[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya]Yeah, Afghanistan such a worthy cause… See, the funny thing about ME democracies is they always elect people that “we” don’t like. So we re-democratize them in the name of freedom.[/quote]

Yeah like the Palestinian elections.

That would be the inherent problem with democracy.

Another would be their instability if done wrong (eg: France, Chile, Mexico, Russia, Thailand).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya]Yeah, Afghanistan such a worthy cause… See, the funny thing about ME democracies is they always elect people that “we” don’t like. So we re-democratize them in the name of freedom.[/quote]

Yeah like the Palestinian elections.

That would be the inherent problem with democracy.

Another would be their instability if done wrong (eg: France, Chile, Mexico, Russia, Thailand).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114]Whether or not you agree with the policy, I don’t understand why people are shocked that Obama wants to ramp up Afghanistan. He campaigned on it, did he not? And the majority of Americans voted for him based on that campaign, did they not? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, I guess.[/quote]

Well put.
I am in support of the war in Afghanistan.
One can draw a line directly from that failed state to lots and lots of dead Americans.
There is a very compelling case that withdrawal could reconstitute that particular incubator.
However, there is also a compelling case to be made regarding expense and resource allocation.
We don’t need a functioning republican democracy to keep disruptive pressure on the important resistance groups. But again, see how well that worked last time. My point being that it is pretty easy to drop the ball using the strategy of surgical disruption.

But still, when do you decide too many resources have been allocated?

I don’t know what formula is adequate to evaluate that.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114]Whether or not you agree with the policy, I don’t understand why people are shocked that Obama wants to ramp up Afghanistan. He campaigned on it, did he not? And the majority of Americans voted for him based on that campaign, did they not? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, I guess.[/quote]

Well put.
I am in support of the war in Afghanistan.
One can draw a line directly from that failed state to lots and lots of dead Americans.
There is a very compelling case that withdrawal could reconstitute that particular incubator.
However, there is also a compelling case to be made regarding expense and resource allocation.
We don’t need a functioning republican democracy to keep disruptive pressure on the important resistance groups. But again, see how well that worked last time. My point being that it is pretty easy to drop the ball using the strategy of surgical disruption.

But still, when do you decide too many resources have been allocated?

I don’t know what formula is adequate to evaluate that.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114]Whether or not you agree with the policy, I don’t understand why people are shocked that Obama wants to ramp up Afghanistan. He campaigned on it, did he not? And the majority of Americans voted for him based on that campaign, did they not? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, I guess.[/quote]

Well put.
I am in support of the war in Afghanistan.
One can draw a line directly from that failed state to lots and lots of dead Americans.
There is a very compelling case that withdrawal could reconstitute that particular incubator.
However, there is also a compelling case to be made regarding expense and resource allocation.
We don’t need a functioning republican democracy to keep disruptive pressure on the important resistance groups. But again, see how well that worked last time. My point being that it is pretty easy to drop the ball using the strategy of surgical disruption.

But still, when do you decide too many resources have been allocated?

I don’t know what formula is adequate to evaluate that.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114]Whether or not you agree with the policy, I don’t understand why people are shocked that Obama wants to ramp up Afghanistan. He campaigned on it, did he not? And the majority of Americans voted for him based on that campaign, did they not? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, I guess.[/quote]

Well put.
I am in support of the war in Afghanistan.
One can draw a line directly from that failed state to lots and lots of dead Americans.
There is a very compelling case that withdrawal could reconstitute that particular incubator.
However, there is also a compelling case to be made regarding expense and resource allocation.
We don’t need a functioning republican democracy to keep disruptive pressure on the important resistance groups. But again, see how well that worked last time. My point being that it is pretty easy to drop the ball using the strategy of surgical disruption.

But still, when do you decide too many resources have been allocated?

I don’t know what formula is adequate to evaluate that.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114]Whether or not you agree with the policy, I don’t understand why people are shocked that Obama wants to ramp up Afghanistan. He campaigned on it, did he not? And the majority of Americans voted for him based on that campaign, did they not? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, I guess.[/quote]

Well put.
I am in support of the war in Afghanistan.
One can draw a line directly from that failed state to lots and lots of dead Americans.
There is a very compelling case that withdrawal could reconstitute that particular incubator.
However, there is also a compelling case to be made regarding expense and resource allocation.
We don’t need a functioning republican democracy to keep disruptive pressure on the important resistance groups. But again, see how well that worked last time. My point being that it is pretty easy to drop the ball using the strategy of surgical disruption.

But still, when do you decide too many resources have been allocated?

I don’t know what formula is adequate to evaluate that.

