Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by irvin88, Jun 6, 2008.
If we're going down this road:
Obama is inexperienced and over-anbitious, we don't need a website to tell us that
No but we desperately need more members to come in and do fly by posting of half truths and political spins from emails.
Oops..never mind I think we have our poster boy for that. :laugh2:
Oh and in case we wanted another:
I love me some slanted coverage.
Like I said, I won't be voting for him because he has slighty more political experience than I do and he thinks he can change the world all by himself. I really couldnt care less what half-baked theories about him being a Muslim or a closet terrorist pop up.
This election for me is like the south park episode where they have to choose between a ****** and a turd sandwich. The only reason I'm voting for McCain is because he has a vast amount of experiance and isnt a borderline marxist.
I don't care who the heck you vote for.
I was talking about the original poster only coming in to do some drive by tripe, half the time some far baked political lies, and then moving on.
And again, I don't care who you vote for, I doubt you would vote for some people no matter anyways.
Unfortunatly, I barely care who i vote for this year
That is the current state of American politics
when someone calls b.hussien obama a socialist marxist its not an attack on him.its the truth.
Does the Democratic Party really need to fund two seperate websites for this?It seems like a waste of money.
With so much on the line, in the middle east, here is his stance
Yeah he's the right man for office, of course he'll end up giving credit to the Iranians, like Pelosi,
"And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians."
Democrats a party, where the leadership is nothing but a group of defeatists,
The sad truth isn't.
In the media, Obama repeatedly predicted that the surge would fail. The day the president announced the new policy, Obama told Larry King he "did not see anything" in the president's surge that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence." The same day, he said on MSNBC,
I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal.... I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he's wrong.
Four days later, Obama told Face the Nation, "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality--we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."
There were three things that changed Iraq IMO.
It was not the surge itself.
It was getting that nipplehead Rumsfeld out of the office as he was an incompetent.
It was putting Petraus in charge (not as SOD).
The Iraqi's themselves decided to stand up with their forces, their government started taking things a little more serious and such that things started getting better.
I have said from the get go. It is not sending extra troops over there that will make or break Iraq. It will be the Iraqis. I am happy as a clam that they are finally doing their end of the job. I was getting darn tired of our men and women dieing while the iraqi government and troops had their heads up their butts.
So if we would have kept rummy, if we would not have put Patreus in charge and if the Iraqi's did not start doing some things. We could have sent a 100K more soldiers over there and it still probably would not have done much. And that is NOT the fault of the US Soldiers, it would have been the fault of the leadership and lack of leadership of the Iraqis.
Sounds good to me.
Concur on Rumsfield, Petraeus has been Phenomenal, his leadership has made a drastic change to quote him "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen."
More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were "scraping" for intelligence information, they now have "information overload," the general said. "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough."
In intelligence work - the key to fighting irregular wars - commanders love excess.
And the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar Province, the general reports, "have had enough." Not only are the al Qaeda fighters causing civil disruption by fomenting sectarian violence and killing civilians, but on a more prosaic but practical side, al Qaeda is bad for business. "All of the sheiks up there are businessmen," Petraeus said. "They are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it."
A large hospital project - meant to be one of the largest in the Sunni Triangle - had been put on hold by terrorist attacks when al Qaeda had control of the area. Now it's back on track. So are similar infrastructure projects.
The sheiks have seen that the al Qaeda delivers only violence and misery. They are throwing their lot in with the new government - for example, encouraging their young men to join the Iraqi police force and army. (They are responding in droves.)
Yes the Iraqis are finally standing up for themselves, the Sunni's and now the Shi'ite's, now for the latest news Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki on Friday said religious awareness would end “terrorism” in Iraq, applauding the role of Iraq clerics in fostering Shiite-Sunni ties.
So I ask you with the progress being made do we cut and run? or do you buy in to McCain and believe it won't be much longer until we can leave with our heads held high
Our troops deserve nothing less for their sacrifaces, I would think you would concur on this.
I believe the Al-Qaeda tactics, have not only hurt them in Iraq, but globally
possibly leaving them isolated in Pakistan, where we can finish the job and finally get that Son of a Brick.