Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81

Thread: Obama: Ethnic cleansing reduced violence

  1. #41
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2639635]I pray for America to always come on top.[/quote]

    I don't belive that for a second.

    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2639635]Only the measure that was set forth from the beginning. Of course if you move the goalpost the way Warfish does, you can call anything a victory.[/QUOTE]

    And if you demand that a War work out exactly as planned before it's even started, you can usually declare a loss before you even start, as a Warplan usually lasts right up until the first shot is fired.

    Hell, if we held almost ALL of our social programs to that strict requirement of "never move the goalposts" in your terminology, we could EASILY declare every single one a "loss", an abject failure, right now.

    Wonder if you'll admit that? I won't hold my breath.

    Winning, or even just a respectable end result in Iraq isn't good enough for you and never has been. Your politics and worldview require a U.S. defeat, plain and simple.

    And it kills you that it isn't working out that way.

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2639702]I don't belive that for a second.



    And if you demand that a War work out exactly as planned before it's even started, you can usually declare a loss before you even start, as a Warplan usually lasts right up until the first shot is fired.

    Hell, if we held almost ALL of our social programs to that strict requirement of "never move the goalposts" in your terminology, we could EASILY declare every single one a "loss", an abject failure, right now.

    Wonder if you'll admit that? I won't hold my breath.

    Winning, or even just a respectable end result in Iraq isn't good enough for you and never has been. Your politics and worldview require a U.S. defeat, plain and simple.

    And it kills you that it isn't working out that way.[/QUOTE]


    Yes, wars dont work out as planned. But the goals that define victory do not change. Changing the endgoal as drastically as you have and then declaring victory is nothing but a joke. It would be funny if it were not for the 4000 lives lost and 30,000 lives ruined that it cost us , not to mention the billions. But hey, stick to your guns. Call it a victory if you want.

    This war has unfolded exactly as i predicted and the outcome i exactly as i said it would be, sadly.

  3. #43
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    765
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2639356]Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Change Shia Death Squads Hope Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Change.

    Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Change Shia Death Squads Hope Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Change Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Change Shia Death Squads Hope Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Shia Death Squads Change.

    It must really wax your carrot that the Surge (i.e. Reinforcement of U.S. Troops to a More Appropriate Level) actually worked, and we have come so much closer to winning in Iraq, and leaving with Iraq stable. Your frustration and anger is so obvious, and it makes me laugh every time I read it. You were sooooo desperate for Bush Co. to lose, it kills you that we've all but won you so-called "unwinnable" war. And we did it losing less troops in all these years than died (in some cases) in hours in other Wars.

    But hey Ken, don't fret. :)

    Obama has pledged to keep American Troops in Iraq, albeit in a reduced role, and plans on opening up our efforts in Afganistan and Pakistan ten-fold of what they are today, up to and including American action in Pakistan without Pakistani approval. We'll see how he handled being Commander-in-Chief soon enough. You'll get your Universal healthcare, your higher taxation, your amnesty for illegals, your alt-fuel funding and oil-descrimination and more! So smile, it's all good for you these days.[/QUOTE]

    Wait a minute. Democratic president(or candidate); expansion of war effort? Impossible!

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chicadeel;2639343].......And then we learn that..........


    [U]Andrea Mitchell on Hardball[/U]

    Andrea: Let me say something about his message management. He didn’t have reporters with him. He didn’t have a press pool. He didn’t do a press conference while he was on the ground either on Afghanistan or Iraq. What you’re seeing is not reporters brought in, you’re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questioned by the military and what some would call fake interviews because they’re not interviews with a journalist so there’s a real press issue here. Politically it’s smart as can be, but we’ve not seen a Presidential candidate do this in my recollection ever before.

    I don’t think journalism is the prime thing that we recruit them and pay them for.[/QUOTE]

    Yes we have. We saw it in Bush's town meetings which were populated with handpicked supporters who were given scripted questions to ask the candidate yet were promoted as real open exchanges between Bush and potential voters.

