PDA

View Full Version : Palin Interview.



Dolphins9954
09-11-2008, 09:17 PM
I want to say right off the bat. I hate to jump on the "hate on Sarah" bandwagon. I think the majority of the hate on her has been trivial. But this interview really shows what's her problem. Her responses seemed so scripted and rehearsed. Her foreign policy was no different than our current one. Her remark that we should go to war with Russia over Georgia was over the top to me. Isn't it bad enough that we are ready to go to war with Iran. Now it's war with Russia too. This is getting out of hand. The fact is clear that war is unavoidable no matter which candidate wins. War is here to stay. Neither candidate is Anti-War. Palin sounds just like a Neo-Con. No thanks.


Here's the link with video.


http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Palin_tells_ABC_War_with_Russia_0911.html

Dolphan7
09-11-2008, 09:25 PM
Well should we be telling our friends and enemies abroad that we will not go to war and will try the UN first, and then if that doesn't work then we'll sanction you, and if that doesn't work we'll call you a bad name and then boycott the Olympics?

Sometimes just saying the words is the best foreign policy you can have.

Dolphins9954
09-11-2008, 09:36 PM
So you think we should go to war with Iran and Russia?

You really think that would be a positive thing for our country and our economy. Not to mention the world. The hell with the UN. I really don't care for it. War with Iran and Russia would be a catastrophe for our country and the world. You can't claim "change" when your foriegn policy is no different that our current. And you could argue that it's worst considering that she is willing to go to war with Russia. That's insane. How many more wars can we afford? How many more deaths is neccessary? If we go to war with Russia. We would have the same result as Napoleon and Hitler. The more things "change". The more they remain the same.

Dolphan7
09-11-2008, 09:49 PM
So you think we should go to war with Iran and Russia?

You really think that would be a positive thing for our country and our economy. Not to mention the world. The hell with the UN. I really don't care for it. War with Iran and Russia would be a catastrophe for our country and the world. You can't claim "change" when your foriegn policy is no different that our current. And you could argue that it's worst considering that she is willing to go to war with Russia. That's insane. How many more wars can we afford? How many more deaths is neccessary? If we go to war with Russia. We would have the same result as Napoleon and Hitler. The more things "change". The more they remain the same.No I don't want to go to war, and neither does Palin or McCain or Obama or anyone.

But you don't go on national TV, which the rest of the world sees too, and tell them that no matter what we won't be able to go to war this decade because we can't afford it.

War is always on the table. It gives the rest of the world the impression that we are still willing to fight, and not back down.

One of the good by-products of us taking out Saddam. No country thinks we are a paper tiger now. And we need to keep that image up.

finintheburgh
09-11-2008, 09:52 PM
So you think we should go to war with Iran and Russia?

You really think that would be a positive thing for our country and our economy. Not to mention the world. The hell with the UN. I really don't care for it. War with Iran and Russia would be a catastrophe for our country and the world. You can't claim "change" when your foriegn policy is no different that our current. And you could argue that it's worst considering that she is willing to go to war with Russia. That's insane. How many more wars can we afford? How many more deaths is neccessary? If we go to war with Russia. We would have the same result as Napoleon and Hitler. The more things "change". The more they remain the same.


Gibson then brought up (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778018&page=1) Russia's recent invasion of Georgia, an act roundly condemned by the Bush administration and by McCain himself. He asked Gibson if the US would be compelled to answer militarily under the NATO treaty if Russia again invaded Georgia. Palin answered, "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."

* Expanding on her answer, Palin said, "[W]e've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable."

over reacting a bit arent we? she said "perhaps so" what was she supposed to say no. then what would stop russia from attacking again? wre not looking for a fight and we dont want involved, but she cant say that.

Dolphins9954
09-11-2008, 10:02 PM
No I don't want to go to war, and neither does Palin or McCain or Obama or anyone.

But you don't go on national TV, which the rest of the world sees too, and tell them that no matter what we won't be able to go to war this decade because we can't afford it.

War is always on the table. It gives the rest of the world the impression that we are still willing to fight, and not back down.

One of the good by-products of us taking out Saddam. No country thinks we are a paper tiger now. And we need to keep that image up.


So you think the war in Iraq is keeping our "image" up? Iraq has done more to hurt our image than anything. I don't think threatening the world with more Iraq's is the greatest "image" builder. I disagree with both of you. More war is not the answer. Palin's foriegn policy sounds no different than the NEO-CONS.

finintheburgh
09-11-2008, 10:17 PM
So you think the war in Iraq is keeping our "image" up? Iraq has done more to hurt our image than anything. I don't think threatening the world with more Iraq's is the greatest "image" builder. I disagree with both of you. More war is not the answer. Palin's foriegn policy sounds no different than the NEO-CONS.



what else do you suppose we do. tell them go ahead and do what you want, we dont want no trouble.

if they dont know what we are going to do, then at least they will think about what they are doing. fear breeds respect and unfortunatly they dont respect words if theres no consquences.

ohall
09-11-2008, 10:25 PM
So you think the war in Iraq is keeping our "image" up? Iraq has done more to hurt our image than anything. I don't think threatening the world with more Iraq's is the greatest "image" builder. I disagree with both of you. More war is not the answer. Palin's foriegn policy sounds no different than the NEO-CONS.

I'd say it sounds no different than Reagan's foreign policy.

The days of hugs and smiles with Iran are long gone IMO.

Dolphan7
09-11-2008, 10:36 PM
So you think the war in Iraq is keeping our "image" up? Iraq has done more to hurt our image than anything. I don't think threatening the world with more Iraq's is the greatest "image" builder. I disagree with both of you. More war is not the answer. Palin's foriegn policy sounds no different than the NEO-CONS.It's called diplomacy and tactics and negotiation. And yes the world knows that we are not a paper tiger like Bill Clinton's America! That is the image we want, and need to maintain.

Ever play poker? Do you just lay your hand down so everyone can see it? No


You can disagree all you want. We are all saying we don't want war, so we are in agreement there.

MDFINFAN
09-12-2008, 12:19 AM
Well should we be telling our friends and enemies abroad that we will not go to war and will try the UN first, and then if that doesn't work then we'll sanction you, and if that doesn't work we'll call you a bad name and then boycott the Olympics?

Sometimes just saying the words is the best foreign policy you can have.

I hope this whole response was a joke D7, I saw her interview, and I'm more scare than ever, 9954 was right, it was scripted, the woman obviously was in rehearsal hall before seeing the reporter, you could tell the buzz words responses.. but if that's what you guys want, fine.. but I have to ask you..do you HONESTLY think this woman is ready to be president, because McCain is old enough to made that question valid..

cwsox
09-12-2008, 06:54 AM
Palin's ignorance is ever more apparent - she was asked about the Bush Doctrine. She had no clue what it is. The Bush Doctrine was announced by the White House with great fanfare, it represents a total change in the conduct of war and foreign policy. It was debated at great lengths in this country - the whitesox.com board sponsored by mlb had like a five day debate. But Sarah Palin: clueless.

Obviously I am not in favor of her election but even I was stunned by her ignorance of the basic cornerstone of the Bush Administration policy that Bush intended to alter all US policy from here on out. Listening to her stumble like a school child who didn't do her homework was stunning.

And then she goes back to the discredited support for the war in Iraq that Ieaq was involved in September 11.


At times visibly nervous, at others appearing to hew so closely to prepared answers that she used the exact same phrases repeatedly, Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of “anticipatory self-defense.”


At a separate event on Thursday, a deployment ceremony for her son Track and thousands of other soldiers heading to Iraq from Fort Wainwright, Alaska, Ms. Palin told them they would be fighting “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”
The comments sounded reminiscent of the disputed connections the Bush administration once made, but no longer does, between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

from the NY Times news account of the interview:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/politics/12palin.html?th&emc=th

phinman1
09-12-2008, 09:53 AM
Of course her answers are scripted, everything is scripted. Her convention speech was basically written before she was even selected. They just filled in the blanks thereafter.

Palin is a joke. A complete and utter joke. Thankfully, there is enough time before the election for this to plainly come to light.

Biden needs to become the attack dog he was selected to be. He needs to take the gloves off and rip this b**** a new one. Why are the Dems not attacking her? Are they going to pull a Kerry and completely puss out again? Get some balls and expose this woman for the ignorant idiot she is.

As to the interview, at least she didn't regale ABC about Adam and Eve and their pet dinosaur.

FINSFAN2781
09-12-2008, 10:04 AM
Of course her answers are scripted, everything is scripted. Her convention speech was basically written before she was even selected. They just filled in the blanks thereafter.

Palin is a joke. A complete and utter joke. Thankfully, there is enough time before the election for this to plainly come to light.

Biden needs to become the attack dog he was selected to be. He needs to take the gloves off and rip this b**** a new one. Why are the Dems not attacking her? Are they going to pull a Kerry and completely puss out again? Get some balls and expose this woman for the ignorant idiot she is.

As to the interview, at least she didn't regale ABC about Adam and Eve and their pet dinosaur.

Ive been saying this since day 1. Its an embarrassment to the Republican party, but honestly, they dont give a ****. They are just trying to win this election on personality and its not going to happen. Palin looked like a total idiot in that interview and I am so happy. Every single word she has said up until now was scripted and written for her and this interview proved what a joke she was.

Isnt it funny how everyone says after this interview, expect Palin to be back with McCain and probably wont leave his side again. They knew this interview was going to be bad for her, but they had to try to pretend that they dont run from issues or interviews. She is a total joke.

Even when she was asked about if she's ever left the country other than her visit to Kuwait, she was like, yes, Canada and Mexico. Are you ****ing kidding me? Now technically that is out of the country, but Canada is right next door to her, and Mexico isnt no big big trip either, and in her tone she tried to make it sound like it was something. Then she immediately brings back her trip to Kuwait and tries to push the "oh, that was a life changing trip". She tried to avoid the topic and avoided discussing it any further so she tries to blabber about something else.

This interview proved she is a horrible choice for McCain, but this only exposed her more to everyone at what a joke she is. I CANNOT wait for the debates to start, McCain/Palin are going to get their ***** handed to them and its going to be a pleasure to watch it happen. Their bull**** is not going to work anymore.

poornate
09-12-2008, 10:14 AM
One of the good by-products of us taking out Saddam. No country thinks we are a paper tiger now. And we need to keep that image up.

Iraq did not solidify our place as a power... it weakened us like no other choice our nation has made in my lifetime.

WSE
09-12-2008, 10:41 AM
yea, Obama needs to play some quotes from this to continue his "no third term" campaign point

she sounds like a neo con here. Her international knowledge doesn't seem to be there much. Its them= bad, Us= good, and that doesn't work for the world today.

ohall
09-12-2008, 10:46 AM
Iraq did not solidify our place as a power... it weakened us like no other choice our nation has made in my lifetime.

You'd have to ignore Vietnam and the Black Hawk down incident to believe that.

Dolphins9954
09-12-2008, 10:56 AM
It's called diplomacy and tactics and negotiation. And yes the world knows that we are not a paper tiger like Bill Clinton's America! That is the image we want, and need to maintain.

Ever play poker? Do you just lay your hand down so everyone can see it? No


You can disagree all you want. We are all saying we don't want war, so we are in agreement there.


You also don't bet the house with a crappy hand. We have seen enough from the past 8 years to see and know the tactics of the NEO-CONS. Iraq has done more to destroy our image around the world than anything. No one takes us serious anymore. Spreading more Iraq's and more wars. Or even threatening countries to do so. Is only going to turn the world against us. More than it is now. To continue the tactics of pre-emptive war and interventionalism is only going to make things worse for our country and the world. Palin is not the reformer and "change" person that the people are being lead to believe. Her war and foreign policy is not a change from what we have now. I do give her much credit for having a son in Iraq. And I hope her son is ok and comes home safe with the rest of our soldiers.

MDFINFAN
09-12-2008, 11:27 AM
I'd say it sounds no different than Reagan's foreign policy.

The days of hugs and smiles with Iran are long gone IMO.

Then why are we talking to them and smiling for the cameras..:up:

phinfan3411
09-12-2008, 12:08 PM
First off, I did not see the interview, I will watch it tonight, I have read as many excerpts from it as I can find. I will agree that from what I have seen so far, I would have liked a few more clear answers.

I also think the questions were not exactly forgiving, as are some of the follow up questions today. I have said before, and I will say again, I have been against this war from the begining, I wondered if I was right when everything went so well at first, but for the most part I am not sure going into Iraq was the right answer imo.

I am not one of these nit wits that say "Bush lied and people died" I know there was intelligence there, and we went in, I also know we are in a war against Islamic Extremists, but I honestly do not know what the best way to fight it is, so I have not trashed Bush bad for this, as I don't know if I have a better option in mind.

Keeping all this in mind, me being against war etc. etc., are you guys being serious? You are getting on her for keeping the POSSIBILITY of a war open? You can't be, I thought we had great debaters in this forum? You really think she should take a option off the board? You guys are letting your unadulterated LOVE for Obama get in the way here. You always have to keep ALL your options open, she should have been more forceful with that answer.

