Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush!! It reminds me of that scene where John Malkovich went into his own head...
Here we go again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanhouse
You put your own post under this?
At least your honest with yourself.
It was hard to discuss Bush without mentioning his name. If I had left mine off, you would have gotten on my case about that. So I included it. I could have said "the previous president", I guess. I just quoted all of them, and didn't edit them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
It's just too bad she won't answer the question about voting for Obama again.
"She" went away for a while. "She" doesn't answer posts that act like "she's" not reading the thread, either.
Oz is the man. Rather than playing games, he actually is curious how Obama supporters rationalize their man's escalation of the war. Unfortunately, when questioned, these folks are deferring to generals and "experts" of the region or blaming others.
Well, I think Obama is more like Bush light, but yeah, I can't disagree with you here. This is one of the main reasons I couldn't vote for Obama was his foreign policy was little more than a continuation of Bush policies.
While during the campaign Obama worded much of his speech to keep the liberal wing in the fold, I knew better. Being someone opposed to the Iraq war since before it was waged and now in favor of leaving Afghanistan, I knew long before the election that neither was likely to happen under Obama.
For what it is worth, I think it will end up being the issue of our wars and occupations that makes the chances of Obama being a single term President more likely than even health care or spending. I wouldn't even be surprised if the liberal wing of the Democrat Party decides to run someone against Obama in 2012.
Tn, do you think there's a real possibility of Obama losing the primaries?
I don't like the title of this thread, and was going to ignore it, but then I couldn't help myself when I read the Telegraph article.
First, the article itself states that President Obama has not decided yet on how far to accede to the Department of Defense recommendations, which means he hasn't made a decision on the build-up of defense personnel in Afghanistan.
Second, the article actually only asserts a "substantial" increase in forces. The Telegraph article puts the number of American soldiers at roughly 65,000. I think they are only counting Americans serving under American authority, not the additional American soldiers who are serving under UN authority, because the figures I looked at last week put the number of American soldiers closer to 80,000. But that's just a disparity problem. The point is, that even if Obama decides to send 10,000 additional soldiers, which seems to be what the administration had in mind before the Department of Defense request for 30,000 to 40,000 additional troops, that number, 10,000 is a substantial increase in force no matter how you look at it.
What I'm saying, is that the Telegraph has couched the article in phrases and speculation that actually says nothing. The British are going to send a nominal number of additional men, nominal in comparison with the American troop presence. The British expect American troops to be bolstered by additional troops, in a substantial way. If Obama sends 10,000 troops (the number he seems to have originally been considering), the "substantial" adjective will hold up. If Obama decides to send 30,000 or 40,000 additional troops, in compliance with Department of Defense requests, the "substantial" adjective will hold up. The Telegraph article doesn't really tell you anything.
Tn, do you think there's a real possibility of Obama losing the primaries?
Oh heck, I don't even have a clue if the liberal Democrat's will primary against Obama, only that it wouldn't surprise me if they did. If I could predict this, I would be in Vegas placing a bet, then looking for property in the Andes Mountains.
Those anti-war liberals with high hopes of Obama ending our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are sadly mistaken. I understand their angst, but truth is they were used as a voting bloc, just as Christians are often used by the right as a voting bloc. In neither case will their views be addressed in any meaningful manner, but they do vote predictably and in number so they serve a useful political tool.
I have often pointed out the frequency of many on the anti-war left now rationalizing our foreign policy simply because of who is President. Saddens me to see it wasn't so much about being against the war as it is being against the party in office. I do the same when I see Republicans jump for joy over borrowing another couple of billion for wars and occupations while they whine and cry about health care. If you are against out of control spending, then be against out of control spending, but don't do it just because you don't like the guy in office or pretend otherwise.
I even posted a thread on this phenomena back in like April, "The great 180 in politics".
I was implying nationality of the recipient. But, you have a good point that the Norwegians are pretty dumb as well.
it should also be pointed out that they are extremely Liberal... like Obama.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
