthless, targeted effectiveness. Iraq was and always will be a big fucking blunder. Saddamn was ‘contained’, not a threat to us, and provided an important offset against Iranian influence in the region. We could have cleaned up oil-for-food corruption, taken away his money, bombed Baghdad a couple of times, and left him there for another ten years while we took care of the more important problems.
That’s my take. Not like I’m Rambo or anything, running through the jungles of Guat… 😉 Not taking anything away from that, BTW. You da’ man. But I have read Thucydides in full. I even translated parts of it from Latin to English, Latin class assignment back at that liberal bastion of anti-establishmentarism, Columbia U.
So, where is my reasoning above unsound? I’d like to know your views? Do you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do and will eventually be some sort of beacon of freedom in the middle east? If war with Iran goes down, it will help to have bases there, I suppose. Honestly, I think that’s been part of the neocon plan all along. Just as the Iranians have communicated their intents, so have the Project for the New American Century types. Neocon = American Nazi.
ParticipantAllan, question about improving conditions in Iraq, here are my views:
First, we should not be making a political issue out of Iraq here in America. “The Surge” has become some sort of new ‘loyalty-test’ for these new-age republicans, as they are never ones to miss a chance to play politics with foreign policy. I despise the McCarthyism.
Second, my uneducated view, I think improvements have as much to do with changes in tactics, better leadership under Petraus, reduction in ethnic conflict, separation of population into enclaves with control of traffic, Al Qaeda mistakes in country and Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda, etc. I don’t think 30,000 troops makes all that much of a difference given the overall numbers in uniform plus about as many on private payroll. Seems like we finally started figuring out how to fight this war around 2005. It’s good. So we should be able to drawdown our forces, correct? Iraq has improved, time to start leaving, correct?
What happens in Iraq is a sideshow, and doesn’t mitigate the larger strategic problem in the region. Iraq was not connected to 9/11. Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq. Neither is Zawahiri. Afghanistan is once again a narco-state controlled by drug lords. The Taliban are regrouping. Pakistan with its nukes is as big an issue as ever. Iran is stronger. Don’t even get me started about the Saudis, I told you what I think we should do there… (crazy, I know). So yeah, Iraq improving is good news. But it has diverted our attention and left us strategically weaker in our efforts against the real enemy: Sunni/Wahhabi Arab extremists and Al Qaeda. I should point out that it also left us weaker in terms of leverage with allies and other nations, and destroyed our credibility and moral standing.
Make no mistake about it, Iraq was about establishing a forward base in the heart of the middle east and controlling oil reserves.
An alternative post-9/11 plan would have been to reengineer our energy infrastructure, and go after AQ with ruthless, targeted effectiveness. Iraq was and always will be a big fucking blunder. Saddamn was ‘contained’, not a threat to us, and provided an important offset against Iranian influence in the region. We could have cleaned up oil-for-food corruption, taken away his money, bombed Baghdad a couple of times, and left him there for another ten years while we took care of the more important problems.
That’s my take. Not like I’m Rambo or anything, running through the jungles of Guat… 😉 Not taking anything away from that, BTW. You da’ man. But I have read Thucydides in full. I even translated parts of it from Latin to English, Latin class assignment back at that liberal bastion of anti-establishmentarism, Columbia U.
So, where is my reasoning above unsound? I’d like to know your views? Do you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do and will eventually be some sort of beacon of freedom in the middle east? If war with Iran goes down, it will help to have bases there, I suppose. Honestly, I think that’s been part of the neocon plan all along. Just as the Iranians have communicated their intents, so have the Project for the New American Century types. Neocon = American Nazi.
ParticipantAllan, question about improving conditions in Iraq, here are my views:
First, we should not be making a political issue out of Iraq here in America. “The Surge” has become some sort of new ‘loyalty-test’ for these new-age republicans, as they are never ones to miss a chance to play politics with foreign policy. I despise the McCarthyism.
