Originally posted by: Skoorb
Heh, I'm the same way. Bush could tell me that 2+2=4 and I have to be honest I would not believe it. I think his incompetence is thorough and permeates almost every fabric of his being and his statements and outlooks on the world.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I will admit that in this matter I am a partisan bigot. I find Obama to be bright and articulate and grounded is a solid morality. I see, thanks to overwhelmingly abundant proof in every direction, that George Bush is a freaking disaster. I have no doubt whatsoever that a Bush invasion of Pakistan would be a total disaster and an Obama move there would make good since and might work. I have become a totally convinced bigot that Bush is a catastrophe and I consider those not to have my bigotry to be quite insane.
Anyway, I'm all about some limited focused incurssions into Pakistan with the blessing of their government. If they say no, then you don't go unless it's clear that somebody like bin laden is literally on your satellite feed this very minute and you can proove it, in which case screw whatever they say.
TI guess your too dense to realize that when I posted you had no link. ext
I agree. Heartsurgeon, it would be my guess, would favor Obama's position and is, again in my opinion having some fun poking lefty pacifists in the eye with such a warmongering position from a lefty favored Democrat. So try to be a bit nicer, please. He does have feelings even if some of them are malicious.
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan....-snip-.Originally posted by: jrenz
If Bush proposed this exact thing tomorrow, this board would be up in arms calling him an irresponsible idiot.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!
:roll:
See this thread
And this thread
I won't bother quoting posters' remarks about how crazy the "neocons" were for developing plans to do what you are praising Obama for now proposing.
Fern
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan....-snip-.Originally posted by: jrenz
If Bush proposed this exact thing tomorrow, this board would be up in arms calling him an irresponsible idiot.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!
:roll:
See this thread
And this thread
I won't bother quoting posters' remarks about how crazy the "neocons" were for developing plans to do what you are praising Obama for now proposing.
Fern
Watch for some quick edits on posts in those threads with today's date.
Bowfinger - Invading a nation where terrorists were not (i.e., had no material presence) was reckless, wrong, and counter-productive.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.
Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.
You just revised history in that statement. Got a problem facing the facts and truth about your heroes?
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.
Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.
You just revised history in that statement. Got a problem facing the facts and truth about your heroes?
No one voted to go into Iraq.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.
Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.
You just revised history in that statement. Got a problem facing the facts and truth about your heroes?
No one voted to go into Iraq.
There would be no war in Iraq if not for Democratic support of that war. You can deny it all you want, the record stands for recorded history.
As for the sudden appearance of Demo-Hawks, just read this thread. There are plenty of leaves blowing in the wind at their master's new whim.
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
TI guess your too dense to realize that when I posted you had no link. ext
i wasn't commenting on the link...
i was commenting on the "out of context partisan bs" statement.
as forI agree. Heartsurgeon, it would be my guess, would favor Obama's position and is, again in my opinion having some fun poking lefty pacifists in the eye with such a warmongering position from a lefty favored Democrat. So try to be a bit nicer, please. He does have feelings even if some of them are malicious.
Moonie, actually, i don't have enough information, either about Pakistan, or Obama's actual position, to really know what to make of it. The Pakistan situation is very complicated. I would on the whole state that we as a country have a very diverse point of view about most things, and unless the populace as a whole supports such a major military undertaking, that it will not go well. I believe as a nation we cannot be defeated militarily, but we can be defeated politically. Obama (or anyone that went into Pakistan) would have to get popular support for that position, and the die hard leftie Defeatocrat anti-war crowd would get down on him immediately....
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To a certain extent Obama adds some new ideas to the ways to fight terrorists, but give heartsurgeon his due, I for one think Obama is doing some ill thought out shooting off of his mouth. Its one thing to pressure Pakistan for permission to operate troops on their soil and another thing to do so over their objections with Obama pushing very hard to get on the wrong side of the line.