  5. #45
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2640156]Yes we have. We saw it in Bush's town meetings which were populated with handpicked supporters who were given scripted questions to ask the candidate yet were promoted as real open exchanges between Bush and potential voters.[/QUOTE]



    I think Andrea Mitchell may have been referencing the fact that the Pentagon choreographed the show. It was the military that selected the pictures and the military that asked the questions. Not journalists. I'm not sure if that has happened before to a Presidential Candidate. But you have to admit it is a little strange. No?

    Why would the Pentagon get so involved? Did they when McCain went there?

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chicadeel;2640263]I think Andrea Mitchell may have been referencing the fact that the Pentagon choreographed the show. It was the military that selected the pictures and the military that asked the questions. Not journalists. I'm not sure if that has happened before to a Presidential Candidate. But you have to admit it is a little strange. No?

    Why would the Pentagon get so involved? Did they when McCain went there?[/QUOTE]

    Maybe they got involved in order to protect Obama, especially since McCain broke protocal and announced his trip ahead of time last week.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2639549]The really unfunny irony is -- yes they are (coming to get us).[/QUOTE]

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you irrational, fear-card, Con man rhetoric.... in its natural habitat...

    The only "unfunny irony" here is the fact that clowns like yourself actually suggest we're the ones who need to take off the tinfoil hats.

    Run for your lives! Gather your perishables! Trust no brown-skinned people! But keep shopping!

    What a joke.

  8. #48
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2640367]Ladies and gentlemen, I give you irrational, fear-card, Con man rhetoric.... in its natural habitat...

    The only "unfunny irony" here is the fact that clowns like yourself actually suggest we're the ones who need to take off the tinfoil hats.

    Run for your lives! Gather your perishables! Trust no brown-skinned people! But keep shopping!

    What a joke.[/QUOTE]


    I have a gay liberal friend that would be perfect for you. He's only mildly retarded and is prone to tying sweaters around his neck.

  9. #49
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2640367]Trust no brown-skinned people! But keep shopping!
    [/QUOTE]


    Actually, if you really want to be around brown people, you should get out of your mommy's basement and travel to San Antonio. If your are white, you will be in the minority here. It might make you uncomfortable though, because there's a HUGE military presence here and they don't take kindly to faggoty twoofers.

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2639488]That's convenient.

    Wouldn't it be nice if the NFL allowed the teams to define their own terms of victory?

    "sure the Jets scored less points than the Pats, but they played better than last week, that's a victory"

    moving the goalposts is fun.[/QUOTE]

    Poor analogy...an NFL game has a definite time frame, however if you're "winning" at the end of regulation time, then it's a victory!

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2640312]Maybe they got involved in order to protect Obama, especially since McCain broke protocal and announced his trip ahead of time last week.[/QUOTE]



    Could be.

    But wouldn't that responsibility be delegated to the Secret Service?
    If the Secret Service believed that it was too dangerous for Obama to go he probably wouldn't go.

    Maybe they controlled the message because they didn't want anyone throwing a wrench into the mix for political gains at home.

  12. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chicadeel;2640980]Could be.

    But wouldn't that responsibility be delegated to the Secret Service?
    If the Secret Service believed that it was too dangerous for Obama to go he probably wouldn't go.

    Maybe they controlled the message because they didn't want anyone throwing a wrench into the mix for political gains at home.[/QUOTE]

    The military would be in charge of security in a warzone.

  13. #53
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the military is in charge of security in a war zone and the Secret Service is in charge of protecting Obama can we agree that he was well protected?

    If he was well protected why did they select the photos to be used and have the military interview him? What would be the reasoning for shutting the press out?

  14. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chicadeel;2641017]If the military is in charge of security in a war zone and the Secret Service is in charge of protecting Obama can we agree that he was well protected?

    If he was well protected why did they select the photos to be used and have the military interview him? What would be the reasoning for shutting the press out?[/QUOTE]

    It is a WARZONE.

  15. #55
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2641030]It is a WARZONE.[/QUOTE]









    Yes and........


    What?




    No one ever reported from a war zone. You can't have journalists asking Obama questions in a war zone.