Second, my uneducated view, I think improvements have as much to do with changes in tactics, better leadership under Petraus, reduction in ethnic conflict, separation of population into enclaves with control of traffic, Al Qaeda mistakes in country and Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda, etc. I don’t think 30,000 troops makes all that much of a difference given the overall numbers in uniform plus about as many on private payroll. Seems like we finally started figuring out how to fight this war around 2005. It’s good. So we should be able to drawdown our forces, correct? Iraq has improved, time to start leaving, correct?
What happens in Iraq is a sideshow, and doesn’t mitigate the larger strategic problem in the region. Iraq was not connected to 9/11. Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq. Neither is Zawahiri. Afghanistan is once again a narco-state controlled by drug lords. The Taliban are regrouping. Pakistan with its nukes is as big an issue as ever. Iran is stronger. Don’t even get me started about the Saudis, I told you what I think we should do there… (crazy, I know). So yeah, Iraq improving is good news. But it has diverted our attention and left us strategically weaker in our efforts against the real enemy: Sunni/Wahhabi Arab extremists and Al Qaeda. I should point out that it also left us weaker in terms of leverage with allies and other nations, and destroyed our credibility and moral standing.
Make no mistake about it, Iraq was about establishing a forward base in the heart of the middle east and controlling oil reserves.
An alternative post-9/11 plan would have been to reengineer our energy infrastructure, and go after AQ with ruthless, targeted effectiveness. Iraq was and always will be a big fucking blunder. Saddamn was ‘contained’, not a threat to us, and provided an important offset against Iranian influence in the region. We could have cleaned up oil-for-food corruption, taken away his money, bombed Baghdad a couple of times, and left him there for another ten years while we took care of the more important problems.
That’s my take. Not like I’m Rambo or anything, running through the jungles of Guat… 😉 Not taking anything away from that, BTW. You da’ man. But I have read Thucydides in full. I even translated parts of it from Latin to English, Latin class assignment back at that liberal bastion of anti-establishmentarism, Columbia U.
So, where is my reasoning above unsound? I’d like to know your views? Do you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do and will eventually be some sort of beacon of freedom in the middle east? If war with Iran goes down, it will help to have bases there, I suppose. Honestly, I think that’s been part of the neocon plan all along. Just as the Iranians have communicated their intents, so have the Project for the New American Century types. Neocon = American Nazi.
ParticipantAllan, question about improving conditions in Iraq, here are my views:
First, we should not be making a political issue out of Iraq here in America. “The Surge” has become some sort of new ‘loyalty-test’ for these new-age republicans, as they are never ones to miss a chance to play politics with foreign policy. I despise the McCarthyism.
Second, my uneducated view, I think improvements have as much to do with changes in tactics, better leadership under Petraus, reduction in ethnic conflict, separation of population into enclaves with control of traffic, Al Qaeda mistakes in country and Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda, etc. I don’t think 30,000 troops makes all that much of a difference given the overall numbers in uniform plus about as many on private payroll. Seems like we finally started figuring out how to fight this war around 2005. It’s good. So we should be able to drawdown our forces, correct? Iraq has improved, time to start leaving, correct?
What happens in Iraq is a sideshow, and doesn’t mitigate the larger strategic problem in the region. Iraq was not connected to 9/11. Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq. Neither is Zawahiri. Afghanistan is once again a narco-state controlled by drug lords. The Taliban are regrouping. Pakistan with its nukes is as big an issue as ever. Iran is stronger. Don’t even get me started about the Saudis, I told you what I think we should do there… (crazy, I know). So yeah, Iraq improving is good news. But it has diverted our attention and left us strategically weaker in our efforts against the real enemy: Sunni/Wahhabi Arab extremists and Al Qaeda. I should point out that it also left us weaker in terms of leverage with allies and other nations, and destroyed our credibility and moral standing.
Make no mistake about it, Iraq was about establishing a forward base in the heart of the middle east and controlling oil reserves.
