Frankly, it is about time someone knocked that grin off that big nosed nut job in Iran. Anyone here like living with the threat of terrorism? They are the major source of funds for it right now. We can talk til we are blue in the face - but we can’t let those nuts get their hands on nukes.
I doubt Obama has the gonads to do it. What a disaster he would be. Although he does have the experience of being a “community organizer”. What a joke.
[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
15 of 18 Congressional Benchmarks reached. Al-Queda in Iraq history. Sounds like McCain showed the right judgement. Obama. Ried and Pelosi…not so much.
Kindly post the GAO report.
What is the date of the GAO report? This report, done by the US Embassy in IRAQ, was just presented to congress. No doubt Obama missed it, couldn’t even vote “present” on that one.
Do you think Al-Queda in Iraq is winning? Do you support AQ in Iraq for the obvious political reasons?
[/quote]
The date of the GAO report is one week prior to your article’s date. It’s a wee bit more independent and meaningful than the whitehouse’s meaningless embassy report (a proposed bill is progress which = satisfactory even if no actual achievement is ever reached)
So again kindly post the GAO.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The surge has not “failed” nor has it “succeeded.” It was meant to provide security in order for the Iraqi govt to step up to the plate and make some serious political compromises. Additional security has been achieved at great cost, but no significant compromises have been made. [/quote]
Thank you. Really is this so hard for wingnuts to comprehend?
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
Everything but provide political reconciliation, the goal of the surge. But I guess it helps to think of things in more of a preschool kind of way…where the surge was only meant to provide additional security with the result that they then stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.
In the real world the surge was a means for the troops to come home, by providing the space needed for political reconciliation, That obviously hasn’t happened, thus wingnuts and liars have to dramatically simplify the surge into just security gains, and oddly cheering the results of reducing violence down to the previous horrible levels of violence as opposed to the hellishly god-awful levels of violence pre-surge.
By focusing on “just security gains” wingnuts, freepers, and liars can then ignore the strain on the military, the distraction from Afghanistan, and lack of political reconciliation all predicted by the surge nay sayers.
Congrats. Another post with no useful information or any semblance of reason. Not even worth reading. i have leaned my lesson with you. Happy trails.
Happy trails - I love it. Hey, this guy 100 meters never ceases to amaze me with his ignorance - he delivers every single time like Alan Colmes.
You really are wasting your time with him though - he’s an idiot. His parents were probably idiots.
[/quote]
Another moron with a bias against reality.
Again the goal of the surge was not short term security gains.
It would be easy enough to google for yourself, but given your double digit IQ, this might be beyond your reach.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
Everything but provide political reconciliation, the goal of the surge. But I guess it helps to think of things in more of a preschool kind of way…where the surge was only meant to provide additional security with the result that they then stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.
In the real world the surge was a means for the troops to come home, by providing the space needed for political reconciliation, That obviously hasn’t happened, thus wingnuts and liars have to dramatically simplify the surge into just security gains, and oddly cheering the results of reducing violence down to the previous horrible levels of violence as opposed to the hellishly god-awful levels of violence pre-surge.
By focusing on “just security gains” wingnuts, freepers, and liars can then ignore the strain on the military, the distraction from Afghanistan, and lack of political reconciliation all predicted by the surge nay sayers.
Congrats. Another post with no useful information or any semblance of reason. Not even worth reading. i have leaned my lesson with you. Happy trails.[/quote]
Reality not often useful to republicans. Hard to maintain that cognitive dissonance.
Some time on this web sight when I disagree with some one, I feel I am disagreeing with my 7 year old Grand Daughter. You get an emotional response lacking any reason.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Frankly, it is about time someone knocked that grin off that big nosed nut job in Iran. Anyone here like living with the threat of terrorism? They are the major source of funds for it right now. We can talk til we are blue in the face - but we can’t let those nuts get their hands on nukes.