[urbanrealtor]

I happen to know more about this deal than most.
My seller was briefly in escrow with this buyer.
It is pretty unlikely that the buyer was pulling anything weird.
I also know the agent personally.
I consider it highly unlikely that any of the players in this deal are up to shenanigans.
Often there are factors that are not obvious on public lookup sites that play a part.

For example, Lending:
A cash buyer (the most desirable buyer) on a beate up short sale (the least desirable seller) can often work magic on lowering the price. The reverse can also be true.

To be more specific, you should contact the buyer’s agent.

[urbanrealtor]

I happen to know more about this deal than most.
My seller was briefly in escrow with this buyer.
It is pretty unlikely that the buyer was pulling anything weird.
I also know the agent personally.
I consider it highly unlikely that any of the players in this deal are up to shenanigans.
Often there are factors that are not obvious on public lookup sites that play a part.

For example, Lending:
A cash buyer (the most desirable buyer) on a beate up short sale (the least desirable seller) can often work magic on lowering the price. The reverse can also be true.

To be more specific, you should contact the buyer’s agent.

[urbanrealtor]

I happen to know more about this deal than most.
My seller was briefly in escrow with this buyer.
It is pretty unlikely that the buyer was pulling anything weird.
I also know the agent personally.
I consider it highly unlikely that any of the players in this deal are up to shenanigans.
Often there are factors that are not obvious on public lookup sites that play a part.

For example, Lending:
A cash buyer (the most desirable buyer) on a beate up short sale (the least desirable seller) can often work magic on lowering the price. The reverse can also be true.

To be more specific, you should contact the buyer’s agent.

[urbanrealtor]

I happen to know more about this deal than most.
My seller was briefly in escrow with this buyer.
It is pretty unlikely that the buyer was pulling anything weird.
I also know the agent personally.
I consider it highly unlikely that any of the players in this deal are up to shenanigans.
Often there are factors that are not obvious on public lookup sites that play a part.

For example, Lending:
A cash buyer (the most desirable buyer) on a beate up short sale (the least desirable seller) can often work magic on lowering the price. The reverse can also be true.

To be more specific, you should contact the buyer’s agent.

[urbanrealtor]

I happen to know more about this deal than most.
My seller was briefly in escrow with this buyer.
It is pretty unlikely that the buyer was pulling anything weird.
I also know the agent personally.
I consider it highly unlikely that any of the players in this deal are up to shenanigans.
Often there are factors that are not obvious on public lookup sites that play a part.

For example, Lending:
A cash buyer (the most desirable buyer) on a beate up short sale (the least desirable seller) can often work magic on lowering the price. The reverse can also be true.

To be more specific, you should contact the buyer’s agent.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ucodegen]

What he has done – really nothing (voted present most of the time while in the senate)

That is factually incorrect, and a distortion of the facts.

Here is Obama’s voting record.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/

Surprising number of not-votings.. though there is a surprising correlation. Before 2007, and including some of 2007, Obama voted more consistently. 2008 has many ‘Not-Voting’s. So lets see.. his record starts with 2005-2006 voting consistently, started consistently through first quarter 2007.. but then mostly ‘Non-Voting’ from start of 2Q 2007 through and including 2008. That comes to 2.25yrs worth of real voting and 1.75yrs worth of mostly ‘Not-Voting’..[/quote]

Its almost as if something else were occupying his time in late 2007 through 2008.

Wacky.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ucodegen]

What he has done – really nothing (voted present most of the time while in the senate)

That is factually incorrect, and a distortion of the facts.

Here is Obama’s voting record.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/

Surprising number of not-votings.. though there is a surprising correlation. Before 2007, and including some of 2007, Obama voted more consistently. 2008 has many ‘Not-Voting’s. So lets see.. his record starts with 2005-2006 voting consistently, started consistently through first quarter 2007.. but then mostly ‘Non-Voting’ from start of 2Q 2007 through and including 2008. That comes to 2.25yrs worth of real voting and 1.75yrs worth of mostly ‘Not-Voting’..[/quote]

Its almost as if something else were occupying his time in late 2007 through 2008.

Wacky.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ucodegen]

What he has done – really nothing (voted present most of the time while in the senate)

That is factually incorrect, and a distortion of the facts.

Here is Obama’s voting record.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/

Surprising number of not-votings.. though there is a surprising correlation. Before 2007, and including some of 2007, Obama voted more consistently. 2008 has many ‘Not-Voting’s. So lets see.. his record starts with 2005-2006 voting consistently, started consistently through first quarter 2007.. but then mostly ‘Non-Voting’ from start of 2Q 2007 through and including 2008. That comes to 2.25yrs worth of real voting and 1.75yrs worth of mostly ‘Not-Voting’..[/quote]

Its almost as if something else were occupying his time in late 2007 through 2008.

Wacky.

[Author]

Posts