Oh my god, she may or may not have known what the "Bush Doctrine" was. I did not either, or I did not know what it was called, but it basically implies what I just stated, in my mind, war would be the last straw, but whether you guys like it or not, all options must be open or we are not as effective as we could be.

phinfan3411
09-12-2008, 12:18 PM
I do not want my above post to in anyway be construed as anti-military. I appreciate more than you can imagine the way our great military has carried itself over there.

phinfan3411
09-12-2008, 12:23 PM
Oh, and by the way, I may be way off here, and probably will be attacked, but I want to be able to point back at some point and say I told you so......

Don't be surprised if at this VP debate you all are so looking forward to (me too), Palin will be there, but Biden just might not make it, I don't know, taking a shot in the dark here.

I watch the polls everyday, and the electoral map, and for the last week it has taken more of a shift than I have seen in all my years watching this stuff. I will never say its over until its over, but it does not look good for Obama.

poornate
09-12-2008, 01:00 PM
You'd have to ignore Vietnam and the Black Hawk down incident to believe that.

Vietnam was not in my lifetime... And in Blackhawk Down we saw a tragedy of mismanagement, but not the crushing blow our world position has taken due to iraq...

Iraq is singularly the most damaging thing to happen to our nation in decades. It has destabilized the middle East, it has greatly strengthened Iran (who was always a greater threat anyway), it has shown our policy of ignoring our allies, it has weakened our bonds with our traditional allies, it has exposed us as weaker than the world thought due to the war's mismanagement.... It has been a disaster in every way imaginable... Is the world better with Saddam gone from it? Probably... Was it worth the cost to our military and International legitimacy? Absolutely not...

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 01:44 PM
LMAO......quick, everyone grasp for a straw, they're running out quickly.

I'm just curious, did Palin limit the scope of questions she could be asked? I thought she did ok, especially for her first and most probing interview she's given. I loved how Gibson misquoted her on her "mission from God" remark. Real good job boning up there Charlie.

ohall
09-12-2008, 02:33 PM
Then why are we talking to them and smiling for the cameras..:up:

If true I'd have to assume because they are losing their will and folding to ppl like you. It's a shame really. A hard line with Iran is what is needed. Iran's leaders are worms and will take advantage of any kindness.

poornate
09-12-2008, 02:36 PM
LMAO......quick, everyone grasp for a straw, they're running out quickly.

I'm just curious, did Palin limit the scope of questions she could be asked? I thought she did ok, especially for her first and most probing interview she's given. I loved how Gibson misquoted her on her "mission from God" remark. Real good job boning up there Charlie.

Did you see what the limits placed on O'Reilley were? Talking about the issues... Shocking... why would political issues be most important and why would Fox have to be cautioned against straying from them if they wanted to do the interview?

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 02:51 PM
Did you see what the limits placed on O'Reilley were? Talking about the issues... Shocking... why would political issues be most important and why would Fox have to be cautioned against straying from them if they wanted to do the interview?

If you want to go that route, then why question palin on a quote given at a Church regarding her plea to pray for our leaders? And not even quote her accurately in context?

I have no problems with the questions she was asked, nor how she answered them. Charlie wanted some yes or no answers on "possible" scenarios, when you and I both know, unless you have all the info on hand, you can't make unequivocable decisions. If Russia attacks a NATO ally, are we or are we not obligated to step up? Of course we are, along with all our other NATO allies. Isn't that the whole idea behind NATO? But why make it look like we would be declaring war alone when the question obviously asked if Russia provoked NATO into action?

poornate
09-12-2008, 03:19 PM
I don't disagree with part of what you are saying... the part i disagree on is whether the Obama interview would have even touched issues on "the Factor" if conditions had not been met... i believe it would have been a Muslim, Wright, Socialism, gab fest aimed at avoiding the things that matter...

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 03:34 PM
I don't disagree with part of what you are saying... the part i disagree on is whether the Obama interview would have even touched issues on "the Factor" if conditions had not been met... i believe it would have been a Muslim, Wright, Socialism, gab fest aimed at avoiding the things that matter...


I appreciate your feelings here, but i think it's disingenious to think O'reiley would have asked some of those questions. O'reiley knows he's not a Muslim, clearly the Wright thing has been beaten into the ground....i think he would have been asked about some of his past associations with some "shady" characters, and given the chance to answer...but we may never know now.

I'd give my last dime to see the 3 men on the 2 major tickets sit there and be grilled like Gibson was trying to grill Palin. Now that would be a hoot.

And i didn't know this, but today learned that when Michelle Obama appeared on the view, she had a list off topics that were strictly off limits. I wonder why Cindy McCain did not have a similar list?

I know...neither is running for office, but i do find that factoid interesting

poornate
09-12-2008, 03:44 PM
I think i know enough about the bones in all of these people's closets... I don't see anything with any of them that taints them enough to make me disregard them based off of controversies... Just like McCain and the Keating thing, it is a similar situation with Obama and Reznic... Probably poor decisions being made... but not illegal ones and neither struck me as malicious... (on the Keating thing... I don't really get Glenn's involvement...)

jerseyphin
09-12-2008, 03:46 PM
Where did you get your talking points from CNN or MSNBC because I'm sure your way too [warning] to come up with this on your own

[Personal attacks aren't allowed, speak to the issue not the person]

poornate
09-12-2008, 03:55 PM
Where did you get your talking points from CNN or MSNBC because I'm sure your way too [edit]to come up with this on your own

I form them on my own... speaking of dumb... when you come somewhere for a civil conversation about the topics of the day... i suggest you know who you are speaking to before you start slinging allegations about people's educational background and mental acumen. I would wager a NASCAR ticket [warning: no personal attacks]are better informed on...

[personal attacks aren't neccesary, if someone attacks you contact us]

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 04:01 PM
QUOTE=poornate;1062619640]I form them on my own... speaking of dumb... when you come somewhere for a civil conversation about the topics of the day... i suggest you know who you are speaking to before you start slinging allegations about people's educational background and mental acumen. I would wager a NASCAR ticket for you and the rest of your trailer park that you couldn't pick a topic that you are better informed on...

Oh, and boy genius, your, and you're, are two different words. we have a sticky up in the forum if you need help with the English language.[/QUOTE]


:owned1:

phinfan3411
09-12-2008, 05:01 PM
You disappoint me jersey fin, I liked your post on taxes, but we "try" to keep it civil here, and as far as calling Nate dumb, well you are barking up the wrong tree.

We all have opinions here, some I agree with some I do not, but all the guys here are pretty good guys, so treat them with respect when you post here.

idaho
09-12-2008, 05:25 PM
Gibson then brought up (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778018&page=1) Russia's recent invasion of Georgia, an act roundly condemned by the Bush administration and by McCain himself. He asked Gibson if the US would be compelled to answer militarily under the NATO treaty if Russia again invaded Georgia. Palin answered, "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."

* Expanding on her answer, Palin said, "[W]e've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable."

over reacting a bit arent we? she said "perhaps so" what was she supposed to say no. then what would stop russia from attacking again? wre not looking for a fight and we dont want involved, but she cant say that.

I found it interesting that she didn't even know that Georgia is not a member of Nato. She is retarded. Anyone who wasn't scared to death that she may become vp or even president is not paying attention.

phinfan3411
09-12-2008, 05:44 PM
I found it interesting that she didn't even know that Georgia is not a member of Nato. She is retarded. Anyone who wasn't scared to death that she may become vp or even president is not paying attention.

Yep, she's "retarded", thanks for your tremendous input.

Dolphan7
09-12-2008, 06:36 PM
Nothing better than a little schoolyard discipline. Good work guys!

MDFINFAN
09-12-2008, 06:42 PM
Yep, she's "retarded", thanks for your tremendous input.:sidelol::sidelol:

idaho
09-12-2008, 07:18 PM
Yep, she's "retarded", thanks for your tremendous input.

I was saving everyone a redo of all the buzz about Palin's laughable interview but since you ask for input how about this for a start.

Not a clue about "Bush Doctrine" and spare me the no one has heard this term B.S. speech. She is running for a vp on a ticket with a 72 year old man of questionable health.

Clueless about global warming and lies here way out of her prior position that man has no role in global warming. Flip flop artist she is not. Just either ignorant or a liar.

Iraq war being somehow being associated with the will of god. I am not sure of god's take on war but of all wars this has to be the biggest abuse of power and based upon lie after lie from Bush.

Never met a foreign head of state. Instead of just saying no she offers up some governor's luncheon.

My favorite -foreign policy experiance based upon the fact you can see Russian from some Island in Alaska.
The lies: (ebay sample)



http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/)
Did Sarah Palin sell the Alaska governor's jet on eBay?http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif
The jet was placed on eBay for sale, but it wasn't purchased from the site. The plane was eventually sold through an aircraft broker to businessman Larry Reynolds for less than the asking price and the original cost.

The lies: (bridge to nowhere)

Sarah Palin, former mayor of Wasilla, played host to ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson today in her home town, where the governor of Alaska confronted apparent changes in her stance on "The Bridge to Nowhere,'' the most infamous of "earmarks'' -- whichPalin was for before she was against it, as Gibson put it.
"I was,'' Palin concedes in the interview (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5789483&page=1), which will air on ABC's World News tonight at 6:30 pm EDT, with more on ABC's 20/20 at 10 and Nightline at 11:35 pm - talk about running the tables.



I could go on in nauseum but my point is well documented do a little research. "She is like a bad Disney film" - Matt Damon

phinfan3411
09-12-2008, 08:35 PM
I was saving everyone a redo of all the buzz about Palin's laughable interview but since you ask for input how about this for a start.

Not a clue about "Bush Doctrine" and spare me the no one has heard this term B.S. speech. She is running for a vp on a ticket with a 72 year old man of questionable health.

Clueless about global warming and lies here way out of her prior position that man has no role in global warming. Flip flop artist she is not. Just either ignorant or a liar.

Iraq war being somehow being associated with the will of god. I am not sure of god's take on war but of all wars this has to be the biggest abuse of power and based upon lie after lie from Bush.

Never met a foreign head of state. Instead of just saying no she offers up some governor's luncheon.

My favorite -foreign policy experiance based upon the fact you can see Russian from some Island in Alaska.
The lies: (ebay sample)



http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/)
Did Sarah Palin sell the Alaska governor's jet on eBay?http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif
The jet was placed on eBay for sale, but it wasn't purchased from the site. The plane was eventually sold through an aircraft broker to businessman Larry Reynolds for less than the asking price and the original cost.

The lies: (bridge to nowhere)

Sarah Palin, former mayor of Wasilla, played host to ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson today in her home town, where the governor of Alaska confronted apparent changes in her stance on "The Bridge to Nowhere,'' the most infamous of "earmarks'' -- whichPalin was for before she was against it, as Gibson put it.
"I was,'' Palin concedes in the interview (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5789483&page=1), which will air on ABC's World News tonight at 6:30 pm EDT, with more on ABC's 20/20 at 10 and Nightline at 11:35 pm - talk about running the tables.



I could go on in nauseum but my point is well documented do a little research. "She is like a bad Disney film" - Matt Damon


I think you have one good point, I do not like what she says about the bridge to nowhere either, the only good thing about that is it seems to be the turning point for her, and I think she did a very good job from then on.

The Jet thing shows how ridiculous the rest of your arguements are. Here we have a Governor that thinks a personal jet is too extravagent an expense, and she sells it, and YOU find fault with it? She said she "put" it on ebay, you really think it matters were it sold?? Do you also find youself staring aimlessly at small shiney objects?

Without getting into a LONG global warming debate, she is right. I do not care what you say, who you quote, who they are paid by, Al Gore does not DOES NOT have any proof, real proof that there is a man made cause for "global warming" . If he came out and said there might be, but I am not sure, I would have much more respect for him than I do (I have zero respect for him). The earth goes through warming, and cooling cycles continuously, in fact we are in the "fall" of the current cycle, we are soon going to have much more trouble with cooling than warming, but don't let me encourage you to throw out your personally signed Al Gore picture, you should keep it!

Iraq war quote was not correct, look it up, anything else you were wrong about?

Please challenge me on the global warming, I have just been dying to debate this, please!

milldog
09-12-2008, 08:48 PM
Well I just couldn't stay away. I won't argue much with all of you neo-cons, I know I won't get anywhere! She's an idiot and is absolutely clueless about the state of our country. If you can't see this, well, so be it! I came to this site because I'm a huge Dolphin fan and I intend on keeping it that way. I know I was out of line the other night but sh*t happens and I was really pissed off. I know I shoudn't let others get to me but I am human and I was extremely upset! Cheers to all of you who know what's really going on with our country, to the rest of you, could care less how you perceive me! I'll do whatever I can to make sure we don't continue another 4 years of the same ol BS! Let's go Dolphins!

phinfan3411
09-12-2008, 09:11 PM
I do not want four more years of the same bs either. I assure you I do my best to "know whats going on", but I may have different viewpoints than you.

