To be fair in 2000 he had denounced both of them, but by september of 2001 he was already well on the way to building his friendship with Falwell.
To be fair in 2000 he had denounced both of them, but by september of 2001 he was already well on the way to building his friendship with Falwell.
uhmm, yes, most, not all - the history proves it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
And to everybody who posted in this and similar threads, I have only one thing to say:
http://cinema.cornell.edu/EarlyFall0...gLebowski-.jpgQuote:
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Don't worry BillyJeff2, all the apparent inconsistencies between the way these two are treated will take a very large and sudden shift once the dust has settled from the battle between Hillary and Obama! McCain will no longer be the darling of the media, but whichever candidate becomes the Democratic nominee will be the media darling!Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
Of course, this will always happen in the liberal controlled media...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I do not claim McCain is perfect, or even that he's anything special, but I do believe he is less of a threat to this nation than Hillary or Obama.
In a time of war, we need a president who understands what is really at stake here, of the three likely candidates, McCain is the only one who has served this country.
I do not think Hillary has any love for this country, she loves power, and wants a chance to steal more paintings from the white house, and sell more pardons.
Obama is too near sighted, he would rather pull out of the middle east now, and let the next generation handle this fight... What does he think? that he can track down Osama, and give him a hug and it will be all right?
Most Democrats fear that this war will continue in Iraq, I fear that if we don't press it home in Iraq, when we leave the middle east, this war will come to us.
I would much rather see it fought in the middle east, than in Manhattan, or in small town America. We have been under constant terrorist attack since the late 70's, and they will only get bolder if we turn tail and run.
If a Democrat is elected, and we pull out of Iraq, our enemies will regroup, and they will find a way to hit us at home.
Good news doesn't sell newspapers, or get ratings, that's why we aren't hearing about the good that our troops are acomplishing over there, and all we hear is about how bad things are.
I frankly don't care who our president is, as long as it isn't a lawyer or a fool.
and I believe both of the democratic nominees are fools, and liars.:shrug:
And I think we need someone who won't pull on already strained relationships with at least 3 other countries (just from the speeches that I can recall and not counting the effect of a league of democratic nations.)
Especially with our military pushed as far as it is right now.
But I suppose that's just a philosophical difference.
You guys know I don't vote, but I sometimes like to put my 2c in threads like this
thank God for the non-media to keep the fairness and balance :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I don't know Mike, by this standard you would argue that the current President or VicePresident were the least qualified pair to be elected 4 years ago. If this is such a dealbreaker I hope you voted against them :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff
I don't want to comment on Clinton/Obama, as I'd be repeating myself :p
I think this is a rather naive view on your enemies. I don't think they are that stupid and just like you they would rather not fight in their own countries, but rather in US. Frankly I think if you fear of terrorist attacks in US the most efficient way to prevent them is to spend money not on standing army in Iraq, but on policing inside US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff
Well, I don't think the troops are accomplishing there anything particularly better than they were say 2 years ago. The way things go in Iraq has very little to do with US troops. I believe it's entirely political. Iraq is one big mess and real change in stuff like this happens over several generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff
Let me give one argument - I have really hard time believing that the 10-20% increase in US troops has brought a drastic change, if it did that only means that the current administration and top military command is completely incompetent as for many years they have failed to provide this marginal increase in resources if it were so critical. I do think that the uncertainty around the US presidential elections has a whole lot bigger role on what is happening in Iraq. Most Iraqi leaders love to grab a little bit more power and money while they are reasonably sure that US will kind of keep the things more or less in check. For example a real threat that US may just pull out seems like a pretty big stimulus to the Suni minority to cooperate. Anyways, I'm not an analyst or anything, so this is just my oppinion :)
what gugi said, but his was stated better than I could at the moment.
Where did that come from! I'm both a lawyer and a fool, so I resent that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff
";"
This isn't a deal breaker, but to me it's important to have a strong leader.Quote:
I don't know Mike, by this standard you would argue that the current President or VicePresident were the least qualified pair to be elected 4 years ago. If this is such a dealbreaker I hope you voted against them
Frankly I was hoping Powell would run then. (And no I didn't vote Bush 4 years ago, although I did in the previous election.)
They aren't fighting in their own countries, many of the "insurgents" are coming from surrounding countries to fight in Iraq. and as long as the attention is in Iraq, it is easier for them to stage attacks there than here. If we leave Iraq, they will have more resources available to direct at US soil.Quote:
I think this is a rather naive view on your enemies. I don't think they are that stupid and just like you they would rather not fight in their own countries, but rather in US. Frankly I think if you fear of terrorist attacks in US the most efficient way to prevent them is to spend money not on standing army in Iraq, but on policing inside US.
As for policing inside the US, it sounds like you are suggesting an isolationist movement, give up our freedoms, and keep every body out?
That doesn't sound good to me. policing inside the US is already happening, if you wish to give up more freedoms so that we can be policed more here, then you don't deserve that freedom.
Perhaps it is a bit narrow minded of me, but I believe in my right to free speech, and to bear arms, if the Democrats had their way, I would lose those rights.
I live in California, and have had to watch as near sighted liberal politicians have slowly chewed away at these rights, They take a little here, and a little there, and claim they are making things safer... all the while they can't explain the rise in crime rates.
If you doubt the truth of this, ask and British member if a disarmed society is safer... Or for that matter ask anyone living in Washington DC.