I doubt Obama has the gonads to do it. What a disaster he would be. Although he does have the experience of being a “community organizer”. What a joke.[/quote]
Yeah, it would be nice to get him out of power, but don’t kid yourself, the cost would be astronomical. I don’t really think Obama’s “gonads” have much to do with it though; America won’t be throwing the first punch, Israel will if it comes to it(as I’m sure you’re aware).
I don’t think anyone who has any idea of the power that Iran has would want a war between Iran and anyone. Unless they’re completely sadistic. No, everyone wants to get through this crisis without war, but Iran is certainly not making things easy. If they get too close to having a nuke, Israel will strike…and the middle east will completely erupt.
America’s role now is to do everything it can to prevent this from happening. Singing “bomb Iran” probably isn’t going to help matters. Leave that sort of joke to people who aren’t seeking to become commander and chief.
Iran needs to be confronted by a large coalition of nations speaking with the same voice. That voice MUST include Russia and China. This is why Obama’s foreign policy stance is better than McCain’s. McCain makes comments and suggest policies that will purposefully ostracize both Russia and China at a time when the world is facing incredible threats.
It is in the interests of everyone in the world to keep Iran from getting Nukes, now is the time to find a way to come together to tell that to Iran unequivocally. There are a lot of sticks and carrots that can be applied to Iran, bringing Europe, Russia, and China into the same fold against Iran will increase the number of sticks and carrots exponentially. This is another reason why you should all vote for Obama.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m going to vote for Obama. The primary problem this country faces right now is the economy. Privitization does not solve all the world’s problems. McCain has admitted he knows little about economics and those who he has surrounded himself with “Dr. Phil” included are less than impressive.
In terms of foreign policy, I think McCain is far too hawkish. Iran is a major problem that needs to be dealt with, not ignored while hurling insults. It cannot be solved by war. Trying to “stop Iran’s influence in Iraq” is like trying to stop Canadian influence in America…It isn’t going to happen, their ties are too close.
Despite the many problems that we have with Iran, there are common interests shared between our nations, these interests need to be exploited.
I’m glad McCain won on the right. He was the best they had to offer. Obama however is the better man to vote for. [/quote]
McCain also said we would be in Iraq for 100 years
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Frankly, it is about time someone knocked that grin off that big nosed nut job in Iran. Anyone here like living with the threat of terrorism? They are the major source of funds for it right now. We can talk til we are blue in the face - but we can’t let those nuts get their hands on nukes.
I doubt Obama has the gonads to do it. What a disaster he would be. Although he does have the experience of being a “community organizer”. What a joke.
Yeah, it would be nice to get him out of power, but don’t kid yourself, the cost would be astronomical. I don’t really think Obama’s “gonads” have much to do with it though; America won’t be throwing the first punch, Israel will if it comes to it(as I’m sure you’re aware).
I don’t think anyone who has any idea of the power that Iran has would want a war between Iran and anyone. Unless they’re completely sadistic. No, everyone wants to get through this crisis without war, but Iran is certainly not making things easy. If they get too close to having a nuke, Israel will strike…and the middle east will completely erupt.
America’s role now is to do everything it can to prevent this from happening. Singing “bomb Iran” probably isn’t going to help matters. Leave that sort of joke to people who aren’t seeking to become commander and chief.
Iran needs to be confronted by a large coalition of nations speaking with the same voice. That voice MUST include Russia and China. This is why Obama’s foreign policy stance is better than McCain’s.
McCain makes comments and suggest policies that will purposefully ostracize both Russia and China at a time when the world is facing incredible threats. It is in the interests of everyone in the world to keep Iran from getting Nukes, now is the time to find a way to come together to tell that to Iran unequivocally.
There are a lot of sticks and carrots that can be applied to Iran, bringing Europe, Russia, and China into the same fold against Iran will increase the number of sticks and carrots exponentially. This is another reason why you should all vote for Obama.
[/quote]
Europe has been talking to Iran - where have you been? Russia and China keep selling weapons and giving help to Iran - they are not our friends. The whole time we are talking they are pressing ahead with their nuclear ambitions.