If you want to debate on any number of subects like climate change, history, chess, science, biology, WWII, economics etc, etc please join in, but if your just going to jab and go well just.....

finintheburgh
09-12-2008, 09:35 PM
I found it interesting that she didn't even know that Georgia is not a member of Nato. She is retarded. Anyone who wasn't scared to death that she may become vp or even president is not paying attention.


wasnt it obama who thought their were 57 states? isnt he the one who mentioned his muslim faith before having to be corrected to his christian faith? if she retared obama must be in a coma.

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 09:40 PM
I was saving everyone a redo of all the buzz about Palin's laughable interview but since you ask for input how about this for a start.

Not a clue about "Bush Doctrine" and spare me the no one has heard this term B.S. speech. She is running for a vp on a ticket with a 72 year old man of questionable health.

Clueless about global warming and lies here way out of her prior position that man has no role in global warming. Flip flop artist she is not. Just either ignorant or a liar.

Iraq war being somehow being associated with the will of god. I am not sure of god's take on war but of all wars this has to be the biggest abuse of power and based upon lie after lie from Bush.

Never met a foreign head of state. Instead of just saying no she offers up some governor's luncheon.

My favorite -foreign policy experiance based upon the fact you can see Russian from some Island in Alaska.
The lies: (ebay sample)



http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/)
Did Sarah Palin sell the Alaska governor's jet on eBay?http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif
The jet was placed on eBay for sale, but it wasn't purchased from the site. The plane was eventually sold through an aircraft broker to businessman Larry Reynolds for less than the asking price and the original cost.

The lies: (bridge to nowhere)

Sarah Palin, former mayor of Wasilla, played host to ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson today in her home town, where the governor of Alaska confronted apparent changes in her stance on "The Bridge to Nowhere,'' the most infamous of "earmarks'' -- whichPalin was for before she was against it, as Gibson put it.
"I was,'' Palin concedes in the interview (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5789483&page=1), which will air on ABC's World News tonight at 6:30 pm EDT, with more on ABC's 20/20 at 10 and Nightline at 11:35 pm - talk about running the tables.
[/URL]


I could go on in nauseum but my point is well documented do a little research. "She is like a bad Disney film" - Matt Damon

Funny...the guy who coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine" thinks Charlie got it wrong and came off looking like a condescending Asshat

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/)

milldog
09-12-2008, 09:47 PM
I do not want four more years of the same bs either. I assure you I do my best to "know whats going on", but I may have different viewpoints than you.

If you want to debate on any number of subects like climate change, history, chess, science, biology, WWII, economics etc, etc please join in, but if your just going to jab and go well just.....

Well what? Got something to say to me, I'm all ears. I surely don't need you or anyone else to try and tell me what I can and can not say.And if you stand to elect McCain, 4 more years of the same BS is what you'll get! Don't even try to intimidate me bro, you'll get nowhere!

phinfan3411
09-12-2008, 09:50 PM
Funny...the guy who coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine" thinks Charlie got it wrong and came off looking like a condescending Asshat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Oh, this is tooooooo good. My first post in this thread I stated I didn't know what it was either, all these people, lined up one after another in line saying how stupid SHE was. ABSOLUTE CLASSIC made my night-thanks Mo!

phinfan3411
09-12-2008, 09:57 PM
Well what? Got something to say to me, I'm all ears. I surely don't need you or anyone else to try and tell me what I can and can not say.And if you stand to elect McCain, 4 more years of the same BS is what you'll get! Don't even try to intimidate me bro, you'll get nowhere!

Bro, we are probably 1500 miles apart, I am certainly not trying to "intimidate" you. This is a discussion/debate forum, everyone is entitled to there own opinion.

I am of the opinion that if your here, your here, join in. If you think telling half of us we do not know what is going on (and in turn you having all the answers) and you leave is a good idea, then who am I to stop you?




Oh, and please do not wait for me after school either.

finintheburgh
09-12-2008, 09:58 PM
Vietnam was not in my lifetime... And in Blackhawk Down we saw a tragedy of mismanagement, but not the crushing blow our world position has taken due to iraq...

Iraq is singularly the most damaging thing to happen to our nation in decades. It has destabilized the middle East, it has greatly strengthened Iran (who was always a greater threat anyway), it has shown our policy of ignoring our allies, it has weakened our bonds with our traditional allies, it has exposed us as weaker than the world thought due to the war's mismanagement.... It has been a disaster in every way imaginable... Is the world better with Saddam gone from it? Probably... Was it worth the cost to our military and International legitimacy? Absolutely not...


i find your view points interesting considering we are damn near the same age. so i suppose we both attened school about the same time and have similiar families. so i must say it suprises me how different we think.

that being said its funny that people seem to think that iraq did that much damage to our world standing. i am so not sure hoe much stronger iran is because of iraq. you do know that iraq is going good dont you? when the war is over and in ten years will iraq be a better place? will it be an ally? do i agree with going in the first place? no. but i do see the good that is coming.

also we put way to much stock in what europe thinks. we could piss all over them, but if they were attacked who do you think they would call? this is our country, most of our ancestors came here to get away from there. it befiddles me to see some act like they are now so much better than us

milldog
09-12-2008, 10:03 PM
Bro, we are probably 1500 miles apart, I am certainly not trying to "intimidate" you. This is a discussion/debate forum, everyone is entitled to there own opinion.

I am of the opinion that if your here, your here, join in. If you think telling half of us we do not know what is going on (and in turn you having all the answers) and you leave is a good idea, then who am I to stop you?




Oh, and please do not wait for me after school either.

By the bike racks, lol, great reply, enjoy your evening. You apparently know what's going on!

MoFinz
09-12-2008, 10:21 PM
Oh, this is tooooooo good. My first post in this thread I stated I didn't know what it was either, all these people, lined up one after another in line saying how stupid SHE was. ABSOLUTE CLASSIC made my night-thanks Mo!

Just want the truth to be known. Ive never seen such attack dog theatrics over a freakin' VP nominee....and all it's doing is distracting Obama from what got him here. If he loses this election, he got noone but himself to blame. From the condescending attitudes to the stupid attack ads (c'mon, McCains computer illiterate? No the poor guy cant raise his arms to type ya dummies. Good call on that one) to the kidgloves he's been questioned with by the media...the teeming masses havent missed it

idaho
09-12-2008, 10:30 PM
I think you have one good point, I do not like what she says about the bridge to nowhere either, the only good thing about that is it seems to be the turning point for her, and I think she did a very good job from then on.

The Jet thing shows how ridiculous the rest of your arguements are. Here we have a Governor that thinks a personal jet is too extravagent an expense, and she sells it, and YOU find fault with it? She said she "put" it on ebay, you really think it matters were it sold?? Do you also find youself staring aimlessly at small shiney objects?

Without getting into a LONG global warming debate, she is right. I do not care what you say, who you quote, who they are paid by, Al Gore does not DOES NOT have any proof, real proof that there is a man made cause for "global warming" . If he came out and said there might be, but I am not sure, I would have much more respect for him than I do (I have zero respect for him). The earth goes through warming, and cooling cycles continuously, in fact we are in the "fall" of the current cycle, we are soon going to have much more trouble with cooling than warming, but don't let me encourage you to throw out your personally signed Al Gore picture, you should keep it!

Iraq war quote was not correct, look it up, anything else you were wrong about?

Please challenge me on the global warming, I have just been dying to debate this, please!







I really didn't think there were 2 people who thought global warming had nothing to do with human consumption. I was wrong Palin at least flip flopped on this stupid arguement. That leave you. By your lonely. I won't google the obvious rebuttal arguements to your global warming theory enough to say that I have heard no respectable authority argue man has no role in it. The emissions we put in the air have nothing to do with global warming man even retard palin is not trying that redneck science with the population. The whole paid by al gore remark tells me that you should have been palins running mate. Hell at this point McCain is a negative draw on that ticket. Maybe you could cook up some conspiracy theories together while sighting in your automatic rifles. Like Good luck on that arguement.

You missed the point on the ebay issue. Who lies about a little issue about selling the plane on ebay when she really sold it at a loss to a private party. Sounds to me like she made matters worst by selling it at a loss. Why lie about it . Just say I sold it to a private party. Anyone lie about something to make herself look frugal when the fact is she looks stupid like a sucker.

The Iraq war and god issue I have watched the video enough to know what she said. She thinks god played a role in the Iraq war. That is a joke. God has no use for war and for her to use his name anywhere near the Iraq war is retarded. She lacks boundaries. Religion and politics don't mix.

I'll debate you all night on Palin because she is not smart enough to be vice president.

finintheburgh
09-12-2008, 10:43 PM
I really didn't think there were 2 people who thought global warming had nothing to do with human consumption. I was wrong Palin at least flip flopped on this stupid arguement. That leave you. By your lonely. I won't google the obvious rebuttal arguements to your global warming theory enough to say that I have heard no respectable authority argue man has no role in it. The emissions we put in the air have nothing to do with global warming man even retard palin is not trying that redneck science with the population. The whole paid by al gore remark tells me that you should have been palins running mate. Hell at this point McCain is a negative draw on that ticket. Maybe you could cook up some conspiracy theories together while sighting in your automatic rifles. Like Good luck on that arguement.

You missed the point on the ebay issue. Who lies about a little issue about selling the plane on ebay when she really sold it at a loss to a private party. Sounds to me like she made matters worst by selling it at a loss. Why lie about it . Just say I sold it to a private party. Anyone lie about something to make herself look frugal when the fact is she looks stupid like a sucker.

The Iraq war and god issue I have watched the video enough to know what she said. She thinks god played a role in the Iraq war. That is a joke. God has no use for war and for her to use his name anywhere near the Iraq war is retarded. She lacks boundaries. Religion and politics don't mix.

I'll debate you all night on Palin because she is not smart enough to be vice president.

make that atleast 3 who dont belive in man made gw.

alot of wars were fought over religions. seems with all these religious wars, god would care alittle right? im not a very religiou man, but if i was going to war i would want to believe he was on my side. just like sadaam thought god was on his side.

phinfan3411
09-12-2008, 11:01 PM
I think you have one good point, I do not like what she says about the bridge to nowhere either, the only good thing about that is it seems to be the turning point for her, and I think she did a very good job from then on.

The Jet thing shows how ridiculous the rest of your arguements are. Here we have a Governor that thinks a personal jet is too extravagent an expense, and she sells it, and YOU find fault with it? She said she "put" it on ebay, you really think it matters were it sold?? Do you also find youself staring aimlessly at small shiney objects?

Without getting into a LONG global warming debate, she is right. I do not care what you say, who you quote, who they are paid by, Al Gore does not DOES NOT have any proof, real proof that there is a man made cause for "global warming" . If he came out and said there might be, but I am not sure, I would have much more respect for him than I do (I have zero respect for him). The earth goes through warming, and cooling cycles continuously, in fact we are in the "fall" of the current cycle, we are soon going to have much more trouble with cooling than warming, but don't let me encourage you to throw out your personally signed Al Gore picture, you should keep it!

Iraq war quote was not correct, look it up, anything else you were wrong about?

Please challenge me on the global warming, I have just been dying to debate this, please!







I really didn't think there were 2 people who thought global warming had nothing to do with human consumption. I was wrong Palin at least flip flopped on this stupid arguement. That leave you. By your lonely. I won't google the obvious rebuttal arguements to your global warming theory enough to say that I have heard no respectable authority argue man has no role in it. The emissions we put in the air have nothing to do with global warming man even retard palin is not trying that redneck science with the population. The whole paid by al gore remark tells me that you should have been palins running mate. Hell at this point McCain is a negative draw on that ticket. Maybe you could cook up some conspiracy theories together while sighting in your automatic rifles. Like Good luck on that arguement.

You missed the point on the ebay issue. Who lies about a little issue about selling the plane on ebay when she really sold it at a loss to a private party. Sounds to me like she made matters worst by selling it at a loss. Why lie about it . Just say I sold it to a private party. Anyone lie about something to make herself look frugal when the fact is she looks stupid like a sucker.

The Iraq war and god issue I have watched the video enough to know what she said. She thinks god played a role in the Iraq war. That is a joke. God has no use for war and for her to use his name anywhere near the Iraq war is retarded. She lacks boundaries. Religion and politics don't mix.

I'll debate you all night on Palin because she is not smart enough to be vice president.

First, lets congratulate you on how great you understand "Bush's Doctrine".

Now on to the next issue, can you answer a few questions for me?

What is the hottest year on record?

What decade has 3 or 4 of the hottest years on record?

Is the average temperature now increasing or decreasing?

Do you agree that the earth has warmed many times before the days of "carbon credits"

What carbon exactly is the "bad" one? From exhaust, from 6 billion people exhaling, from cow flatulence?

I am not promoting pollution, even though most guys like you would like to think that. I am for conservation, renewable energy sources, alternate energy sources etc, I just don't like to be lied to, so we can get there.

In case you have not figured it out, global warming is big, big big business. Tons of money ride on there being a problem, thousands of jobs depend on there being a problem. Over the last 100 years there has been (according to the media) alternating problems with either warming or cooling, please check this out if you do not believe me.

In the end, I do not know the "real answer", I just know I will not believe a word that comes out of that trolls mouth Al Gore. You want to believe him, get in line, he's counting on you.