An alternative post-9/11 plan would have been to reengineer our energy infrastructure, and go after AQ with ruthless, targeted effectiveness. Iraq was and always will be a big fucking blunder. Saddamn was ‘contained’, not a threat to us, and provided an important offset against Iranian influence in the region. We could have cleaned up oil-for-food corruption, taken away his money, bombed Baghdad a couple of times, and left him there for another ten years while we took care of the more important problems.
That’s my take. Not like I’m Rambo or anything, running through the jungles of Guat… 😉 Not taking anything away from that, BTW. You da’ man. But I have read Thucydides in full. I even translated parts of it from Latin to English, Latin class assignment back at that liberal bastion of anti-establishmentarism, Columbia U.
So, where is my reasoning above unsound? I’d like to know your views? Do you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do and will eventually be some sort of beacon of freedom in the middle east? If war with Iran goes down, it will help to have bases there, I suppose. Honestly, I think that’s been part of the neocon plan all along. Just as the Iranians have communicated their intents, so have the Project for the New American Century types. Neocon = American Nazi.
ParticipantYeah, yeah. Whatever. It’s amazing how these right-wing automatons just make shit up.
We’ve been through his background before on one of these threads. You don’t graduate Harvard magna cum laude being a slacker, and affirmative action has nothing to do with it as most law school grading is blind. President of Law Review says something as well, as does the Columbia PoliSci degree before that with thesis on Soviet relations. Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago should matter, one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and a conservative one at that. He was offered tenure twice but turned it down both times. He was elected to the Illinois Senate, then elected to the US Senate, where he served on the Foreign Relations committee. Again, experience that should count for something. The most interesting aspect is how the Bush Administration, and the Republican Party in general, is coming around to adopting positions held by Obama for a couple of years now, focus on Al Qaeda and Afg/Pak, take action inside Pak if intel warrants, hold discussions with Tehran, scale back involvement in Iraq, etc.
Much substance there, my friend. Just keep making shit up. All of you do. Of course, we’d rather hear something about a position or policy with which you disagree. That would be a better approach.
ParticipantYeah, yeah. Whatever. It’s amazing how these right-wing automatons just make shit up.
We’ve been through his background before on one of these threads. You don’t graduate Harvard magna cum laude being a slacker, and affirmative action has nothing to do with it as most law school grading is blind. President of Law Review says something as well, as does the Columbia PoliSci degree before that with thesis on Soviet relations. Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago should matter, one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and a conservative one at that. He was offered tenure twice but turned it down both times. He was elected to the Illinois Senate, then elected to the US Senate, where he served on the Foreign Relations committee. Again, experience that should count for something. The most interesting aspect is how the Bush Administration, and the Republican Party in general, is coming around to adopting positions held by Obama for a couple of years now, focus on Al Qaeda and Afg/Pak, take action inside Pak if intel warrants, hold discussions with Tehran, scale back involvement in Iraq, etc.
Much substance there, my friend. Just keep making shit up. All of you do. Of course, we’d rather hear something about a position or policy with which you disagree. That would be a better approach.
ParticipantYeah, yeah. Whatever. It’s amazing how these right-wing automatons just make shit up.
We’ve been through his background before on one of these threads. You don’t graduate Harvard magna cum laude being a slacker, and affirmative action has nothing to do with it as most law school grading is blind. President of Law Review says something as well, as does the Columbia PoliSci degree before that with thesis on Soviet relations. Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago should matter, one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and a conservative one at that. He was offered tenure twice but turned it down both times. He was elected to the Illinois Senate, then elected to the US Senate, where he served on the Foreign Relations committee. Again, experience that should count for something. The most interesting aspect is how the Bush Administration, and the Republican Party in general, is coming around to adopting positions held by Obama for a couple of years now, focus on Al Qaeda and Afg/Pak, take action inside Pak if intel warrants, hold discussions with Tehran, scale back involvement in Iraq, etc.
Much substance there, my friend. Just keep making shit up. All of you do. Of course, we’d rather hear something about a position or policy with which you disagree. That would be a better approach.
ParticipantYeah, yeah. Whatever. It’s amazing how these right-wing automatons just make shit up.
