ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I'm not mad. I just find it humorous that the same people who jumped up and down and stomped their feet over Iraq when Bush was in power are now quietly sitting in the corner saying nothing. Or even better, claiming that what Obama is doing is some how different than what Bush was doing.
The analogy is flawed because the situation in Iraq is worse than Vietnam. When South Vietnam fell, the consequences were largely restricted to the region. They were awful ? as the toll of communism culled hundreds of thousands in Cambodia and Vietnam. But they ended at the ocean.
In Iraq the consequences of American withdrawal could be a full-scale civil war, widespread ethnic cleansing, and the involvement of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and even Egypt in a potentially catastrophic Sunni-Shi?ite conflagration. Add to that the possibility of Turkey intervening in Kurdistan and you could have the region with a chokehold on the world?s energy supplies turning into a corpse-ridden, Balkan desert.
Let's not forget the Iraqi civilian casualties mount to something like 3,500 a month. We can argue about numbers but it remains indisputable that the number of deaths in Iraq is now surpassing the murderous levels of the previous dictatorship.
Btw, if you think it's looking like a military victory in Iraq, you REALLY need to read Ricks' book.
Nothing humorous about it. Both sides do the same thing, and like I said it's just politics.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Dude... everything you posted about Iraq is from 2 years ago.
Get with the times.
link so far this year the civilian death toll is in the 100-200 per month rate, not paradise, but certainly not 3500 a month, not even close.
The chances of a civil war are becoming increasingly remote and there is a trend emerging where the people are startling to look at themselves less as Shia/Sunni and more as Iraqi.
Get with the times.
link so far this year the civilian death toll is in the 100-200 per month rate, not paradise, but certainly not 3500 a month, not even close.
The chances of a civil war are becoming increasingly remote and there is a trend emerging where the people are startling to look at themselves less as Shia/Sunni and more as Iraqi.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
It's strange to me how you can see the problem plaguing today's Republicans, and yet not see it. I think the disconnect is that you somehow see yourself as outside of what's going on, instead of being a part of it.
Let me try to explain in simple terms (and hopefully I'll proofread this post first too!
). Bush was your guy, and you pretty much blindly defended him no matter what he did. When Obama came upon the scene, the Pubs attacked him as far left Northern liberal. Commie and marxist were frequently used, and even McCain used the "S" word. But now, as it becomes more and more apparent that Obama is a moderate (as I always predicted), your tactic is to attack him for not being left enough. For being too much like Bush. Now, your logic here is easy enough to see, you're trying to disenchant the far left who believed that Obama was one of them. Your problem, however, is that to moderates you just appear ridiculously disingenuous. Think of it this way, if Obama happens to support some aspects of Republican ideology/policy, what basis do you have for opposing him for doing that (as you're doing here) expect for blind partisanship?
- Jul 19, 2001
- 38,572
- 2
- 91
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.../ftn/main4275864.shtml - Dated July 20, 2008
http://www.politifact.com/trut...s-iraq-flip-flop-nope/ - Dated July 10th, 2008
From the same source:
Care for me to keep going or would you rather continue spreading lies?
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Obama is NOT a moderate. Look at his social and domestic agenda.
And my point is this:
For years the people in the left have attacked Bush for Iraq, Afghanistan and virtually everything else that has to do with the war on terror. But now Obama is in charge and instead of throwing all of Bush's ideas to the side and coming up with his own ideas he is instead continuing most of Bush's policies. And the left is not saying much about it at all.
A year ago if Bush had floated the idea of leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely the left would have howled in protest, the same way they did when McCain made the 100 years comment, but now that Obama is pushing that idea all of a sudden the idea makes sense.
BTW the idea that anyone 'blindly defended Bush' is a joke. There are TONS of issues in which conservatives such as myself disagreed with Bush. About the only place we really agreed with him was on taxes and the war on terror.
And my point is this:
For years the people in the left have attacked Bush for Iraq, Afghanistan and virtually everything else that has to do with the war on terror. But now Obama is in charge and instead of throwing all of Bush's ideas to the side and coming up with his own ideas he is instead continuing most of Bush's policies. And the left is not saying much about it at all.
A year ago if Bush had floated the idea of leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely the left would have howled in protest, the same way they did when McCain made the 100 years comment, but now that Obama is pushing that idea all of a sudden the idea makes sense.
BTW the idea that anyone 'blindly defended Bush' is a joke. There are TONS of issues in which conservatives such as myself disagreed with Bush. About the only place we really agreed with him was on taxes and the war on terror.
1. If we're talking about the present, then why did you bother bringing up Vietnam?
2. Read Ricks' book.
I find this funny because:
1. His tax cuts which were not mirrored by spending cuts, which helped create the huge debt we're in now.
2. His war on terror involved attacking a country that was not involved in 9/11 and did not pose a threat to us.
I'd hate to see what you actually agreed with him on
- Jul 19, 2001
- 38,572
- 2
- 91
Does it really matter when his end goal is still the same? As his site notes "The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government."
Come back in 18 months and complain if its not done by then.
He has already defaulted on the first part of the promise. You wanna wait till 18 months is up to call him on it? Fine, thats ok, but when he doesn't deliver you will have no reason to be surprised.
- Jul 19, 2001
- 38,572
- 2
- 91
And why would I need to do that? Your original claim was "And why does it seem like the Democrats started the "withdrawing responsibly" mantra only after they took over the White House??", the quotes I provided proved your point patently incorrect.
Asking me for an additional quote is just your way of glossing over the fact that you were wrong.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,839
- 2,625
- 136
So, if I understand it correctly, OC, PJ and all the rest of you neoconservatives would be more thrilled if Obama said under the principles of small government we can no longer afford Iraq and Afganistan and decided not to fund them?
There is an amazing knee-jerk reaction to scream no, no, no to EVERYTHING Obama does on your part, even when nearly all of it is necessary to clean up the messes you clowns left. Disgusting, illogical sanctimonious claptrap.
There is an amazing knee-jerk reaction to scream no, no, no to EVERYTHING Obama does on your part, even when nearly all of it is necessary to clean up the messes you clowns left. Disgusting, illogical sanctimonious claptrap.
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 143
- 106
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Obama's strategy change is for the better. Secrecy is the new rule. They have learned from the mistakes of the Bush administration, that all of the things that are necessary for a victory must be kept from the public eye. That is why Obama is preaching his so-called transparent government. It is to pacify the public's need to know. The intent is to make us believe we are getting the whole truth, when in fact, we are getting far, far less. It's brilliant really, and it makes me proud to know that I voted for him.
Yes, let's just totally expose still classified NSA procedural information in the name of "transparency". Let's fully disclose which Americans have been investigated for having terr0rist ties because goshdarnit, we demand change. Were you dropped on your fcking head as a child?
There you go again, injecting facts into the make believe world view of knee jerk GOP dramatists.
Are you F'ing kidding me? Man, you wingnuts are dense these days ... me thinks on purpose. Here's how Obama's strategy is different:
1.) Withdraw as quickly and responsibly from Iraq as possible.
2.) Ramp up Afghanistan which was left to deteriorate while we fought an unnecessary war in Iraq.
3.) Re-integrate the war costs back into the budget ASAP. Meaning next FY.
There are tons of differences all over the place, you're just being willfully ignorant.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter