RE: Neocons should love this (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Owner59 -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/1/2012 9:52:36 PM)

Iraq took longer because it took longer.WTF do you want?Done quicker but less safely or with less stability?

I don`t recall the president saying we were going to be out of Afghanistan in two years.You`re going to have to back that up.Links please.

Ok.

What part of DADT would you bring back?


WTF cares if they`re in Cuba or in the states? I don`t.


It`s a global economy .I know,it sucks at times but there`s no get`n out now.


He`s also kept a hostile congress from fucking w/ SS or the safety net.


He`s making a good faith effort at the border and with stopping/deporting illegals.


He got bin-laden and a string of other terrorists who were planning to attack us.How many further attacks were killed in the womb by this pro-active effort?


He`s completely isolated Iran down to just a few friends.No president in recent history has been able to pull off a diplomatic success like that.The cons would just go belligerent and watch the fireworks from afar and ignore the funerals.


Hey look.I get that there`s folks to President Obama`s left that are pissed at him for not being left wing enough.


He`s like the middle bear.Not to soft,not to hard,not to hot,not to cold.

IMO,he`s just right.[:D]






tazzygirl -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/1/2012 9:57:20 PM)

He didnt promise complete withdrawal in 18 months from Iraq either.




Owner59 -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/1/2012 10:00:35 PM)

Damm facts!![sm=rantint.gif]


You are our own private factinista....[;)]




MrRodgers -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/1/2012 10:02:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

He campaigned on getting out of both wars and Afghan in 24 mos.


Not according to Politico

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/02/mitt-romney/romney-claims-obamas-actions-iraq-afghanistan-and-/



Oct 7 2007 promised the FIRST thing he would do as pres. was to get us out of Iraq. He failed miserably. I admit I cannot find where he promised specifically to get us out of Afghan. but the surge was not in any of his election options, rather a draw down.

In Iraq it later became 14 mos., then 24 months which became about 36 months.

We still have essentially the 'security' military and foreign policies of neocons as well as domestic surveillance and now arrest...have actually gotten worse.

Drone attacks from a death-list number now in the 1000's.

He's playing ball because he too...wants to stay alive.

Oh and for the bankers, a few prosecutions change nothing. He has not reformed banking at all...it's window dressing on what will be another bailout in the future. We still have Freddie and Fanny when now would be the time to close them down.

Let a truly regulated marketplace price lending on houses and remove the govt. mortgage loan warehouses go. No more guarantees.




tazzygirl -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/1/2012 10:11:10 PM)

You didnt read the politico piece.

For example, in a July 17, 2007, interview with USA Today, Obama said, "Here's my view on the situation. There are two indisputable facts, and then there's a choice. Fact No. 1: The surge is not working. It has not changed the dynamics on the ground. It has put more U.S. troops at risk. It has not strengthened the Iraqi government. It has not quelled the antagonism between the various factions, and it has not lessened the strength of the insurgency."

But Obama never said he would immediately pull all of the U.S. troops out of Iraq. To the contrary, Obama said in that very same interview that he would withdraw troops "in a gradual fashion."

As for how quickly the troops should leave, Obama's campaign Web site said: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, for example, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed."

Obama also stressed repeatedly that he would strongly consider the recommendations of his commanders on the ground before removing any troops.

So that was Obama's position in the campaign. Now, what has he done as president?

As it turns out, the drawdown of troops actually began before Obama took office. President George W. Bush began to reduce troop levels in June 2008, a full six months before Obama was sworn in.

But Obama has continued on that path of reducing troop levels. When Obama took office, the troop level in Iraq was about 137,000. It has steadily declined to its current level of 96,000, said Maj. Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the Department of Defense.

In a formal announcement of a new Iraq strategy at Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base in North Carolina, on Feb. 27, 2009, Obama said the United States will remove all combat troops from Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010. Obama said he planned to keep 35,000 to 50,000 military personnel in Iraq through 2011 for the purpose of "training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain nonsectarian; conducting targeted counterterrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq."

Not only is the plan to remove combat troops on schedule, it's actually ahead of schedule, U.S. Gen. Ray Odierno said at a Pentagon press conference on Feb. 22, 2010.




The interview...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-17-obama-interview_N.htm

"Defining the mission for the military. This president has failed to define an achievable mission. It is now up to Congress to define a mission. So as I said in these meetings (in Iowa), my first task if I were commander in chief would be to call the Joint Chiefs together and not tell them how to do their job, but I would tell them your job is to begin a phased deployment. Because the mission I'm defining is one in which we are withdrawing in a gradual fashion, that we are helping to train Iraqi forces and that we're going to initiate diplomacy as a more important tool at this point than the surge in order to achieve our goals"




tazzygirl -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/1/2012 10:31:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Damm facts!![sm=rantint.gif]


You are our own private factinista....[;)]


Facts are facts, Babe. [;)]

There is enough to slam Obama about. This isnt one of them.




Politesub53 -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 4:20:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA




My "link" was to view the video... did you really need the disclaimer, "Lefty idiots distort Santorum's words in page title"?!! [8|]

quote:



What, in your own words, do you think "Degrade those facilities through airstikes" actually means?



What, in your own words, do YOU think, ""We don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran." (ala Barack Obama) means?!!  Here, let me help you out, since you couldn't figure it out on your own... it means the O'Blunder would BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF IRAN AS WELL, if need be (Hint:  The same as Santorum).

I know you've always needed a bit of help with some of the simplest things (i.e., logic), so I'll make it easier for you... here we go:

1)  The OP implied Santorum would go directly to the military option.

2)  The video provided (i.e., Santorum in his own words) proves this is FALSE (Hint:  "5 Point Plan")

There, got it now?!!  Can't spell this out any simpler for you. [8|]




Yet there is one simple fact, clear for all to see. Santorum did say he would bomb Iran despite your B/s posted above.