But its very early yet and all candidates will make many "I am a uniter not a divider" type promises. And at least in the case of GWB&co., we need to realize that many of these campaign statements will become so much realized hot air if the person gets elected. And if heartsurgeon just keeps up his forum trolling, we are likely to start a long running thread on GWB statements to balance the ledger.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think anyone who would even consider invading Pakistan is totally out of their mind
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Watch for some quick edits on posts in those threads with today's date.
Expecting the dems here to steal a play from the republican playbook?
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Heh, I'm the same way. Bush could tell me that 2+2=4 and I have to be honest I would not believe it. I think his incompetence is thorough and permeates almost every fabric of his being and his statements and outlooks on the world.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I will admit that in this matter I am a partisan bigot. I find Obama to be bright and articulate and grounded is a solid morality. I see, thanks to overwhelmingly abundant proof in every direction, that George Bush is a freaking disaster. I have no doubt whatsoever that a Bush invasion of Pakistan would be a total disaster and an Obama move there would make good since and might work. I have become a totally convinced bigot that Bush is a catastrophe and I consider those not to have my bigotry to be quite insane.
Anyway, I'm all about some limited focused incurssions into Pakistan with the blessing of their government. If they say no, then you don't go unless it's clear that somebody like bin laden is literally on your satellite feed this very minute and you can proove it, in which case screw whatever they say.
Go play. Your childish diversions are neither interesting nor original. All the grown-ups know what I'm referring to.Originally posted by: Jaskalas
So there are no terrorist in Iraq? You apparently don't watch the news, or listen to the Dems who truthfully blame our invasion of Iraq for the current state of terrorism in Iraq.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!
:roll:
Carry on then, listening to yourself and your delusions.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Obama only has one thing going for him, he wasn't in office to vote to go to Iraq.
Yeah and thankfully revisionist history does not trump facts. No one voted to go to Iraq.
You just revised history in that statement. Got a problem facing the facts and truth about your heroes?
No one voted to go into Iraq.
There would be no war in Iraq if not for Democratic support of that war. You can deny it all you want, the record stands for recorded history.
As for the sudden appearance of Demo-Hawks, just read this thread. There are plenty of leaves blowing in the wind at their master's new whim.
Unsurprisingly, you didn't address what I said. You're also continuing to be willfully dishonest by claiming Obama suggested "invading" Pakistan. Your bogus definition was contrived to give you a club to attack him. It bears no resemblance to the accepted meaning of the word. Finally, I'll note you haven't attempted to back up your slur against me personally, insinuating my position is somehow partisan or hypocritical. Can we safely assume that's because you tried and found you are full of it?Originally posted by: Genx87
What an original reply of "I know you are but what am I". So when do we start playing the Im rubber you are glue game?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan, incapable of separating perfectly valid criticisms of Bush's many failures and fsck-ups from criticism that is purely partisan. Most people here did NOT criticize Bush for going into Afghanistan. Indeed, many of us criticized him for dropping the ball in Afghanistan by diverting into Iraq. Many of us would support more action in Pakistan for the same reasons.Originally posted by: Genx87
I think what we are seeing here is the classic partisan hackery these debates have fallen into. If Bush proposed invading a nuclear state with troops you'd be all over him as a moron for invading a soviergn nation who has nuclear capability and it would rile up the islamists.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I already answered this. It is quite interesting that we may finally get a leader who actually does something to reduce terrorism instead of actively working to inflame it.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What's interesting about it? ...
There was one such thread a couple of weeks ago about special forces teams ready to invade Pakistan territory but called off at the last moment. If I had the care, I would dig it up and see what your reaction to that was.
Pursuing terrorists where they are makes sense (at least when done in a rational and competent manner). Invading a nation where terrorists were not (i.e., had no material presence) was reckless, wrong, and counter-productive. You may not be able to distinguish between the two, but many of us are not so blinded by partisanship.