Do you really think Obama has some magic words for them? Israel will not allow Iran to have nukes - it is only which one will be President at the time. Obama is in over his head on this one. This guy is basically fresh out of the Illinois state senate.
Now is the time to tell all this to Iran unequivocally? Are you serious?
One more thing - we are better off with the Oval office empty rather than have Obama in there.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
One more thing - we are better off with the Oval office empty rather than have Obama in there. [/quote]
LOL.
Please. We would have been better off having a fucking golden retriever in there the last eight years instead of the dimwit fuckhead we had.
Why break the trend…
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Europe has been talking to Iran - where have you been? Russia and China keep selling weapons and giving help to Iran - they are not our friends.
The whole time we are talking they are pressing ahead with their nuclear ambitions. Do you really think Obama has some magic words for them? Israel will not allow Iran to have nukes - it is only which one will be President at the time. Obama is in over his head on this one. This guy is basically fresh out of the Illinois state senate.
Now is the time to tell all this to Iran unequivocally? Are you serious?
[/quote]
You’re right that China and Russia are not our friends. Unfortunately we live in the real world where both of these nations have incredible power and must be dealt with.
It’s not about “obama’s magic words” it’s about realizing that all parties must be brought to the table. It’s not obama’s words, it’s a compromise between the major powers of the world to deal with Iran.
I used the word “unequivocally” to mean that it is in the interests of the US, China, Russia, Europe, etc to come to an understanding that a nuclear Iran is in no one’s interests. Nor is it in anyone’s interests for Israel to attack Iran. Action must be taken now. But not just by “our friends” but by all the major powers.
Think Kissinger, not Rumsfeld. We need to deal with friends and enemies. No one wants a war with Iran.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Europe has been talking to Iran - where have you been? Russia and China keep selling weapons and giving help to Iran - they are not our friends. The whole time we are talking they are pressing ahead with their nuclear ambitions.
Do you really think Obama has some magic words for them? Israel will not allow Iran to have nukes - it is only which one will be President at the time. Obama is in over his head on this one. This guy is basically fresh out of the Illinois state senate.
Now is the time to tell all this to Iran unequivocally? Are you serious?
You’re right that China and Russia are not our friends. Unfortunately we live in the real world where both of these nations have incredible power and must be dealt with.
It’s not about “obama’s magic words” it’s about realizing that all parties must be brought to the table. It’s not obama’s words, it’s a compromise between the major powers of the world to deal with Iran.
I used the word “unequivocally” to mean that it is in the interests of the US, China, Russia, Europe, etc to come to an understanding that a nuclear Iran is in no one’s interests. Nor is it in anyone’s interests for Israel to attack Iran. Action must be taken now. But not just by “our friends” but by all the major powers.
Think Kissinger, not Rumsfeld. We need to deal with friends and enemies. No one wants a war with Iran.
[/quote]
Agreed
It is foolish and ignorant to think that we could, in any way, fight a protracted war with Iran at this point in time.
Dimplomacy will be the key to that situation.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Ok I will give you this one; I have never cut a steak with a spoon. If I were in your predicament, I would use my fingers 
The corporate angle is covered in the Corporate /personhood thread. But when I am speaking of the Republicans being in the Hip pocket of Corporate America, I am speaking mostly of the CEO and presidents major share holders . Retirement accounts are in there in the forms of 403b and 401k but I doubt they are out lobbying to benefit there investment.
[/quote]
Thanks, I’ll check out that thread.
Correct. The funny thing is that companies can only gain advantage over competition and thus the consumer with gov’t help. Democrats help them our much more than the Republicans, although Repulicans are not much better these days. We don’t need more gov’t oversight. We need less. If there are no favors for them to hand out everybody is forced to play fair.
how about a fair wage? the free market gives us the best opportunity for this. No the gov’t. This has been proven time and time again across the globe.
employment is volentary. Everyone has the opportunity to seek the most for their labor. Some choose not to try, some choose to compromise because of other things the value. Like living in a particular job.