Oh, and Palin has to have her ideals basically merge with McCain now, if for some reason you were unaware. A little while ago, Biden said he would run with McCain, and what did he say about Obama, I forget.:) I wonder if he has changed those opinions?????:up:

idaho
09-12-2008, 11:04 PM
make that atleast 3 who dont belive in man made gw.

alot of wars were fought over religions. seems with all these religious wars, god would care alittle right? im not a very religiou man, but if i was going to war i would want to believe he was on my side. just like sadaam thought god was on his side.

Good now work on your math because you lost Palin she flip flopped. That makes ony 2. Dumb and Dumber.
I cann't believe I have to site any evidence but just as a sample this is the first artice on google. Not to mention a hurricane as we speak off the coast of texas the size of which is similar to katrina.

1st article and I am not going to quote any more as you can spend your own time on google.

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Dolphan7
09-12-2008, 11:24 PM
Well I just couldn't stay away. I won't argue much with all of you neo-cons, I know I won't get anywhere! She's an idiot and is absolutely clueless about the state of our country. If you can't see this, well, so be it! I came to this site because I'm a huge Dolphin fan and I intend on keeping it that way. I know I was out of line the other night but sh*t happens and I was really pissed off. I know I shoudn't let others get to me but I am human and I was extremely upset! Cheers to all of you who know what's really going on with our country, to the rest of you, could care less how you perceive me! I'll do whatever I can to make sure we don't continue another 4 years of the same ol BS! Let's go Dolphins!Glad you decided to stay.:up:

We are a divided country, and divided we will fall.

milldog
09-12-2008, 11:27 PM
Glad you decided to stay.:up:

We are a divided country, and divided we will fall.

Can't say I don't agree with you on that!:(

MDFINFAN
09-13-2008, 12:29 AM
Can't say I don't agree with you on that!:(

Hey milldog good to see you're still here.. I need your help, we've got to open some eyes, I see too many sleep walking here..:sidelol::sidelol:

idaho
09-13-2008, 01:03 AM
Funny...the guy who coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine" thinks Charlie got it wrong and came off looking like a condescending Asshat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The guy was refering to bush's missile defense system at the time and it has since been updated. The fact that she didn't even know krauthammer's version or the updated version is even scarier. She had several options to guess at. She didn't even venture a guess. Gibson even gives her a chance to guess. Gibson "what do you attribute it to" when asking about the bush doctrine still stumped her. She had no ideai to even guess. If she would have said oh you mean as in the missle defense system she may get a pass. She could not have got that question in a multiple choice test. One element of the bush doctrine she is safe. She does the teen miss south carolina anserw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer) used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-6)
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council) document, National Security Strategy of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Strategy_of_the_United_States), published on September 20, 2002,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NSC-4) and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-9) The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-10)

ohall
09-13-2008, 01:06 AM
make that atleast 3 who dont belive in man made gw.

alot of wars were fought over religions. seems with all these religious wars, god would care alittle right? im not a very religiou man, but if i was going to war i would want to believe he was on my side. just like sadaam thought god was on his side.

four

MoFinz
09-13-2008, 06:50 AM
The guy was refering to bush's missile defense system at the time and it has since been updated. The fact that she didn't even know krauthammer's version or the updated version is even scarier. She had several options to guess at. She didn't even venture a guess. Gibson even gives her a chance to guess. Gibson "what do you attribute it to" when asking about the bush doctrine still stumped her. She had no ideai to even guess. If she would have said oh you mean as in the missle defense system she may get a pass. She could not have got that question in a multiple choice test. One element of the bush doctrine she is safe. She does the teen miss south carolina anserw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer) used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-6)
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council) document, National Security Strategy of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Strategy_of_the_United_States), published on September 20, 2002,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NSC-4) and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-9) The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-10)

Nice try...until you get to the part where she asked him to clarify, and he just grumped The Bush Doctrine.

Enjoy that KoolAid....meanwhile, i'm sure you had no clue what the Bush Doctrine, or more accurately which Bush Doctrine Chuck was referring to until he mentioned it in the interview.

MDFINFAN
09-13-2008, 11:21 AM
Nice try...until you get to the part where she asked him to clarify, and he just grumped The Bush Doctrine.

Enjoy that KoolAid....meanwhile, i'm sure you had no clue what the Bush Doctrine, or more accurately which Bush Doctrine Chuck was referring to until he mentioned it in the interview.

How did her question clear her of not knowing what the bush doctrine was, please clarify? She looked confused and seem to be asking for help...that's just an observation, not saying it's true, but I don't get your logic here...I think the reporter was caught off guard that she didn't understand what he was asking, and I think he quickly realized it, because I actually think he was going to clarify until he realized, does she know what I'm talking about, let me see.. that's what I took from that exchange, so let me know what you meant by your response..thanks

ohall
09-13-2008, 11:38 AM
How did her question clear her of not knowing what the bush doctrine was, please clarify? She looked confused and seem to be asking for help...that's just an observation, not saying it's true, but I don't get your logic here...I think the reporter was caught off guard that she didn't understand what he was asking, and I think he quickly realized it, because I actually think he was going to clarify until he realized, does she know what I'm talking about, let me see.. that's what I took from that exchange, so let me know what you meant by your response..thanks

The Bush doctrine are different things to different ppl. Obviously his definition was different than hers.

You see it as a failure, some see it as a success. That's just a small example.

ABrownLamp
09-13-2008, 11:41 AM
I think you have one good point, I do not like what she says about the bridge to nowhere either, the only good thing about that is it seems to be the turning point for her, and I think she did a very good job from then on.

The Jet thing shows how ridiculous the rest of your arguements are. Here we have a Governor that thinks a personal jet is too extravagent an expense, and she sells it, and YOU find fault with it? She said she "put" it on ebay, you really think it matters were it sold?? Do you also find youself staring aimlessly at small shiney objects?

Without getting into a LONG global warming debate, she is right. I do not care what you say, who you quote, who they are paid by, Al Gore does not DOES NOT have any proof, real proof that there is a man made cause for "global warming" . If he came out and said there might be, but I am not sure, I would have much more respect for him than I do (I have zero respect for him). The earth goes through warming, and cooling cycles continuously, in fact we are in the "fall" of the current cycle, we are soon going to have much more trouble with cooling than warming, but don't let me encourage you to throw out your personally signed Al Gore picture, you should keep it!

Iraq war quote was not correct, look it up, anything else you were wrong about?

Please challenge me on the global warming, I have just been dying to debate this, please!

Ill take that challenge. Ill make another thread for it tho. I just read your questions about GW on the proceeding page and its the same tired arguments again.
You guys really think science hasnt thought about the questions you, as a non scientist thought of?

phinfan3411
09-13-2008, 11:42 AM
How did her question clear her of not knowing what the bush doctrine was, please clarify? She looked confused and seem to be asking for help...that's just an observation, not saying it's true, but I don't get your logic here...I think the reporter was caught off guard that she didn't understand what he was asking, and I think he quickly realized it, because I actually think he was going to clarify until he realized, does she know what I'm talking about, let me see.. that's what I took from that exchange, so let me know what you meant by your response..thanks

If you read what Mo wrote when he originally found out about this, the Bush Doctrine could have a few different meanings, and it has changed a few times. She probably wanted clarification, like I would have. I find it very funny that so many people attacked her for not knowing, when they, in fact did not know, nor did the interviewer. Absolute classic...so funny.

You will also see in my first post in this thread, where I tried to speak up for her, after all of you guys attacked her, I even admitted I didn't know what it meant.....you guys crack me up!

phinfan3411
09-13-2008, 11:51 AM
Ill take that challenge. Ill make another thread for it tho. I just read your questions about GW on the proceeding page and its the same tired arguments again.
You guys really think science hasnt thought about the questions you, as a non scientist thought of?


I did not think that thinking about the questions was the key, the answers would be the key. If you read all of my posts, you know where I stand, I believe no one knows for sure, and I do not like to be lied to.

I know where our conversations go, and have no intention of going there, so you win.

poornate
09-13-2008, 01:38 PM
i find your view points interesting considering we are damn near the same age. so i suppose we both attened school about the same time and have similiar families. so i must say it suprises me how different we think.

that being said its funny that people seem to think that iraq did that much damage to our world standing. i am so not sure hoe much stronger iran is because of iraq. you do know that iraq is going good dont you? when the war is over and in ten years will iraq be a better place? will it be an ally? do i agree with going in the first place? no. but i do see the good that is coming.

also we put way to much stock in what europe thinks. we could piss all over them, but if they were attacked who do you think they would call? this is our country, most of our ancestors came here to get away from there. it befiddles me to see some act like they are now so much better than us

It befuddles our allies for them to see how much better we think of ourselves than we think of them.... Iraq was a rejection of our standing with our nation's traditional allies.

the international perception of our nation due to the war. When we proposed entering Iraq we did not receive the sanction of our allies, the UN, or the international community. As the world’s only superpower, the United States has always existed with, and by, the legitimacy we garnered from the support of strong traditional allies. When the Bush administration decided to go against the advice of all of our allies, the United Nations, and the international community as a whole, and invade Iraq, we lost a margin of our authority. Willfully engaging in an action that was universally derided has cost the United States a lot of capital with the global community.

The reason that the United States now counts among its military allies Tonga, Latvia, and Georgia, where in the last American intervention into Iraqi affairs stood Germany, France, and Japan, is that we have diverged from global interests. In the first Iraq war Saudi Arabia contributed more troops than every contributing nation to the present war.

There has been a real backlash against American interventionism. People are not as readily welcoming towards America’s foreign policies. It has become an almost guarantor of popularity for state leaders to openly criticize the government of the United States. The global community has judged the self-proclaimed torchbearers of freedom and democracy corrupt in intentions and not representative of shared interests.

The actual effects on our position are far reaching. Without a consensus on global direction, without a full capacity military, and without the clout of the dollar, the United States lacks the authority and legitimacy it once held internationally. Many Middle East nations believe that the Iraq War is based on economics and that the forced spread of democracy through military action is a great attack upon the fundamentals of their Islamic faith. Many radical sects talk about the Iraq War as if it is an ongoing phase of the Crusades, and even average Iraqi’s are beginning to view our presence there as an occupation. The entire area has been destabilized. It has had an incalculable affect on the tenuous interstate relationships that exist in the Middle East, opened new areas of recruitment for extremists and encouraged them to spread their violent doctrine locally and globally, and reduced the legitimacy of any future international actions undertaken in the region that involve the United States.

We have to return to an era of concordance with our allies. There must be a return to goodwill between the rest of the world and the United States, because we cannot regain our prominence, nor support any international agenda effectively, by becoming isolated. The United States must return itself to a favorable position in the eyes of our allies to restore our full capabilities internationally. There is no clear process for accomplishing this, but it must be a priority for the incoming administration.

Iran only represents the threat it now does because of the regional instability brought on by The Iraq war. Iran and Iraq have long balanced each other in the region, all though Iran was stronger, but now that balanced dynamic has been eliminated. By removing a non-threat to America, we have created a real and enduring threat to the world. there is no sovereignty in the middle East positioned to check Iran. They exist as a force in the Middle East and we have facilitated their solidarity there. The assertion that Iraq is going well is only true as long as we remain active in that theater. There is no soothsayer to predict what chaos may or may not unfold once we leave. What is a certainty, though, is that Iran is there to safety and we no longer have the world's support in countering their influence.

Dolphan7
09-13-2008, 02:51 PM
I would like someone to tell me exactly which Allies we have lost, and while they are at it, which Allies we have gained since 911.

poornate
09-13-2008, 03:01 PM
I would like someone to tell me exactly which Allies we have lost, and while they are at it, which Allies we have gained since 911.

I don't think we have lost any allies... we have wounded our relationships and measure of authority with them, though. Specifically Japan and all of the EU. I'm not sure that we have gained a single ally. We have strengthened our ties with Lebanon and Libya during the war, even though i am not convinced they are related (perhaps they are aligning with us due to the Iranian emergence.)

finintheburgh
09-13-2008, 03:29 PM
I don't think we have lost any allies... we have wounded our relationships and measure of authority with them, though. Specifically Japan and all of the EU. I'm not sure that we have gained a single ally. We have strengthened our ties with Lebanon and Libya during the war, even though i am not convinced they are related (perhaps they are aligning with us due to the Iranian emergence.)




do you know why we havent lost any allies? its because they need us. they need us more than we need them. they need us if they ever get attacked. this notion that we need permission for them to do anything is rediculous. in fact i would say that the way we fought this war is because of them. they set rules and we play by them, as far as war goes. we need to learn there is no such thing as a nice and friendly war.

i take there negative comments with a grain of salt. they can piss and moan all they want.

finintheburgh
09-13-2008, 03:31 PM
Good now work on your math because you lost Palin she flip flopped. That makes ony 2. Dumb and Dumber.
I cann't believe I have to site any evidence but just as a sample this is the first artice on google. Not to mention a hurricane as we speak off the coast of texas the size of which is similar to katrina.

1st article and I am not going to quote any more as you can spend your own time on google.

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm


are these the same guys that thought the earth was flat. its there opinion and there are others who dont share it.