What the troops are accomplishing is to get young girls in the safe zones into schools, allow musicians and scholars a sounding post, they are showing some of the Iraqui people what freedom is, and giving them the tools and understanding that they need to build a nation. Iraqi radio stations are free to say what they want for the first time in years, they are tasting freedoms that we take for granted, and seeing what life can be like.Quote:
Well, I don't think the troops are accomplishing there anything particularly better than they were say 2 years ago. The way things go in Iraq has very little to do with US troops.
As the Iraquis take control of greater areas, and more of them feel and see this freedom, they will get stronger, and stand up to the extremists. This is not a change that will happen over night, but it is happening. There are insurgent free zones forming throughout Iraq where the people are rising up against them, and asking for our help to force them out.
Yes it's slow going, and it will probably take much longer, but it is happening.
Look how long we stayed in Germany and Japan after WW2, things like this take time.
The plain and simple truth of things is that Freedom isn't free...
Diplomacy works only because there is a potential for loss if diplomacy fails.
and there are no real winners in War.
What is the cost of freedom, and do you want to pay for it now, or let our children or grandchildren pay for it?
I really don't want to get sucked into this discussion especially since it's going off topic as it doesn't match the title anymore, but may be I should clarify few things:
It seems that you are arguing two completely incompatible points (1) It's good to keep the war in Iraq so that the US enemies are killing US troops and Iraqis there, as opposed to US citizens and (2) The US troops are ensuring the peace in Iraq and (some) Iraqi's are being able to resist said enemies, thus presumably those will try a bit harder for a while and then try US.
I haven't been to Iraq, I've only talked to a very small number of people (civilians and military) who have been there before and after the US invasion. So I have a very limited view of what's happening there, although I try to get as good an idea as I can by finding information from as diverse sources as I can (considering their respective biases, of course).
But at this stage I am absolutely unconvinced that whatever perceived improvements in security have anything to do with the US troops. There are no safe zones in Iraq. There is one tiny heavily fortified compound in the middle of Baghdad and everything else is as insecure as it was 3 years ago.
Indeed Iraqis are fully capable of running a highly developed society as they had just that under Sadam Hussein. It was a dictatorship but it wasn't much worse than say Russia, Belarus or Cuba, certainly orders of magnitude better than virtually any other country in the region. You have to remember that freedom of speech is a great thing only if you are alive to practice it. Ordinary iraqis do not have such freedom or the freedom to move around their country or to live where they want to, just because of the sectarian violence.
Also remember that Iraq is quite diverse - there is the secular side and there is the religious one that would love to establish a theocracy. If you let the Iraqis democratically establish a society of their choice you may end up quite not liking the result (the same way you probably didn't like the democratically elected Palestinian government).
I realize that I am a lot more cynical than most, but when I see a temporary truce in Iraq I am not thinking what a great job the extra 20000 soldiers there are doing. I am thinking - well the Iraqi leaders who control the violence are keeping it in check for some reason. I did say in my previous post that I think a lot in Iraq may have to do with the US election. What I decided not to say then is the other side of the coin - the US presidential election can be decided by the enemies of US. Staging terrorist operations in US or escalating violence in the middle east, say in Iraq or Israel is dirt cheap. And US voters will immediately vote for the politician who promises the hardest line. Or the opposite. It's just a matter of timing and sadly US or Iraq's security forces do not have enough control to prevent it.
And as far as policing inside US goes yes, that's what I am suggesting as the only reasonably effective strategy against terrorism - a police state. If you don't like a police state you have to just learn to live with the threat of terrorism. As I already said, staging such attacks is dirt cheap and doesn't need centralized planning, as we all know from history. One thing that is not gonna remove the threat is engaging terrorists in some other place in the world - works only on the stupid ones, and I'm sure there are always at least 100 smart ones who realize that as long as US is what it is it's extremely vulnerable to terrorism and sooner or later they'll take advantage of it.
Anyways, as I said I am quite cynical, so ymmv.
Stay tuned for Xman's next in-depth analysis of Republican politics!Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
:shrug:
There's no right or wrong, just specualtion and conjecture...
how do you know what an enemy is thinking or going to do...
The only thing I'm certain of is stepping out and leaving a huge mess will come back to haunt us.
I don't know if there is a viable solution, and yes it is off topic.
But it applies to Obama because of his determination to remove US troops. If he pulls our troops out without considering security there, as I believe he will, the Iraqui people will be thrown into even more chaos, and they will be even more resentful of us.
Bush #1 made the same mistake when he promised the Kurds that we would back them, and then he left them to die... Clinton ignored the issue, is that any better?
and Bush #2 invaded for the wrong reasons.
I don't like the foreign policies of any of our recent presidents. I'm not sure I'll like McCain's policy, but I know I don't like what Obama or Clinton are suggesting.
Back to Obama's back peddling, at least he's not as blatant a liar as Hillary... But the fact stands, he knew what was being preached by Wright. He supported it, and encouraged it. Denouncing the man now is back peddling. One minute the man is your mentor, and the next you claim to have no knowledge of his racist attitude and remarks? Even if it is the "attitude of African-Americans" it is still not just or right. Is it okay to be racist? My answer is no, regardless of the reasoning...
No one is completely free of it, we all have our opinions, and we all have flaws, but to be in the public spotlight, we need to put our ignorance aside, and become better people. Preaching hate is never right regardless of sides, and Obama should have seen this message for what it was, and he should have denounced or distanced himself before it was a public relations issue.
Same bat time, same bat channel!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
corrected :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JMS