We’ve been through his background before on one of these threads. You don’t graduate Harvard magna cum laude being a slacker, and affirmative action has nothing to do with it as most law school grading is blind. President of Law Review says something as well, as does the Columbia PoliSci degree before that with thesis on Soviet relations. Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago should matter, one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and a conservative one at that. He was offered tenure twice but turned it down both times. He was elected to the Illinois Senate, then elected to the US Senate, where he served on the Foreign Relations committee. Again, experience that should count for something. The most interesting aspect is how the Bush Administration, and the Republican Party in general, is coming around to adopting positions held by Obama for a couple of years now, focus on Al Qaeda and Afg/Pak, take action inside Pak if intel warrants, hold discussions with Tehran, scale back involvement in Iraq, etc.
Much substance there, my friend. Just keep making shit up. All of you do. Of course, we’d rather hear something about a position or policy with which you disagree. That would be a better approach.
ParticipantYeah, yeah. Whatever. It’s amazing how these right-wing automatons just make shit up.
We’ve been through his background before on one of these threads. You don’t graduate Harvard magna cum laude being a slacker, and affirmative action has nothing to do with it as most law school grading is blind. President of Law Review says something as well, as does the Columbia PoliSci degree before that with thesis on Soviet relations. Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago should matter, one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and a conservative one at that. He was offered tenure twice but turned it down both times. He was elected to the Illinois Senate, then elected to the US Senate, where he served on the Foreign Relations committee. Again, experience that should count for something. The most interesting aspect is how the Bush Administration, and the Republican Party in general, is coming around to adopting positions held by Obama for a couple of years now, focus on Al Qaeda and Afg/Pak, take action inside Pak if intel warrants, hold discussions with Tehran, scale back involvement in Iraq, etc.
Much substance there, my friend. Just keep making shit up. All of you do. Of course, we’d rather hear something about a position or policy with which you disagree. That would be a better approach.
Participantbutler, there is quite a bit of material in Obama’s background that suggests a candidate of substance. The same is true with McCain. Both are qualified to be president, both are men of substance.
Exactly the opposite with your post — there is nothing substantive or even remotely factual. Obama comes from a disadvantaged background. He excelled in a number of exceptionally competitive circumstances that require hard work, intelligence and ability.
The recurring theme that Obama has been ‘handed’ everything in life is a talking point, introduced by the Hillary campaign, adopted by McCain and the Republican slime machine, propogated and repeated here again courtesy of you.
It’s fundamentally RACIST and the reason is because it relies not on facts (which contradict such a conclusion), but on racial stereotypes about African-Americans, the underlying suggestion being that Obama is the ‘affirmative action’ candidate, another lazy black man who doesn’t work, never had a real job and used his skin color to beat the system.
It’s disgusting. And as I pointed out earlier, the facts speak otherwise.
Oh yeah, and I really don’t give a damn if I offended you. Stop posting LIES. Stop posting offensive RACIST bullshit. That’s what gets you called out.
Criticize Obama, by all means. Take a fact-based position and back it up. “He is light on substance because he has limited experience with [pick an issue, foreign policy for example].” That would be more acceptable.
Participantbutler, there is quite a bit of material in Obama’s background that suggests a candidate of substance. The same is true with McCain. Both are qualified to be president, both are men of substance.
Exactly the opposite with your post — there is nothing substantive or even remotely factual. Obama comes from a disadvantaged background. He excelled in a number of exceptionally competitive circumstances that require hard work, intelligence and ability.
The recurring theme that Obama has been ‘handed’ everything in life is a talking point, introduced by the Hillary campaign, adopted by McCain and the Republican slime machine, propogated and repeated here again courtesy of you.
It’s fundamentally RACIST and the reason is because it relies not on facts (which contradict such a conclusion), but on racial stereotypes about African-Americans, the underlying suggestion being that Obama is the ‘affirmative action’ candidate, another lazy black man who doesn’t work, never had a real job and used his skin color to beat the system.
It’s disgusting. And as I pointed out earlier, the facts speak otherwise.