Dolphan7
09-13-2008, 03:51 PM
I don't think we have lost any allies... we have wounded our relationships and measure of authority with them, though. Specifically Japan and all of the EU. I'm not sure that we have gained a single ally. We have strengthened our ties with Lebanon and Libya during the war, even though i am not convinced they are related (perhaps they are aligning with us due to the Iranian emergence.)

So we haven't lost any allies, strengthened relations with two, and I can think of one Ally we have gained that wasn't an Ally pre-911 - Iraq.

Not bad, not bad at all if you ask me.

Have we ticked some countries off, sure, but that is the nature of International Politics.

Have we lost respect - Absolutely not! I think The United States would have lost respect had we done nothing. UN Resolution 1441 demanded that something be done, because nothing else was working. Had we not acted, then the UN would be considered a joke for any future resolutions, lacking any authority and resolve to accomplish anything. This in light of the already weakened position of the UN. What is the point of a world body that can pass all types of resolutions against a regime like Saddam's, and then do nothing if those resolutions don't have their desired effect? The United States may have just given the UN a little longer life so to speak, by being the muscle behind the resolutions. And the United States would be considered just another useless tool of the UN, helpless and ineffective. Is that the United States we want to be? I think not.

poornate
09-13-2008, 03:55 PM
do you know why we havent lost any allies? its because they need us. they need us more than we need them. they need us if they ever get attacked. this notion that we need permission for them to do anything is rediculous. in fact i would say that the way we fought this war is because of them. they set rules and we play by them, as far as war goes. we need to learn there is no such thing as a nice and friendly war.


We need them as well... All you have to do is look at history to know that. we would have lost the Revolutionary war without France.... We couldn't have defeated the Germans without Russia... it goes on and on.... look at how a little backwater country like Iraq has bogged us down... I'd like to hear your response to my answering of your first post as well...

BTW... are you suggesting that we wage total war? Or disregard Geneva conventions?

poornate
09-13-2008, 03:58 PM
So we haven't lost any allies, strengthened relations with two, and I can think of one Ally we have gained that wasn't an Ally pre-911 - Iraq.

Not bad, not bad at all if you ask me.

Have we ticked some countries off, sure, but that is the nature of International Politics.

Have we lost respect - Absolutely not! I think The United States would have lost respect had we done nothing. UN Resolution 1441 demanded that something be done, because nothing else was working. Had we not acted, then the UN would be considered a joke for any future resolutions, lacking any authority and resolve to accomplish anything. This in light of the already weakened position of the UN. What is the point of a world body that can pass all types of resolutions against a regime like Saddam's, and then do nothing if those resolutions don't have their desired effect? The United States may have just given the UN a little longer life so to speak, by being the muscle behind the resolutions. And the United States would be considered just another useless tool of the UN, helpless and ineffective. Is that the United States we want to be? I think not.

I think you are taking a really narrow view of this... There is no arguing the fact that Iraq has been bad for our power position internationally... we have weakened our ties with EVERY single ally we have... except for two flaky semi-free authoritarian states... that's good?

Dolphan7
09-13-2008, 04:06 PM
I think you are taking a really narrow view of this... There is no arguing the fact that Iraq has been bad for our power position internationally... we have weakened our ties with EVERY single ally we have... except for two flaky semi-free authoritarian states... that's good?
No we have not weakened our ties. That is simply an opinion of the America is wrong camp. The only thing that is weakened is the rest of the world's resolve to battle against evil. Many say they are in the fight against Islamic Extremism, but it is empty rhetoric.

No one wants to fight evil anymore, and when that happens - evil wins. Might not happen overnight, but if you don't confront evil with everything in your arsenal, evil will eventually win out.

ohall
09-13-2008, 04:12 PM
No we have not weakened our ties. That is simply an opinion of the America is wrong camp. The only thing that is weakened is the rest of the world's resolve to battle against evil. Many say they are in the fight against Islamic Extremism, but it is empty rhetoric.

No one wants to fight evil anymore, and when that happens - evil wins. Might not happen overnight, but if you don't confront evil with everything in your arsenal, evil will eventually win out.

These are probably the same ppl that won't say the words Islamic and terrorists together because it may offend someone. I say F'em. Who needs ppl like that to be our friends? I could care less if I offend terrorists, and if some who is Islamic and is not a terrorist gets offended they need to grow a pair IMO.

ABrownLamp
09-13-2008, 05:03 PM
I did not think that thinking about the questions was the key, the answers would be the key. If you read all of my posts, you know where I stand, I believe no one knows for sure, and I do not like to be lied to.

I know where our conversations go, and have no intention of going there, so you win.

Ucch. First of all I'm obviously not going to go thru your posts to find your stance. Second of all its pretty unreasonable to call the NSF liars in regards to science. Thats a pretty bold statement considering the NSF is comprised of the best scientists in all of the world- theres no way anyone can call that organization a group of scam artists as their work and history and record of innovation and prestige speak for themselves

And finally I dont know where our conversations have gone in the past since I dont even recognize your screenname. Why throw out a challeng if you dont want to be challenged? Its a message board. In a political forum. Just words on a screen.

phinfan3411
09-13-2008, 05:03 PM
It befuddles our allies for them to see how much better we think of ourselves than we think of them.... Iraq was a rejection of our standing with our nation's traditional allies.

the international perception of our nation due to the war. When we proposed entering Iraq we did not receive the sanction of our allies, the UN, or the international community. As the world’s only superpower, the United States has always existed with, and by, the legitimacy we garnered from the support of strong traditional allies. When the Bush administration decided to go against the advice of all of our allies, the United Nations, and the international community as a whole, and invade Iraq, we lost a margin of our authority. Willfully engaging in an action that was universally derided has cost the United States a lot of capital with the global community.

The reason that the United States now counts among its military allies Tonga, Latvia, and Georgia, where in the last American intervention into Iraqi affairs stood Germany, France, and Japan, is that we have diverged from global interests. In the first Iraq war Saudi Arabia contributed more troops than every contributing nation to the present war.

There has been a real backlash against American interventionism. People are not as readily welcoming towards America’s foreign policies. It has become an almost guarantor of popularity for state leaders to openly criticize the government of the United States. The global community has judged the self-proclaimed torchbearers of freedom and democracy corrupt in intentions and not representative of shared interests.

The actual effects on our position are far reaching. Without a consensus on global direction, without a full capacity military, and without the clout of the dollar, the United States lacks the authority and legitimacy it once held internationally. Many Middle East nations believe that the Iraq War is based on economics and that the forced spread of democracy through military action is a great attack upon the fundamentals of their Islamic faith. Many radical sects talk about the Iraq War as if it is an ongoing phase of the Crusades, and even average Iraqi’s are beginning to view our presence there as an occupation. The entire area has been destabilized. It has had an incalculable affect on the tenuous interstate relationships that exist in the Middle East, opened new areas of recruitment for extremists and encouraged them to spread their violent doctrine locally and globally, and reduced the legitimacy of any future international actions undertaken in the region that involve the United States.

We have to return to an era of concordance with our allies. There must be a return to goodwill between the rest of the world and the United States, because we cannot regain our prominence, nor support any international agenda effectively, by becoming isolated. The United States must return itself to a favorable position in the eyes of our allies to restore our full capabilities internationally. There is no clear process for accomplishing this, but it must be a priority for the incoming administration.

Iran only represents the threat it now does because of the regional instability brought on by The Iraq war. Iran and Iraq have long balanced each other in the region, all though Iran was stronger, but now that balanced dynamic has been eliminated. By removing a non-threat to America, we have created a real and enduring threat to the world. there is no sovereignty in the middle East positioned to check Iran. They exist as a force in the Middle East and we have facilitated their solidarity there. The assertion that Iraq is going well is only true as long as we remain active in that theater. There is no soothsayer to predict what chaos may or may not unfold once we leave. What is a certainty, though, is that Iran is there to safety and we no longer have the world's support in countering their influence.

Nate, I agree with you 100% on your point of nothing there now to check Iran's power. One thing you fail to mention though (and I am pretty sure you know about it) is the corruption @ The UN, and the fact that it did not matter WHAT happened Sadam had his deals with those nations, and they would never vote with us. I feel this is a very important point you left out.

ABrownLamp
09-13-2008, 05:20 PM
No we have not weakened our ties. That is simply an opinion of the America is wrong camp. The only thing that is weakened is the rest of the world's resolve to battle against evil. Many say they are in the fight against Islamic Extremism, but it is empty rhetoric.

No one wants to fight evil anymore, and when that happens - evil wins. Might not happen overnight, but if you don't confront evil with everything in your arsenal, evil will eventually win out.

Well thats not a good artgument since the battle against "evil" is an endless war. I mean, theres no end to the countries we could invade.

And even if you wanted to indulge the good vs evil campaign, there are clearly better ways of fighting than just attacking them with weapons.

Choosing the right battles makes more sense than simply fighting to end evil (whatever that means). They both have to be carefully waged.

ohall
09-13-2008, 06:04 PM
Well thats not a good artgument since the battle against "evil" is an endless war. I mean, theres no end to the countries we could invade.

And even if you wanted to indulge the good vs evil campaign, there are clearly better ways of fighting than just attacking them with weapons.

Choosing the right battles makes more sense than simply fighting to end evil (whatever that means). They both have to be carefully waged.

It's a perfect argument. The world is a dangerous place. It is very doubtful that will change anytime soon. Better to have a leader that thinks it's better to fight than to appease IMO.

FYI you don't invade every country. You invade the one that is the BIGGEST danger when the time is right and if they do not back down. If you carry a big stick and you never use it they will think it's for show. As the world did since the MID 70's.

Thankfully it will be a long time before anyone in this world thinks America is still a paper tiger.

ih8brady
09-13-2008, 06:04 PM
No we have not weakened our ties. That is simply an opinion of the America is wrong camp. The only thing that is weakened is the rest of the world's resolve to battle against evil. Many say they are in the fight against Islamic Extremism, but it is empty rhetoric.

No one wants to fight evil anymore, and when that happens - evil wins. Might not happen overnight, but if you don't confront evil with everything in your arsenal, evil will eventually win out.


Since when are we battling "evil"? The enemy at hand is Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. You don't really believe that we are, should or can fight all that is immoral through are military or the government? I know McCain does, but you can't D7, right?

ohall
09-13-2008, 06:06 PM
Since when are we battling "evil"? The enemy at hand is Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. You don't really believe that we are, should or can fight all that is immoral through are military or the government? I know McCain does, but you can't D7, right?

So what are they then, good?

ih8brady
09-13-2008, 06:08 PM
It's a perfect argument. The world is a dangerous place. That is very doubtful that will change anytime soon. Better to have a leader that thinks it's better to fight than to appease IMO.

FYI you don't invade every country. You invade the one that is the BIGGEST danger when the time is right and if they do not back down. If you carry a big stick and you never use it they will think it's for show. As the world did since the MID 70's.

Thankfully it will be a long time before anyone in this world thinks America is still a paper tiger.


If America is so strong right now and under such great leadership, why is this 6-month war still happening in it's 6th year?

ih8brady
09-13-2008, 06:12 PM
So what are they then, good?


They're corrupt, insane and immoral BUT so are many people in power, some with access to powerful weapons and armies. Prime example, our "allies" Saudi Arabia. If they aren't scum, I don't know who is. Should we invade them? Russia? North Korea? The USA? Do you really think we have 300 million angels in this country? Let us forget that there is immorality in everyone that has ever lived.


Get out of this simplistic and dead-end POV.

ohall
09-13-2008, 06:17 PM
If America is so strong right now and under such great leadership, why is this 6-month war still happening in it's 6th year?

I believe it was a 21 day war that our troops won. They have been trying to win the peace and thankfully, recently our BRAVE troops did that for this country.

You mention strong this time, and ignore what you were implying before. Who are the bad guys to you. And yes I do think it is that black and white.

ohall
09-13-2008, 06:24 PM
They're corrupt, insane and immoral BUT so are many people in power, some with access to powerful weapons and armies. Prime example, our "allies" Saudi Arabia. If they aren't scum, I don't know who is. Should we invade them? Russia? North Korea? The USA? Do you really think we have 300 million angels in this country? Let us forget that there is immorality in everyone that has ever lived.


Get out of this simplistic and dead-end POV.

I agree Saudi Arabia is not a real friend. But why do we have to pander to these ppl? Because we cannot drill our own oil. Who do you blame for that?

None of the countries you listed IMO are in any risk of being invaded by this country. Unless of course they were to invade one of our allies. Russia just invaded Georgia and we didn't return the favor. I'm not really sure what you are worried about. I think Iran on the other hand should take a very deep breath.

I most certainly will not get out of that simple way of thinking. I am a simple man, I appreciate common sense. I could give a fig about someone who can read a book and retain what others tell them to do. I want someone that will work hard and use every day common sense to deal with the very difficult issues that face our country. That person speaks for me, not the professor at some University.

ABrownLamp
09-13-2008, 07:07 PM
It's a perfect argument. The world is a dangerous place. It is very doubtful that will change anytime soon. Better to have a leader that thinks it's better to fight than to appease IMO.