I have the right to buy products from anyone I choose.
gov’t has no right to tell me I have to buy american steel or products with american steel. The consumer decides if those high paid workers are efficiently delpoyed or if they need to be redeployed.
If they choose not to work for a lower wage, accept another job, or move to where jobs are available, that is their choice. But we can not sacrifice every american family to “save” a particular industry or town.
Tarrifs and protectionist measures are a direct tax on all of us. It may be a hidden tax but is a tax none the less. Why do pay 10x the world price for sugar? So all of our food can contain high fructose corn surup. Is that good for the American public? It sure is good for the corn farmers.
No one is forced to live there. They have plenty of hope, they may choose not to see it. They have opportunity to do whatever they would like. They just choose not to. In general of course.
There are sad stories in everytown and people that do deserve our help. gov’t is not the best method of judging who deserves our help, or helping them.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The surge has not “failed” nor has it “succeeded.” It was meant to provide security in order for the Iraqi govt to step up to the plate and make some serious political compromises. Additional security has been achieved at great cost, but no significant compromises have been made. [/quote]
This makes no sense. It’s done what it was supposed to do but it has not succeeded?
Maybe we ought to ask what you would consider victory or success. That’s why these threads kind of suck. Because we all have different definition of success. Because of this I think we have to default to the goals that are set by our leaders. If those are met in large part, success.
You could say that we have set insignificant goals if you would like, but reaching those goals is success.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m going to vote for Obama. The primary problem this country faces right now is the economy. Privitization does not solve all the world’s problems. McCain has admitted he knows little about economics and those who he has surrounded himself with “Dr. Phil” included are less than impressive.
[/quote]
The free market is absolutly the best solution. There are no gov’t run programs that are run well and efficiently. All you have to do is look at history. More gov’t = reduced quality of life.
Less gov’t = better quality of life. It has always been this way and always will be. Look at counties that developing and improving quality of life the most. Are they moving toward communism or away? Why would we do the opposite?
Why do you think we are going to have do anything in Iran? How long do you think Isreal will sit around and wait to be bombed? Not too much longer I would guess.
[quote]
I’m glad McCain won on the right. He was the best they had to offer. Obama however is the better man to vote for. [/quote]
You can’t use McCain and right in the same sentance. He is nowhere near right wing. I am infinately dissappointed that McCain is the nomimee. He is not a conservative and not any better than Bush.
Obama is in a league of his own. I am baffled as to how this guy got the nomination. Unbeleivable really. Best case with Obama as president is that he does nothing. Nothing he is proprosing is a step in the right direction, only a step closer to socialism. When has that ever worked to improve peoples lives? John McCain is a shit option but he is infinately better than Obama.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
The surge has not “failed” nor has it “succeeded.” It was meant to provide security in order for the Iraqi govt to step up to the plate and make some serious political compromises. Additional security has been achieved at great cost, but no significant compromises have been made.
This makes no sense. It’s done what it was supposed to do but it has not succeeded?
Maybe we ought to ask what you would consider victory or success. That’s why these threads kind of suck. Because we all have different definition of success. Because of this I think we have to default to the goals that are set by our leaders. If those are met in large part, success.
You could say that we have set insignificant goals if you would like, but reaching those goals is success.[/quote]
I restated the goals that President Bush declared in the speech he gave giving the justification for the surge. Here they are, you can read them for yourself. Please note President Bush said that success “goes beyond military operations.”
I was not the one who came up with this. He then listed a number of metrics for success. Measured by the metrics our president laid out, the surge cannot be called “a success.”
[quote]President Bush said on Jan 7th 2007:
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.
To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution. [/quote]
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m going to vote for Obama. The primary problem this country faces right now is the economy. Privitization does not solve all the world’s problems. McCain has admitted he knows little about economics and those who he has surrounded himself with “Dr. Phil” included are less than impressive.