Oh yeah, and I really don’t give a damn if I offended you. Stop posting LIES. Stop posting offensive RACIST bullshit. That’s what gets you called out.
Criticize Obama, by all means. Take a fact-based position and back it up. “He is light on substance because he has limited experience with [pick an issue, foreign policy for example].” That would be more acceptable.
Participantbutler, there is quite a bit of material in Obama’s background that suggests a candidate of substance. The same is true with McCain. Both are qualified to be president, both are men of substance.
Exactly the opposite with your post — there is nothing substantive or even remotely factual. Obama comes from a disadvantaged background. He excelled in a number of exceptionally competitive circumstances that require hard work, intelligence and ability.
The recurring theme that Obama has been ‘handed’ everything in life is a talking point, introduced by the Hillary campaign, adopted by McCain and the Republican slime machine, propogated and repeated here again courtesy of you.
It’s fundamentally RACIST and the reason is because it relies not on facts (which contradict such a conclusion), but on racial stereotypes about African-Americans, the underlying suggestion being that Obama is the ‘affirmative action’ candidate, another lazy black man who doesn’t work, never had a real job and used his skin color to beat the system.
It’s disgusting. And as I pointed out earlier, the facts speak otherwise.
Oh yeah, and I really don’t give a damn if I offended you. Stop posting LIES. Stop posting offensive RACIST bullshit. That’s what gets you called out.
Criticize Obama, by all means. Take a fact-based position and back it up. “He is light on substance because he has limited experience with [pick an issue, foreign policy for example].” That would be more acceptable.
Participantbutler, there is quite a bit of material in Obama’s background that suggests a candidate of substance. The same is true with McCain. Both are qualified to be president, both are men of substance.
Exactly the opposite with your post — there is nothing substantive or even remotely factual. Obama comes from a disadvantaged background. He excelled in a number of exceptionally competitive circumstances that require hard work, intelligence and ability.
The recurring theme that Obama has been ‘handed’ everything in life is a talking point, introduced by the Hillary campaign, adopted by McCain and the Republican slime machine, propogated and repeated here again courtesy of you.
It’s fundamentally RACIST and the reason is because it relies not on facts (which contradict such a conclusion), but on racial stereotypes about African-Americans, the underlying suggestion being that Obama is the ‘affirmative action’ candidate, another lazy black man who doesn’t work, never had a real job and used his skin color to beat the system.
It’s disgusting. And as I pointed out earlier, the facts speak otherwise.
Oh yeah, and I really don’t give a damn if I offended you. Stop posting LIES. Stop posting offensive RACIST bullshit. That’s what gets you called out.
Criticize Obama, by all means. Take a fact-based position and back it up. “He is light on substance because he has limited experience with [pick an issue, foreign policy for example].” That would be more acceptable.
Participantbutler, there is quite a bit of material in Obama’s background that suggests a candidate of substance. The same is true with McCain. Both are qualified to be president, both are men of substance.
Exactly the opposite with your post — there is nothing substantive or even remotely factual. Obama comes from a disadvantaged background. He excelled in a number of exceptionally competitive circumstances that require hard work, intelligence and ability.
The recurring theme that Obama has been ‘handed’ everything in life is a talking point, introduced by the Hillary campaign, adopted by McCain and the Republican slime machine, propogated and repeated here again courtesy of you.
It’s fundamentally RACIST and the reason is because it relies not on facts (which contradict such a conclusion), but on racial stereotypes about African-Americans, the underlying suggestion being that Obama is the ‘affirmative action’ candidate, another lazy black man who doesn’t work, never had a real job and used his skin color to beat the system.
It’s disgusting. And as I pointed out earlier, the facts speak otherwise.
Oh yeah, and I really don’t give a damn if I offended you. Stop posting LIES. Stop posting offensive RACIST bullshit. That’s what gets you called out.
Criticize Obama, by all means. Take a fact-based position and back it up. “He is light on substance because he has limited experience with [pick an issue, foreign policy for example].” That would be more acceptable.
-
AuthorPosts