FYI you don't invade every country. You invade the one that is the BIGGEST danger when the time is right and if they do not back down. If you carry a big stick and you never use it they will think it's for show. As the world did since the MID 70's.

Thankfully it will be a long time before anyone in this world thinks America is still a paper tiger.

Defeating evil as a pretense for war is certainly dangerous since it is an easy rationale for a warhawk president to attack a country without true merit. Id say better to have a pres who goes to war after all other options have been exhausted than one who goes to war simply to fight evil.

Clearly, Iraq wasnt the biggest danger to the world or the US. And terrorist attacks have increased since weve used this "big stick" so i dont see how using it is justifiable in this case. Nor does it matter to terrorists who are willing to kill themselves for a cause.

finintheburgh
09-13-2008, 07:31 PM
We need them as well... All you have to do is look at history to know that. we would have lost the Revolutionary war without France.... We couldn't have defeated the Germans without Russia... it goes on and on.... look at how a little backwater country like Iraq has bogged us down... I'd like to hear your response to my answering of your first post as well...

BTW... are you suggesting that we wage total war? Or disregard Geneva conventions?


my response would be that everything you said would be something that is said by european countries that despise us or by elites that think were bullies.

we needed france before we were even a country.

and if we were as concerned about public opinion as we are now, we would never even been in that war. we would have just talked to them and turned the other cheek.

as far as the back water country goes, it like this, we are fighting by one set of rules and they are fighting by another. they worry about nothing except killing us and worry about not hitting anyone were not supposed to. if we wanted to we could blow them right off the map, if they had that choice we would be already dead.

im not suggesting any war

Dolphan7
09-13-2008, 07:43 PM
Confronting evil in the world isn't just a military thing. It is everything in your arenal, and we never give our enemy the imporession that we won't use force if we have to.

Iraq may not have been the biggest threat to America post 911, but the business of ridding the world of evil goes on regardless. You choose your battles and fight the one you can win. Islamic Terrorism isn't just a country, it is a belief system, an ideology, and it is spreading. Iraq was a country that needed to be dealt with. It was dealt with. And now we are almost finished there.

What is next? Iran? What should be our position on Iran? Talk? Sanctions? Boycott? Embargo? Blockade? And then what? Military force is next!

No one is saying military force is the first and only option. But I would question those who don't want our enemies to think that.

ohall
09-13-2008, 10:31 PM
Defeating evil as a pretense for war is certainly dangerous since it is an easy rationale for a warhawk president to attack a country without true merit. Id say better to have a pres who goes to war after all other options have been exhausted than one who goes to war simply to fight evil.

Clearly, Iraq wasnt the biggest danger to the world or the US. And terrorist attacks have increased since weve used this "big stick" so i dont see how using it is justifiable in this case. Nor does it matter to terrorists who are willing to kill themselves for a cause.

There is no pretense, it is reality.

There is evil massing to try and destroy this country. Now if you want to imply this is a lie more power to you my friend.

And Iraq most certainly was the BIGGEST danger at the time. The world agreed they had WMD and were well on their way to a large scale nuclear program. Ask the Clinton's, Al Gore and Kerry about that and source their comments pre-invasion of Iraq if you do not believe me.

milldog
09-13-2008, 10:50 PM
Real fans post about our team, fakes post only political posts here! I'll repeat... ONLY!

poornate
09-13-2008, 11:42 PM
Real fans post about our team, fakes post only political posts here! I'll repeat... ONLY!

Yawn..... How have your first two months been here fella?

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 01:38 AM
There is no pretense, it is reality.

There is evil massing to try and destroy this country. Now if you want to imply this is a lie more power to you my friend.

And Iraq most certainly was the BIGGEST danger at the time. The world agreed they had WMD and were well on their way to a large scale nuclear program. Ask the Clinton's, Al Gore and Kerry about that and source their comments pre-invasion of Iraq if you do not believe me.

no evil is a made up word that is not a rationale for going to war. i mean we could go to war with russia or georgia right now by saying either one of them are evil. its too subjective a term to use as pretense for war.

Iraq was obviously not the biggest danger at the time. and without even going into the cherry picking of info for war, i think its pretty clear at this point that there was no immediate threat no matter who supported the war.

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 01:42 AM
Real fans post about our team, fakes post only political posts here! I'll repeat... ONLY!


what in the world does this even mean?

how exactly do you fake being a fan of the dolphins?

Dr. Phin
09-14-2008, 04:22 AM
So you think the war in Iraq is keeping our "image" up? Iraq has done more to hurt our image than anything. I don't think threatening the world with more Iraq's is the greatest "image" builder. I disagree with both of you. More war is not the answer. Palin's foriegn policy sounds no different than the NEO-CONS.

Quite frankly I couldn't give a damn about our "world image." This isn't a popularity contest....:shakeno:

Dr. Phin
09-14-2008, 04:27 AM
[quote=WSE;1062619132]yea, Obama needs to play some quotes from this to continue his "no third term" campaign point

she sounds like a neo con here. Her international knowledge doesn't seem to be there much. Its them= bad, Us= good, and that doesn't work for the world today.[/quot

Her international knowledge...Oh...and Obomba "I will negotiotiate with terrorist states without any groundrules" is the pinnacle of international knowledge...if your going to attack something...attack something your side isn't even worse at...

Dr. Phin
09-14-2008, 04:31 AM
Defeating evil as a pretense for war is certainly dangerous since it is an easy rationale for a warhawk president to attack a country without true merit. Id say better to have a pres who goes to war after all other options have been exhausted than one who goes to war simply to fight evil.

Clearly, Iraq wasnt the biggest danger to the world or the US. And terrorist attacks have increased since weve used this "big stick" so i dont see how using it is justifiable in this case. Nor does it matter to terrorists who are willing to kill themselves for a cause.

When was the last terrorist attack on this country???

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 11:18 AM
When was the last terrorist attack on this country???


In this country? September 11th 2001 under George Bush.
In Iraq? this week. Worldwide terrorism has increased since this war began nd that fact is indisputable.

finintheburgh
09-14-2008, 12:37 PM
In this country? September 11th 2001 under George Bush.
In Iraq? this week. Worldwide terrorism has increased since this war began nd that fact is indisputable.


its the pres job to keep us safe first and foremost, not the whole world. maybe the rest of the world should try to keep themselves safe to instead of expecting help for outhers.

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 12:42 PM
its the pres job to keep us safe first and foremost, not the whole world. maybe the rest of the world should try to keep themselves safe to instead of expecting help for outhers.

American troops are attacked by terrorists in Iraq literally every day. And terrorism has spread and increased across the world. You dont think thats a problem?

Dr. Phin
09-14-2008, 12:48 PM
Please try to refrain from insulting or attacking other posters.


American troops are attacked by terrorists in Iraq literally every day. And terrorism has spread and increased across the world. You dont think thats a problem?

Let's get something straight...that isn't terrorism. They are warriors at war...the aren't at a f***ing picnic. They are over there protecting you from being killed by a bunch of fanatic lunatics so that you can **REMOVED** on threads like this....

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 01:16 PM
Let's get something straight...that isn't terrorism. They are warriors at war...the aren't at a f***ing picnic. They are over there protecting you from being killed by a bunch of fanatic lunatics so that you can sound like a moron on threads like this....

Oh those arent terrorists attacking our troops?
What is it then, the Iraqi army?
Dont try to play that game... your little outburst about troops fighting for our freedom has nothing to do with whether or not Bush strategy is effective. That little mickey mouse straw man argument is really obnoxious and encapsulates what this admin has stood for over the last 8 years

ohall
09-14-2008, 01:57 PM
no evil is a made up word that is not a rationale for going to war. i mean we could go to war with russia or georgia right now by saying either one of them are evil. its too subjective a term to use as pretense for war.

Iraq was obviously not the biggest danger at the time. and without even going into the cherry picking of info for war, i think its pretty clear at this point that there was no immediate threat no matter who supported the war.

You and others are re-writing history then. You'd have to forget where the world was pre-invasion and what the leaders of the DEM PP alone were saying about Iraq.

Iraq was the biggest perceived threat. I have no doubt if they were left alone the UN would have dropped its sanctions by now and Saddam would be well on his way to getting a large scale nuke program to attempt to keep up with its neighbor Iran. Thankfully we only have to deal with one of those countries having nukes today.

ohall
09-14-2008, 01:58 PM
In this country? September 11th 2001 under George Bush.
In Iraq? this week. Worldwide terrorism has increased since this war began nd that fact is indisputable.

You blame Bush for 9/11?

lol

ohall
09-14-2008, 02:02 PM
American troops are attacked by terrorists in Iraq literally every day. And terrorism has spread and increased across the world. You dont think thats a problem?

Yes and those troops keep this country safe because of that every day.

I believe there are less terrorists because our troops have killed so many of those scum balls.

It's a problem we didn't create, radical Islamic terrorist created this problem.

ohall
09-14-2008, 02:05 PM
Oh those arent terrorists attacking our troops?
What is it then, the Iraqi army?
Dont try to play that game... your little outburst about troops fighting for our freedom has nothing to do with whether or not Bush strategy is effective. That little mickey mouse straw man argument is really obnoxious and encapsulates what this admin has stood for over the last 8 years

Of course it does, but some ppl are so biased for one side all they can do is blame and blame some more.

Of course anyone that disagrees with you must be a mental midget or they are drinking from the kids cup huh?

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 05:31 PM
You and others are re-writing history then. You'd have to forget where the world was pre-invasion and what the leaders of the DEM PP alone were saying about Iraq.

Iraq was the biggest perceived threat. I have no doubt if they were left alone the UN would have dropped its sanctions by now and Saddam would be well on his way to getting a large scale nuke program to attempt to keep up with its neighbor Iran. Thankfully we only have to deal with one of those countries having nukes today.

And you have what evidence to back this up? The briefings I saw had them boxed in and doing nothing towards nukes..hell, they hadn't even stated rebuilding their army, which should have been evident to you by the way we went in...or did you miss that part? That's the history you convienently seem to forget...again the world was so afraid of them that all our allies rallied to go after them...our allies have intel too, funny how they didn't go in...all everyone did was not deny WMD's, so please don't come with the everyone said they had WMD's..they just didn't deny it, but obviously they didn't think Iraq was worth going after them either..

ohall
09-14-2008, 06:25 PM
And you have what evidence to back this up? The briefings I saw had them boxed in and doing nothing towards nukes..hell, they hadn't even stated rebuilding their army, which should have been evident to you by the way we went in...or did you miss that part? That's the history you convienently seem to forget...again the world was so afraid of them that all our allies rallied to go after them...our allies have intel too, funny how they didn't go in...all everyone did was not deny WMD's, so please don't come with the everyone said they had WMD's..they just didn't deny it, but obviously they didn't think Iraq was worth going after them either..

As I said I believe the UN would have lifted the sanctions on Iraq by now. To imagine he would have been a good boy after that IMO is beyond naive.

If we did not invade that means he would have won that chess match and he would have been emboldened to no end. But I'm sure you won't admit that.

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 06:27 PM
You and others are re-writing history then. You'd have to forget where the world was pre-invasion and what the leaders of the DEM PP alone were saying about Iraq.

Iraq was the biggest perceived threat. I have no doubt if they were left alone the UN would have dropped its sanctions by now and Saddam would be well on his way to getting a large scale nuke program to attempt to keep up with its neighbor Iran. Thankfully we only have to deal with one of those countries having nukes today.

No, the Dems gave Bush the authority to invade based on cherry picked info. Its their fault for believing him thats for sure. Since we didnt find any WMDs the only thing you have to go on is pure conjecture about what happened to them or what would have happened in the future.

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 06:30 PM
As I said I believe the UN would have lifted the sanctions on Iraq by now. To imagine he would have been a good boy after that IMO is beyond naive.

If we did not invade that means he would have won that chess match and he would have been emboldened to no end. But I'm sure you won't admit that.

Theres no reason to believe that the sanctions that were working would have been lifted. If we did not invade Iraq for WMDs that did not exist then we prob would have invaded the countries most responsible for 9/11

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 07:42 PM
As I said I believe the UN would have lifted the sanctions on Iraq by now. To imagine he would have been a good boy after that IMO is beyond naive.

If we did not invade that means he would have won that chess match and he would have been emboldened to no end. But I'm sure you won't admit that.

In your humor opinion.. and that's fair..

idaho
09-14-2008, 10:46 PM
Nice try...until you get to the part where she asked him to clarify, and he just grumped The Bush Doctrine.

Enjoy that KoolAid....meanwhile, i'm sure you had no clue what the Bush Doctrine, or more accurately which Bush Doctrine Chuck was referring to until he mentioned it in the interview.

He knew what the bush doctrine was. He refered her to the date of 2002 as a hint. He was just letting her hang herself which she did nicely.
Wrong on the bush doctrine. Anyone following the war has heard of the bush doctine. But even if I had not I am not running for the VP of the US. She should have been on the fast track all the repulican Bs policies including the bush doctrine. When she was asked originally about being the vp she said sure if someone tells me what the vp does. What a brian surgeon she would have made. She had no business in this presidential race. But hey she fooled you.