The free market is absolutly the best solution. There are no gov’t run programs that are run well and efficiently. All you have to do is look at history. More gov’t = reduced quality of life. Less gov’t = better quality of life. It has always been this way and always will be. Look at counties that developing and improving quality of life the most. Are they moving toward communism or away? Why would we do the opposite?[/quote]
Privatization is not a Panacea for all that ails us. What would you like to privatize? How would that help the economy? A quick look at the other first world nations in the world shows that your statements regarding the scope of government are simplistic at best. Yes, generally freeing up markets, privatization, and open trade is the way to go. However, there are instances where the positive externalities outweigh what the market would support. In other words, it’s better for our economy for some things to be subsidized if not run directly by the govt. You wouldn’t want national defense to be privatized, would you?
Certainly there are negative aspects to government run organizations, and certainly there are more aspects of our government that could be privatized, but that is not really the major problem facing our economy today, is it? If anything too much “freedom” and not enough regulation of capital markets have caused the current slowdown.
[quote]
Why do you think we are going to have do anything in Iran? How long do you think Isreal will sit around and wait to be bombed? Not too much longer I would guess.[/quote]
If Israel does attack, the world economy will most probably go into a major recession. The price of oil will skyrocket. It is in the interests of all the world powers to prevent the need for Israel to attack.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Privatization is not a Panacea for all that ails us. What would you like to privatize? How would that help the economy? A quick look at the other first world nations in the world shows that your statements regarding the scope of government are simplistic at best. Yes, generally freeing up markets, privatization, and open trade is the way to go. However, there are instances where the positive externalities outweigh what the market would support. In other words, it’s better for our economy for some things to be subsidized if not run directly by the govt. You wouldn’t want national defense to be privatized, would you?
[/quote]
I agree with almost all of this. There is no panacea but the free market gets us the closest. In the free market we “vote” with every single transaction we make. The market adjusts almost immediatly. The consumer truly runs the economy. gov’t will never achieve this type of efficiency.
I would agree that my statements are simplistic. This is a forum and thus we are somewhat limited. There are plenty of books written by people much smarter than I am that cover the benifits of a free market great detail. Every respected ecomomist since Adam Smith in 1776 has understood the benefit of limited gov’t. It is what this county was founded on and what allowed us to become a super power. Why we are going the opposite direction is beyond comprehension for me.
There are indeed things that the gov’t does have to provide. These are deailed in the consitution and does not include providing 90% of what it attemps to provide today.
What goods and services should be subsidized? I cant’t think of any. This, of course could change during times of war or in the interest of national security.
gov’t intervention and monitary policy is a huge determent to the market and out ecomomy. Huge. How has too much freedom caused the current slow down? Are temporary slowdowns the disaster that everyone makes them out to be? A free market is dynamic and will have cycles. Our gov’t is leading us towards a disaster. I’ll take a slowdown if we assume that the free market caused it.
[quote]
If Israel does attack, the world economy will most probably go into a major recession. The price of oil will skyrocket. It is in the interests of all the world powers to prevent the need for Israel to attack.
[quote/]
100% correct. Do you think we will be effective at doing this? I am not betting on it. It is not hard to see things getting really ugly. Militarily speaking, Iran is going to make Iraq look like a walk in the park. If Isreal does have to take military action, that whole region is going to explode.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
The surge has not “failed” nor has it “succeeded.” It was meant to provide security in order for the Iraqi govt to step up to the plate and make some serious political compromises. Additional security has been achieved at great cost, but no significant compromises have been made.
This makes no sense. It’s done what it was supposed to do but it has not succeeded?
Maybe we ought to ask what you would consider victory or success. That’s why these threads kind of suck. Because we all have different definition of success. Because of this I think we have to default to the goals that are set by our leaders. If those are met in large part, success.
You could say that we have set insignificant goals if you would like, but reaching those goals is success.[/quote]
Uhmmm… the point is the goals haven’t been met (in large part). Security isn’t the goal. GOOGLE!!!