    Come on.


    Edward R. Murrow,World War II
    Walter Cronkite,World War II, Vietnam
    Ernie Pyle,World War II
    Morley Safer,Vietnam
    Christian Amanpour,Persian Gulf, Yugoslavia, Somalia, The Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq

  16. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chicadeel;2641260]Yes and........


    What?




    No one ever reported from a war zone. You can't have journalists asking Obama questions in a war zone.

    Come on.


    Edward R. Murrow,World War II
    Walter Cronkite,World War II, Vietnam
    Ernie Pyle,World War II
    Morley Safer,Vietnam
    Christian Amanpour,Persian Gulf, Yugoslavia, Somalia, The Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq[/QUOTE]

    And you're trying to protect a presidential candidate in a warzone when his trip has already been leaked beforehand.

    Not to mention, don't you think the military wanted to control what Obama saw while he was there to make it look like things are going as well as possible?

  17. #57
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2641030]It is a WARZONE.[/QUOTE]

    A Warzone indeed. One full of reporters for many years now, with up to hundreds imbedded in combat units in that time.

    Really Kleck, for a self-described "Republican", you sure seem ready, willing and able to buy into almost any piece of Democrat/Liberal talking points or excuse-making on literally a daily basis.

    I mean, you DO realize that you're happily nodding along and agreeing with what has been a complete media lockout, with only the words and message Obama wants out there being allowed out......right?

    So when, exactly, WERE you a "Republican" and what issues do you actually agree with conservativism on? Cause my friend, I'm just not seeing it.

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Geologist;2641266]And you're trying to protect a presidential candidate in a warzone when his trip has already been leaked beforehand.

    Not to mention, don't you think the military wanted to control what Obama saw while he was there to make it look like things are going as well as possible?[/QUOTE]



    I agree on both points.

    The question of why he was not interviewed by the journalists in tow is still not answered.

  19. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    22,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2641269]A Warzone indeed. One full of reporters for many years now, with up to hundreds imbedded in combat units in that time.

    Really Kleck, for a self-described "Republican", you sure seem ready, willing and able to buy into almost any piece of Democrat/Liberal talking points or excuse-making on literally a daily basis.

    I mean, you DO realize that you're happily nodding along and agreeing with what has been a complete media lockout, with only the words and message Obama wants out there being allowed out......right?

    So when, exactly, WERE you a "Republican" and what issues do you actually agree with conservativism on? Cause my friend, I'm just not seeing it.[/QUOTE]

    Wow, a political campaign controlling their message. How is this a novelty?

    I think the military had more to do with locking the media out in Iraq. Doesn't it stand to reason that they would want to control what he sees?

    I don't buy into talking points at all, from either side. Sorry if I tend to not believe in any conspiracy theories from either side.

    I am trying to muck through all the BS to find out what's really going on and I am not going to listen to paranoid political pundits regardless of their affiliation because they're all full of crap.

    I agree with true politically conservative viewpoints: I believe in small government, I believe in states' rights, I believe in not legislating social issues, I believe in law and order, I believe in a strong DEFENSE and as such I am against nation building as it negatively impacts our ability to defend ourselves.

    I also am a realist however and understand that true statesmenship is born of compromise. You can't always get what you want and sometimes need to keep the greater good in mind.

    This is a complicated world, too complicated to be blinded by dogma and silly rhetoric.

  20. #60
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]Originally Posted by Geologist
    And you're trying to protect a presidential candidate in a warzone when his trip has already been leaked beforehand.

    Not to mention, don't you think the military wanted to control what Obama saw while he was there to make it look like things are going as well as possible?[/QUOTE]


    Why does this quote say Geologist when I quoted it from Klecko73isGod?


    [QUOTE][QUOTE]Klecko73isGod[/QUOTE]I also am a realist however and understand that true statesmenship is born of compromise. You can't always get what you want and sometimes need to keep the greater good in mind.[/QUOTE]


    True statesmanship is also standing up for what you believe to be true and right and not wavering or changing your view for political gain.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us