MoFinz
09-14-2008, 11:17 PM
He knew what the bush doctrine was. He refered her to the date of 2002 as a hint. He was just letting her hang herself which she did nicely.
Wrong on the bush doctrine. Anyone following the war has heard of the bush doctine. But even if I had not I am not running for the VP of the US. She should have been on the fast track all the repulican Bs policies including the bush doctrine. When she was asked originally about being the vp she said sure if someone tells me what the vp does. What a brian surgeon she would have made. She had no business in this presidential race. But hey she fooled you.

Before you question someone's intelligence, maybe you should educate yourself on spell check.

You didn't even check out the link i posted for you did you? The one where Krauthamer, you know him, the guy that coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine" pointed out Charlie Gibson didn't even have it right. If you thought you knew what Charlie was talking about, then you were wrong too. But nice try.

But hey, you're too smart to get fooled. Change......the kitty litter before the box gets full:up:

ih8brady
09-15-2008, 12:01 AM
Before you question someone's intelligence, maybe you should educate yourself on spell check.

You didn't even check out the link i posted for you did you? The one where Krauthamer, you know him, the guy that coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine" pointed out Charlie Gibson didn't even have it right. If you thought you knew what Charlie was talking about, then you were wrong too. But nice try.

But hey, you're too smart to get fooled. Change......the kitty litter before the box gets full:up:

The difference is that Idaho or Charlie Gibson are NOT running for control of the Executive Branch. And what's wrong with performing surgeries on guys named Brian?

ohall
09-15-2008, 01:04 AM
In your humor opinion.. and that's fair..

My humor opinion, huh?

ohall
09-15-2008, 01:08 AM
No, the Dems gave Bush the authority to invade based on cherry picked info. Its their fault for believing him thats for sure. Since we didnt find any WMDs the only thing you have to go on is pure conjecture about what happened to them or what would have happened in the future.

You mean we know what we know now only because Bush decided to invade.

Every President and administration cherry picks everything when it comes to going to war or not. There is always counter information and opinions when it comes to war. Only in today's world is this some how news and considered to be a lie.

ohall
09-15-2008, 01:12 AM
Theres no reason to believe that the sanctions that were working would have been lifted. If we did not invade Iraq for WMDs that did not exist then we prob would have invaded the countries most responsible for 9/11

Yea you're right, France and Russia didn't want to have the sanctions lifted.

idaho
09-15-2008, 09:02 AM
Before you question someone's intelligence, maybe you should educate yourself on spell check.

You didn't even check out the link i posted for you did you? The one where Krauthamer, you know him, the guy that coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine" pointed out Charlie Gibson didn't even have it right. If you thought you knew what Charlie was talking about, then you were wrong too. But nice try.

But hey, you're too smart to get fooled. Change......the kitty litter before the box gets full:up:

How come every time on these forums when someone is owned they attack the spelling of the poster. Spell check is not working on this site for me. It is blocked as spam. Let's stay on point. Maybe you need to read the headlines about all of the failed financial institutions and bush's lack of regulatory control on mortgage securities and ask your self do you want someone as dumb as palin as vp to figure this mess out. This is not a job for a hockey mom. And for you supporting her gives me and everyone else reason to question your intelligence. As to the "Bush Doctrine" here it is:

The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_doctrine) of United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) president George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks). It may be viewed as a set of several related foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy) principles, including stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-order-0) increased unilateralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateralism) in foreign policy[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-order-0) and an expanded view of American national security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) interests.

So Krauthamer may have started it but it has morphed since then. All the more reason Palin should have heard about it. If she would have come close maybe but she couldn't offer even a guess.
She deflected the question to stall and then gibson gave her a chance to attach any meaning she wanted. He ask her what attributes did she assign to the Bush Doctrine. If you could not see that she was clueless then I am not sure why I am wasting my time argueing with a rock. Gee did I spell "rock " close enough for you to understand. We are facing the most important election in years and for people like you to think Palin has anything to offer scars the hell out of me. No time for dummies to run the country. US is no Wasilla. PTA skills donot transfer. Why don't you and Palin set this one out. "First someone has to tell me what the vp does" -Sarah Palin. Who applies for a job and has no clue what the job is about.

WSE
09-15-2008, 10:37 AM
Her international knowledge...Oh...and Obomba "I will negotiotiate with terrorist states without any groundrules" is the pinnacle of international knowledge...if your going to attack something...attack something your side isn't even worse at...

putting quotes around words doesnt make them quotes

Obama said he will have diplomatic relations with all countries. We dont need preconditions to talk. Keep the lines of communication open, and maybe we could aviod costly, pointless endeavors like the conflict in Iraq right now.

Obama's foreign relations seem to be based on international diplomacy. Palin's, as well as McCains, seem to be focused on the simplistic, incorrect view of us= good, and them= bad. Thats not how the world works. Actions lead to reactions, and there are multiple viewpoints and endgames for every action.

MoFinz
09-15-2008, 10:39 AM
How come every time on these forums when someone is owned they attack the spelling of the poster. Spell check is not working on this site for me. It is blocked as spam. Let's stay on point. Maybe you need to read the headlines about all of the failed financial institutions and bush's lack of regulatory control on mortgage securities and ask your self do you want someone as dumb as palin as vp to figure this mess out. This is not a job for a hockey mom. And for you supporting her gives me and everyone else reason to question your intelligence. As to the "Bush Doctrine" here it is:

The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_doctrine) of United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) president George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks). It may be viewed as a set of several related foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy) principles, including stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-order-0) increased unilateralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateralism) in foreign policy[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-order-0) and an expanded view of American national security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) interests.

So Krauthamer may have started it but it has morphed since then. All the more reason Palin should have heard about it. If she would have come close maybe but she couldn't offer even a guess.
She deflected the question to stall and then gibson gave her a chance to attach any meaning she wanted. He ask her what attributes did she assign to the Bush Doctrine. If you could not see that she was clueless then I am not sure why I am wasting my time argueing with a rock. Gee did I spell "rock " close enough for you to understand. We are facing the most important election in years and for people like you to think Palin has anything to offer scars the hell out of me. No time for dummies to run the country. US is no Wasilla. PTA skills donot transfer. Why don't you and Palin set this one out. "First someone has to tell me what the vp does" -Sarah Palin. Who applies for a job and has no clue what the job is about.

You OWNED me?

:sidelol:

I did nothing but provide defining evidence that contradicted your viewpoint, and you're trying to turn it into something else. Gibson didn't understand the Bush Doctrine himself, and now it's being reported that they edited her answers substantively. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself you owned me.

And do let me know how that surgery on your brian goes now won't you?:rolleyes:

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 12:01 PM
no evil is a made up word that is not a rationale for going to war. i mean we could go to war with russia or georgia right now by saying either one of them are evil. its too subjective a term to use as pretense for war.

Iraq was obviously not the biggest danger at the time. and without even going into the cherry picking of info for war, i think its pretty clear at this point that there was no immediate threat no matter who supported the war.That is exactly right. 20-20 hindsight is always much more clearer than what we were faced with pre-invasion. We didn't have all this after knowledge. Everything we had pointed to WMD's. IT is ok to say we were mistaken now, but it isn't ok to say we knew all this back then.

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 12:04 PM
And you have what evidence to back this up? The briefings I saw had them boxed in and doing nothing towards nukes..hell, they hadn't even stated rebuilding their army, which should have been evident to you by the way we went in...or did you miss that part? That's the history you convienently seem to forget...again the world was so afraid of them that all our allies rallied to go after them...our allies have intel too, funny how they didn't go in...all everyone did was not deny WMD's, so please don't come with the everyone said they had WMD's..they just didn't deny it, but obviously they didn't think Iraq was worth going after them either..
I believe he is referring to an interview a reporter did with Saddam when he was in jail, and Saddam admitted that his plan was to begin restarting his nuke program after the heat died down. He was just stalling for time. Based on that alone we did the right thing taking him out.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/11/12/nbc-reports-saddam-hussein-planned-re-start-nuclear-program

idaho
09-15-2008, 01:17 PM
You OWNED me?

:sidelol:

I did nothing but provide defining evidence that contradicted your viewpoint, and you're trying to turn it into something else. Gibson didn't understand the Bush Doctrine himself, and now it's being reported that they edited her answers substantively. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself you owned me.

And do let me know how that surgery on your brian goes now won't you?:rolleyes:


At least he knew there was a bush doctrine. Which is the point here. She was clueless however you define it. Couple that together with her practiced anserws and you can see why she is mocked as a dummy. I guess they were not done telling her what a vp does before the interview. Like think and be honest. Why not say gee charlie I understand the bush doctrine to be this. she never understood it even after he fully explained it. Gibson must have felt something like how I feel wasting my time with you on this subject. As for the editing they did her a favor of cutting the nonresponsive anserws. Made her look not as dumb as she was.

MoFinz
09-15-2008, 01:57 PM
At least he knew there was a bush doctrine. Which is the point here. She was clueless however you define it. Couple that together with her practiced anserws and you can see why she is mocked as a dummy. I guess they were not done telling her what a vp does before the interview. Like think and be honest. Why not say gee charlie I understand the bush doctrine to be this. she never understood it even after he fully explained it. Gibson must have felt something like how I feel wasting my time with you on this subject. As for the editing they did her a favor of cutting the nonresponsive anserws. Made her look not as dumb as she was.

Riiiiighhttttttt..

and again...you owned me?

yessuh massuh.....

keep 'er spinning....

ABrownLamp
09-15-2008, 04:19 PM
That is exactly right. 20-20 hindsight is always much more clearer than what we were faced with pre-invasion. We didn't have all this after knowledge. Everything we had pointed to WMD's. IT is ok to say we were mistaken now, but it isn't ok to say we knew all this back then.

What? Why is it ok to say we were wrong? Tens of thousands of Iraqi citiziens are dead in addition to thousands of troops. Not to mention half a trillion dollars spent and billions that have somehow just gone missing. With no end in sight, And the countries where the terrorists came from and the mastermind behind it all remain. And you guys give the ol oops, 20/20 hinsight argument?

See this is the type of stuff Pubs would never let the Dems get away with. If that was Gore in office during the 9/11 and who lead us into Iraq, you guys would have torn us apart. I can just imagine what Rush would be saying right now. Its testiment to your partys ability to campaign but inability to do the right thing.

idaho
09-15-2008, 04:49 PM
What? Why is it ok to say we were wrong? Tens of thousands of Iraqi citiziens are dead in addition to thousands of troops. Not to mention half a trillion dollars spent and billions that have somehow just gone missing. With no end in sight, And the countries where the terrorists came from and the mastermind behind it all remain. And you guys give the ol oops, 20/20 hinsight argument?

See this is the type of stuff Pubs would never let the Dems get away with. If that was Gore in office during the 9/11 and who lead us into Iraq, you guys would have torn us apart. I can just imagine what Rush would be saying right now. Its testiment to your partys ability to campaign but inability to do the right thing.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the bush administration has not been held accountable for the failure to get Bin Laden. It takes months to respond to 911 and then to Iraq while Bin Laden sneaks into pakistan. Now we have have the rebuilding of Iraq to pay for while they sit on billions. We should be rebuilding New Orleans instead of bagdad. A country that can't stand us.

ABrownLamp
09-15-2008, 05:09 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why the bush administration has not been held accountable for the failure to get Bin Laden. It takes months to respond to 911 and then to Iraq while Bin Laden sneaks into pakistan. Now we have have the rebuilding of Iraq to pay for while they sit on billions. We should be rebuilding New Orleans instead of bagdad. A country that can't stand us.

Its really hard to come to any other conclusion except that Americans either dont understand or dont care about important political issues. If Bush ws running for reelection again today, he would still get at least 40% of the Us vote. They like him cause he seems like a guy they can sit down and have a beer with.

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 05:37 PM
What? Why is it ok to say we were wrong? Tens of thousands of Iraqi citiziens are dead in addition to thousands of troops. Not to mention half a trillion dollars spent and billions that have somehow just gone missing. With no end in sight, And the countries where the terrorists came from and the mastermind behind it all remain. And you guys give the ol oops, 20/20 hinsight argument?

See this is the type of stuff Pubs would never let the Dems get away with. If that was Gore in office during the 9/11 and who lead us into Iraq, you guys would have torn us apart. I can just imagine what Rush would be saying right now. Its testiment to your partys ability to campaign but inability to do the right thing.
Actually I was referring to your 20/20 hindsight as your justification not to go into Iraq based on what you know today, not what was known back then. My point, of which you obviously missed, was that it is ok for you to say we were wrong knowing what you know now, but you can't say we were wrong knowing what you knew in 2003. That was my point.

Look you are entitled to form you own opinions in the PFO. We encourage it, but if you seek to constantly mis-represent other posters views, it can be considered an annoyance. Please stop!

ABrownLamp
09-15-2008, 05:56 PM
Actually I was referring to your 20/20 hindsight as your justification not to go into Iraq based on what you know today, not what was known back then. My point, of which you obviously missed, was that it is ok for you to say we were wrong knowing what you know now, but you can't say we were wrong knowing what you knew in 2003. That was my point.