PS. Obama didn't say anything about invading Pakistan. That's a red herring. And feel free to knock yourself out digging up my reaction in that other thread. I'm confident that if I posted in it at all, my position will be consistent with what I've said here. I said some two or three years ago that we needed to be more aggressive with Pakistan, but was immediately attacked by the YABAs for being stupid to even suggest such a thing. I am human, of course, so if I contradicted myself, call me on it.
Anyways back on topic, putting troops into a soveirgn nation appears to be ok when a liberal proposes it, but bad when a republican does. Putting troops into a foreign country is an invasion even if it isnt an occupation.
And for the record I dont have a problem with us doing special ops invasions if the host country is unwilling to take action. What my problem is the sudden support for invading countries from the left when their man says it is time to go. It is even more amusing when said nation is a nuclear power.
That's good, because I don't think you'll find such comments with perhaps one or two exceptions. Did you actually read the threads? I just read did, and they generally support my point, that jrenz and Genx87 are both mistaken when they insist responses here are due to "partisan hackery". The only person I saw who was adamantly opposed to the Bush "plan" was Lemon law. If one takes off one's partisan blinders, you may notice Lemon law's position is consistent in both threads: it's a bad idea. That was his position when the idea was associated with Bush; it is also his position in this thread. I saw other Bush-bashing comments, but they were not focused on possible actions in Pakistan, but rather on all the stuff BushCo has already screwed up.Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan....-snip-.Originally posted by: jrenz
If Bush proposed this exact thing tomorrow, this board would be up in arms calling him an irresponsible idiot.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That is interesting. Imagine, sending our anti-terrorism forces to where the terrorists are instead of where they are not. What a revolutionary idea!
:roll:
See this thread
And this thread
I won't bother quoting posters' remarks about how crazy the "neocons" were for developing plans to do what you are praising Obama for now proposing.
Fern
Why? Who, specifically, has any reason to edit their earlier posts? Innuendo is easy, but I'll make the same suggestion to you that I made to Fern. Find those quotes from people taking inconsistent positions. If you can't find them, perhaps it's time to recognize that your own partisan assumptions are tainting your view of your "opponents" here.Originally posted by: BoberFett
Watch for some quick edits on posts in those threads with today's date.Originally posted by: Fern
See this threadOriginally posted by: Bowfinger
You believe that only because you are a die-hard partisan....-snip-.
And this thread
I won't bother quoting posters' remarks about how crazy the "neocons" were for developing plans to do what you are praising Obama for now proposing.
Fern
What's so funny?Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To a certain extent Obama adds some new ideas to the ways to fight terrorists, but give heartsurgeon his due, I for one think Obama is doing some ill thought out shooting off of his mouth. Its one thing to pressure Pakistan for permission to operate troops on their soil and another thing to do so over their objections with Obama pushing very hard to get on the wrong side of the line.
But its very early yet and all candidates will make many "I am a uniter not a divider" type promises. And at least in the case of GWB&co., we need to realize that many of these campaign statements will become so much realized hot air if the person gets elected. And if heartsurgeon just keeps up his forum trolling, we are likely to start a long running thread on GWB statements to balance the ledger.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think anyone who would even consider invading Pakistan is totally out of their mind
lol
The fact that Lemon Law indirectly stated that he thinks Obama is out of his mind. His choice of words in each of the threads is also humorous. It makes one chuckle a bit given Lemon's political leanings...Originally posted by: Bowfinger
What's so funny?Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To a certain extent Obama adds some new ideas to the ways to fight terrorists, but give heartsurgeon his due, I for one think Obama is doing some ill thought out shooting off of his mouth. Its one thing to pressure Pakistan for permission to operate troops on their soil and another thing to do so over their objections with Obama pushing very hard to get on the wrong side of the line.
But its very early yet and all candidates will make many "I am a uniter not a divider" type promises. And at least in the case of GWB&co., we need to realize that many of these campaign statements will become so much realized hot air if the person gets elected. And if heartsurgeon just keeps up his forum trolling, we are likely to start a long running thread on GWB statements to balance the ledger.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think anyone who would even consider invading Pakistan is totally out of their mind
lol