It is clear to see you are backtracking from what you actually claimed, which was:

"As an aside, I watched the video on the page you'd linked to, but there was no clip of Santorum stating what's being reported?!!" << These are your exact words, so before you start patronising peopleabout making things simple, you need to check what YOU wrote.

Your own video clearly shows him saying that, despite your obsfucation regards other options. The Op doesnt imply anything other than Santorum would go to war.

Edited to fix quotes.




NeedToUseYou -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 4:34:45 AM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M here's obama's statements on withdrawal from Iraq.





thishereboi -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 4:58:12 AM)

quote:

He didnt bomb Iraq, he used cruise missiles.


I doubt that matters to anyone those missiles hit.




Sanity -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 9:05:34 AM)


Its great obfuscation though

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

He didnt bomb Iraq, he used cruise missiles.


I doubt that matters to anyone those missiles hit.



What made the OP comical is that Ron Paul is well to the left of the hated neocon Obama on Iran...

Paul would essentially allow Islamafascists of any stripe to enslave as many nations as they are able to muster the wherewithal to conquer, use any weapons said Islamafascists can get their hands on in any manner

So among the Republicans there is a choice in other words, nothing wrong with giving the people a choice. And as a bonus, they probably mean what they say for the most part... as opposed to Mr say-one-thing-and-do-another

Mr Peace-Prize-for-drone-assassinations

Mr Imprison-Americans-in-Gitmo










Hillwilliam -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 10:11:59 AM)

Psssst Sanity. Ron Paul is a Republican. That means he's one of yours like it or not.

ETA I agree with you that he isn't suitable for presidential office.

Unfortunately, none of the announced candidates are.




Sanity -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 10:48:07 AM)


Psst

Which is why I wrote the following line in my post in direct reference what I wrote about Ron Paul:

quote:

So among the Republicans there is a choice...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Psssst Sanity. Ron Paul is a Republican.




kdsub -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 10:50:18 AM)

I just don’t understand how the Republican party thinks the Republican candidates running in Iowa will have the backing of middle America against Obama. They are missing a great chance to make a difference in history by tying their apron strings to fanatics.

That said…On the issue of Iran only…it is refreshing to have someone come out with a clear demanding aggressive policy. I believe this is the only way to stop a bigger war and crisis in the years to come.

Iran will not voluntarily stop nuclear weapon production and beating around the bush, as the western world and the UN are doing, will just push off the needed inevitable action. If Iran is able to equip its delivery system with nuclear weapons they will use them if attacked.

Sooo…I say give them a clear open ultimatum and follow through if not followed…Or shut up…get used to a nuclear equipped Iran with a strangle hold over the whole middle east.

Butch




Hillwilliam -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 10:59:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Psst

Which is why I wrote the following line in my post in direct reference what I wrote about Ron Paul:

quote:

So among the Republicans there is a choice...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Psssst Sanity. Ron Paul is a Republican.


I'll let ya in on a deep dark secret. Just because you say something isn't so doesn't make it untrue. The RNC accepts his "Republicanness" (if that wasn't a word, it is now) or he wouldn't be sitting in congress with an (R) after his name and he wouldn't be allowed to run for their nomination.




popeye1250 -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 11:00:36 AM)

Look at all the other countries that have nukes, India, China, England, Japan.....
Shouldn't we be bombing them too?
If we're not "the world's police" then this shouldn't be a concern.




kdsub -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 11:10:01 AM)

Popeye I usually agree with your “ we are not the world police” but if enough countries…especially those that are not governed by reasonable minds…become nuclear armed eventually there will be billions of deaths in a nuclear conflagration. We will be forced into this nuclear war whether we want to be in it or not.

I look at it this way… We either demand world nuclear disarmament through the UN…my preferred method…or we control the further spread of weapons period. Not doing either or both will assure a nuclear war in the near future.

In all other things except nuclear weapons I am for minding our own business…but a nuclear war will affect us all even if we try to stay out of it.

Butch




Lucylastic -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 11:24:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Psst

Which is why I wrote the following line in my post in direct reference what I wrote about Ron Paul:

quote:

So among the Republicans there is a choice...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Psssst Sanity. Ron Paul is a Republican.


I'll let ya in on a deep dark secret. Just because you say something isn't so doesn't make it untrue. The RNC accepts his "Republicanness" (if that wasn't a word, it is now) or he wouldn't be sitting in congress with an (R) after his name and he wouldn't be allowed to run for their nomination.

Ron paul is as liberal as I am spanish




tazzygirl -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 11:25:37 AM)

quote:

I just don’t understand how the Republican party thinks the Republican candidates running in Iowa will have the backing of middle America against Obama. They are missing a great chance to make a difference in history by tying their apron strings to fanatics.


Im not the only liberal here who has said they were waiting for the GOP to put some up against Obama worth taking seriously. They have not. The closest is Romney, and that is worrisome.




kdsub -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 11:39:29 AM)

Too bad Bob Dole is so damn old... or they could have gotten Bobby Jindal to run...then maybe they could beat Obama...but even then I would give them a slim chance. The Republican party has lost its true base by following the Karl Rove style of politics…in my opinion.

Butch




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Neocons should love this (1/2/2012 1:43:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53



I know logic keeps escaping you, so do try to follow along this time (the underlines might help)...

1)  The OP implied Santorum would go directly to the military option.

2)  The video provided (i.e., Santorum in his own words) proves this is FALSE (Hint:  "5 Point Plan")

3)  O'Fuckup stating, "We don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran." is the EXACT SAME THING Santorum is stating.

There, got it now?!!  Can't keep spelling this out any simpler for you. [8|]





Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125