Look you are entitled to form you own opinions in the PFO. We encourage it, but if you seek to constantly mis-represent other posters views, it can be considered an annoyance. Please stop!

No I wasnt misrepresenting what you said at all and I specifically addressed your quote. You only want to talk about the parts of your statement that are beneficial to your point of view.

Theres no merit or value in saying hindsight is 20/20. Why bother mentioning it, it is implied, obviously.

The real argument is what the consequence to those actions were, which I addressed. Even without going into the cherry picking business, the Commander in Chief got it wrong. Wrong enough that it will inevitably cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

MDFINFAN
09-15-2008, 06:23 PM
Actually I was referring to your 20/20 hindsight as your justification not to go into Iraq based on what you know today, not what was known back then. My point, of which you obviously missed, was that it is ok for you to say we were wrong knowing what you know now, but you can't say we were wrong knowing what you knew in 2003. That was my point.

Look you are entitled to form you own opinions in the PFO. We encourage it, but if you seek to constantly mis-represent other posters views, it can be considered an annoyance. Please stop!

I can, because in 2003 I was saying the same thing I'm saying now, the difference is I was proven right by history...but it was a no brainer then too if ppl open their eyes.:up:

MDFINFAN
09-15-2008, 06:25 PM
My humor opinion, huh?

:sidelol::sidelol: humble okay humble...but I was laughing at the time I wrote it, so I probably was thinking humerous..

ohall
09-15-2008, 06:49 PM
:sidelol::sidelol: humble okay humble...but I was laughing at the time I wrote it, so I probably was thinking humerous..

Sorry didn't mean to come off as an a-hole. I honestly wasn't sure what you meant. And I'm rarely humble. :)

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 08:03 PM
No I wasnt misrepresenting what you said at all and I specifically addressed your quote. You only want to talk about the parts of your statement that are beneficial to your point of view.

Theres no merit or value in saying hindsight is 20/20. Why bother mentioning it, it is implied, obviously.

The real argument is what the consequence to those actions were, which I addressed. Even without going into the cherry picking business, the Commander in Chief got it wrong. Wrong enough that it will inevitably cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

And I was referring to this post:


Iraq was obviously not the biggest danger at the time. and without even going into the cherry picking of info for war, i think its pretty clear at this point that there was no immediate threat no matter who supported the war.

You can say today that in your opinion Iraq was a mistake. That is your prerogative.

But the info we had back then pointed to him being a threat. And there is every bit of evidence that he was going to restart his programs if we didn't do anything.

What would you rather have today, one loose cannon in the middle east, or two?

We did the right thing.

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 08:04 PM
I can, because in 2003 I was saying the same thing I'm saying now, the difference is I was proven right by history...but it was a no brainer then too if ppl open their eyes.:up:Lucky guess. Give yourself a medal!:lol:

FinFatale
09-15-2008, 08:12 PM
Sorry didn't mean to come off as an a-hole. I honestly wasn't sure what you meant. And I'm rarely humble. :)


Humble perhaps not but HONEST, hell yeah!!!!!!!!!

MDFINFAN
09-16-2008, 04:42 PM
Humble perhaps not but HONEST, hell yeah!!!!!!!!!

FF, you went too far, you're talking about the hardest core con I've met on this site in years..Honest, hell NO...he's only as honest as its take to get a con veiwpoint accross.. don't feed his ego..it's hard enough debating him now..egging him on only serves for me to pull out the big guns..:wink:

ohall
09-16-2008, 06:14 PM
FF, you went too far, you're talking about the hardest core con I've met on this site in years..Honest, hell NO...he's only as honest as its take to get a con veiwpoint accross.. don't feed his ego..it's hard enough debating him now..egging him on only serves for me to pull out the big guns..:wink:

I am not the one claiming to be an IND thinker. I am a proud CON. I would suggest to you that is what she was speaking of. I hide nothing in my agenda, where some so called IND thinkers around here think they are hiding something from the posters. Get it?

My humble comment had a simple meaning. I call a spade a spade. Some of you should try it some time. The comment had nothing to do with my ego.

finintheburgh
09-16-2008, 06:53 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why the bush administration has not been held accountable for the failure to get Bin Laden. It takes months to respond to 911 and then to Iraq while Bin Laden sneaks into pakistan. Now we have have the rebuilding of Iraq to pay for while they sit on billions. We should be rebuilding New Orleans instead of bagdad. A country that can't stand us.


if were going to hold someone accountable how about we start with mr clinton, if he would have taken bin laden when they tried to turn him over to us, then none of this would have happened. no 911, no war with iraq. you may not like the fact that we went after him but atleast we did something. how many times do you want to turn the other cheek. we tried it once and they came back again. if we would have left it go again it would have happened again.

idaho
09-17-2008, 02:56 AM
if were going to hold someone accountable how about we start with mr clinton, if he would have taken bin laden when they tried to turn him over to us, then none of this would have happened. no 911, no war with iraq. you may not like the fact that we went after him but atleast we did something. how many times do you want to turn the other cheek. we tried it once and they came back again. if we would have left it go again it would have happened again.

Clinton made some lob shot missiles at him but all in all pretty lame attempt. However, had 911 occured on Clintons watch or any other president for that matter and they diverted to Iraq without going directly at Bin Laden, I would have a problem with them as well. I have no love lost for saddam. He needed to go. But only after Bin Laden. Now he is holed up in pakistan and they are shooting at our soldiers who go in to get al quaeda. What a mess. We could have got Bin Laden if we didn't wait months to react and then divert most attention to Iraq and give him time to ride is camel back to Packistan.

Dolphan7
09-17-2008, 12:26 PM
Clinton made some lob shot missiles at him but all in all pretty lame attempt. However, had 911 occured on Clintons watch or any other president for that matter and they diverted to Iraq without going directly at Bin Laden, I would have a problem with them as well. I have no love lost for saddam. He needed to go. But only after Bin Laden. Now he is holed up in pakistan and they are shooting at our soldiers who go in to get al quaeda. What a mess. We could have got Bin Laden if we didn't wait months to react and then divert most attention to Iraq and give him time to ride is camel back to Packistan.

It is amazing how the accuracy of history fades over time, and then morphs into something it isn't.

We had everything invested in Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and get Bin Laden. We started right after 911 (Oct 7th) and ended up defeating the Taliban and pushing Bin Laden into the Mountains by Dec 2001. Because of a fake truse, Bin Laden escaped into Pakistan - in 2001. From that point forward Afghanistan was a mop up operation and a NATO operation. And it still is a NATO operation, although we are starting to invest more soldiers to that cause as the Taliban are growing in strength.

In Dec 2001 it was over. We didn't get Bin Laden, but it was over in Afghanistan. Iraq didn't start until March 2003, 15 months later. So tell me what did Iraq take away from Afghanistan? Should we have invaded Pakistan, an ally who was helping us?

My point is that we could have put 400,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2001 and Bin Laden would still be free - in Pakistan. 400,000 troops and the same result. Now maybe you can claim we should have dumped 400,000 troops into Afghanistan in Oct 2001, and the result may have been different, but that has nothing to do with Iraq.

MDFINFAN
09-17-2008, 12:35 PM
It is amazing how the accuracy of history fades over time, and then morphs into something it isn't.

We had everything invested in Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and get Bin Laden. We started right after 911 (Oct 7th) and ended up defeating the Taliban and pushing Bin Laden into the Mountains by Dec 2001. Because of a fake truse, Bin Laden escaped into Pakistan - in 2001. From that point forward Afghanistan was a mop up operation and a NATO operation. And it still is a NATO operation, although we are starting to invest more soldiers to that cause as the Taliban are growing in strength.

In Dec 2001 it was over. We didn't get Bin Laden, but it was over in Afghanistan. Iraq didn't start until March 2003, 15 months later. So tell me what did Iraq take away from Afghanistan? Should we have invaded Pakistan, an ally who was helping us?

My point is that we could have put 400,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2001 and Bin Laden would still be free - in Pakistan. 400,000 troops and the same result. Now maybe you can claim we should have dumped 400,000 troops into Afghanistan in Oct 2001, and the result may have been different, but that has nothing to do with Iraq.

While your time line is correct, I'm not sure if we put 400, 000 troops in Afgan when we first started that Bin Laden would have made it to the border...if the plan was executed properly.. Since we knew history from the Russian\Afgan war, I'm sure we'd first go to the borders to cut off escape..at least those are the briefings we went by while I was in the military using mock war games for afgan.. then we'd go in..secure the borders first then attack the central part of their intel and military.. If that plan had been followed, there's a good chance we'd have gotten Bin Laden.

FinFatale
09-17-2008, 12:36 PM
Clinton made some lob shot missiles at him but all in all pretty lame attempt. However, had 911 occured on Clintons watch or any other president for that matter and they diverted to Iraq without going directly at Bin Laden, I would have a problem with them as well. I have no love lost for saddam. He needed to go. But only after Bin Laden. Now he is holed up in pakistan and they are shooting at our soldiers who go in to get al quaeda. What a mess. We could have got Bin Laden if we didn't wait months to react and then divert most attention to Iraq and give him time to ride is camel back to Packistan.

I believe that Bin Laden was HOLED up long before the 9/11 attack on our country. He knew we would be seeking him out and would have been smart enough to hole up long before we got looking for him. I don't believe he was sitting somewhere close by and then SNUCK out of the US to his hiding place...............

Dolphan7
09-17-2008, 01:45 PM
While your time line is correct, I'm not sure if we put 400, 000 troops in Afgan when we first started that Bin Laden would have made it to the border...if the plan was executed properly.. Since we knew history from the Russian\Afgan war, I'm sure we'd first go to the borders to cut off escape..at least those are the briefings we went by while I was in the military using mock war games for afgan.. then we'd go in..secure the borders first then attack the central part of their intel and military.. If that plan had been followed, there's a good chance we'd have gotten Bin Laden.Maybe. We won't know that but that is a debate worth having. Using NATO and local Afghan troops was the best way to administer that war. The only screw up I can think of is believing in a false truce that allowed BL to get away. Had we kept going we would have had him.

Saying Iraq took away from Afghanistan is not a valid debate. Had we never gone into Iraq we would be in the same situation today.

MDFINFAN
09-17-2008, 02:08 PM
Maybe. We won't know that but that is a debate worth having. Using NATO and local Afghan troops was the best way to administer that war. The only screw up I can think of is believing in a false truce that allowed BL to get away. Had we kept going we would have had him.

Saying Iraq took away from Afghanistan is not a valid debate. Had we never gone into Iraq we would be in the same situation today.

Well you have to remember initially Afgan wasn't a NATO situation, we were going after the planners of 9/11, we turn afgan over to NATO later. I don't think we fought the initial part of Afgan correctly using the mock war games we'd played back in the past. I think part of the problem was mid way thru, we'd turn our attention to trying to convince the world that Iraq was a apart of the 9/11 situation...we'd pretty run al qeada out of afgan, which we shouldn't have let happen..we should have caught\kill on the spot. I actually think more troops in the begining would have led to his capture.. properly placed as we'd war game could have got him....but as you stated we'll never know, and I don't know the total impact of turning our attention to Iraq played in our inability to get Bin laden.. but I do know the attention put on Iraq has allowed Al Qeada to reconsitute themselves...something that wouldn't have happen if a large number of troops had gone to afgan and secured the borders like they were supposed to, as well as secure key area of afgan.

ohall
09-17-2008, 02:18 PM
Clinton made some lob shot missiles at him but all in all pretty lame attempt. However, had 911 occured on Clintons watch or any other president for that matter and they diverted to Iraq without going directly at Bin Laden, I would have a problem with them as well. I have no love lost for saddam. He needed to go. But only after Bin Laden. Now he is holed up in pakistan and they are shooting at our soldiers who go in to get al quaeda. What a mess. We could have got Bin Laden if we didn't wait months to react and then divert most attention to Iraq and give him time to ride is camel back to Packistan.

No President can get UBL as long as they respect Pakistan's border. This is the truth, and I wish more ppl would remember this when they talk about why we haven't got UBL yet.

Dolphan7
09-17-2008, 02:27 PM
Well you have to remember initially Afgan wasn't a NATO situation, we were going after the planners of 9/11, we turn afgan over to NATO later. I don't think we fought the initial part of Afgan correctly using the mock war games we'd played back in the past. I think part of the problem was mid way thru, we'd turn our attention to trying to convince the world that Iraq was a apart of the 9/11 situation...we'd pretty run al qeada out of afgan, which we shouldn't have let happen..we should have caught\kill on the spot. I actually think more troops in the begining would have led to his capture.. properly placed as we'd war game could have got him....but as you stated we'll never know, and I don't know the total impact of turning our attention to Iraq played in our inability to get Bin laden.. but I do know the attention put on Iraq has allowed Al Qeada to reconsitute themselves...something that wouldn't have happen if a large number of troops had gone to afgan and secured the borders like they were supposed to, as well as secure key area of afgan.Hindsight.

Were you clamoring for more troops in Afghanistan in 2001? If not then you are forming a belief based on what you know today, after knowledge.