Who here *doesn't* believe that Obama is doomed?

Interesting. I happen to know Alan and he and I really see eye-to-eye on few issues. And I don't mean the little ones either. I'm accepted in areas and venues across the board that he can only dream of being in. I consider myself more stable, well rounded and able to excel in all environments because I'm prepared and resourceful. I spend a great deal of time learning about a lot of things. It provides me a great mental cross-referencing ability. I'll say this tough, I do tend to not run the motor on the full speed setting on purpose. Just conservin' to excel at the right moment.

In common parlance, the word pseudo is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not, as in pseudoscience. I am definitely not pretending. The comments expounded upon are founded within my mind and supported in my lifestyle.

As for conservative. In comparison to what is considered acceptable by today's standards, I would plead guilty! And I am extremely happy and comfortable being so. I leave others to their vices and standards and revel in my ability to do the same. :)

P.S. Obama didn't destroy Keys. Are you aware of the political landscape here at all? First, the republican party fight where Alan was thrust down the throats of the local organization at the last minute was major. Second, the Chicago masses seriously rejected his outsider stance and arrogance. Next, he enjoys NO African American support in a city where it's as necessary as air for elections. Lastly, with the aforementioned issues, he was on the republican ticket in Daley city. Can you say snowball's chance in hell?

Quote from Almond_Dragoon:

Canyonman could never win because he is a pseudo-conservative.

Just ask Alan Keyes.

Edit: Whom I think Obama simply destroyed.
More...
 
Quote from Almond_Dragoon:

Just ask Alan Keyes.

Edit: Whom I think Obama simply destroyed.
More...

Just so you know. In Chicago there is an annual parade, Bud Billiken. It runs through the south side of town. Alan was booed the full length of the parade route. Old and young alike! And that had nothing to do with Obama. Moreso the community perception of him and his statements made in town. :)
 
My monitor is messed up at the moment and I'm pressed for time, so I'll make this brief and focused.

Quote from canyonman00:
Had 9/11 not occurred, the whole war issue would probably be mute. But 9/11 happened!
More...

Do some research. In its earliest years, Osama intended to use al-Qaeda an anti-Iraqi/ANTI-SADDAM militia. Along the way he got his panties in a twist and the organization developed a strong anti-West/anti-American ideology, but Osama never liked Saddam and there's no indication he ever changed his mind. There was no connection--Saddam was (by Middle Eastern Standards) a SECULAR ruler. Osama was (and still is? if he's alive) a uber-religious nutjob. They didn't give each other back rubs. They didn't exchange Christmas cards (err, Ramadan cards or whatever.) I repeat, bin Laden helped found al-Qaeda with intentions of using it against Saddam Hussein, enemy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (his homeland.)

Bearing that in mind, why does 9-11 in any way justify the Iraq war? We didn't "drive out" al-Qaeda; they didn't have a strong presence there to begin with. What we did was remove a relatively secular Sunni leader and gave the country to the Shi'ites (with good democratic intentions, of course.) This, of course, pissed off the vast majority of the Sunnis... and as I'm sure you know al-Qaeda is an extremist Sunni organization.

So. Before the war al-Qaeda--the organization responsible for 9-11--had a minimal presence in Iraq due to the fact that SADDAM HAD EVERY REASON TO FEAR AND REPRESS THEM. Now, we've removed al-Qaeda's enemy (Saddam) and given them vast numbers of fresh recruits (pissed off Sunnis who are now watching their country being taken over by Shi'ites.)

The Iraq war has made al-Qaeda, the organization that murdered your cousin, vastly stronger.

Tell me... PLEASE tell me... how was/is the Iraq war a rational or reasonable response to 9-11?

In your response, I would suggest you avoid using the word "hindsight." Back in 2003, on the eve of the war, I was discussing this with my professors and paying attention to as many news outlets as I could (not just domestic.) Everything I am saying now was researched and talked about five years ago, except we were using future and hypothetical tenses. Two years before the news networks discovered the phrase "sectarian violence", every semi-knowledgeable person I talked to (professors, a reporter, a Moroccan, an Egyptian, etc.), knew that there was going to be massive problems due to the ensuing Shi'ite/Sunni power reversal.

I am pro-military. I am pro-Afghanistan war. I am not pro-shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot. But the republicans of the new millennium, apparently, are.

EDIT: To clarify, al-Qaeda wasn't primarily formed as an anti-Saddam militia (it grew out of anti-Soviet movements), but Osama presented it for that purpose to the King of Saudi Arabia prior to its campaign of violence against the USA. Some of their goals are to unify Sunni Muslims, fight nationalism amongst Muslim nations and establish a new caliphate. Long story short, it's batshit crazy to say that Saddam would've gone along with those ideals. He was a selfish despotic asshole, not a religious nutjob.
 
Quote from LodeRunner:

Since you're too lazy/apathetic to read my previous post, let me ask you: why is it ok to give Iraqis billions of dollars a week yet it's unacceptable to give poor Americans, say, a hundred million per week?

Let it be known I am against both. That said, faced with a one-or-the-other choice, I can't fathom how anyone could prefer the former.
More...

Lazy??? I'm busy working. I'm not "for" giving money to Iraqis; I'm for protecting our future (not meaning oil here). I know that there are religious militants over there that can't be stopped, but we can at least attempt to help our safety.

I don't want to give to poor Americans because I have poor and working poor Americans in my family. One sister-in-law doesn't WANT to work or get an education. A brother-in-law has four kids, a heated pool, two cars to pay on, a multitude of animals, and a big-screen TV . . . AND NO JOB. You know, I get tired of people like Michael Moore saying that Americans don't want to work in shoe factories (reference: "The Big One") or minimum-wage jobs. That's too frickin bad. Starbucks will even give you health insurance. Suck it up!
 




What we did was remove a relatively secular Sunni leader and gave the country to the Shi'ites (with good democratic intentions, of course.) [/B]
More...


Secular leader who just happened to be a chronic mass murderer, eliminating an estimated 100k of his own people and counting until the USA stepped in. Those numbers went WAY up afterward of course. Should of just assassinated the fucker and his sons.

My point? Saddam was a hell of a lot more than just some dictator. He was as nasty as they come, and something had to be done.
 
You want to guarantee our safety? Let's get the hell out of Iraq and use the ~$2.5 billion WEEKLY savings to build that border fence people keep yammering on about. Also, mandatory surveillance of all non-citizen Middle Easterners in the country. If they don't like it, tough, they can be deported. I'm all for civil liberties, but as long as it's not overtly disruptive, non-citizens can just fucking live with it.

I bet we could *easily* do it for under $10 million/week , and I guarantee you it'll make us a hell of a lot safer than we are now. Right now, we're shelling out a couple billion dollars each week for the privilege of kicking a hornet's nest. (See my post at the top of the page for details.)
 
Quote from Jayford:

Secular leader who just happened to be a chronic mass murderer, eliminating an estimated 100k of his own people and counting until the USA stepped in. Those numbers went WAY up afterward of course. Should of just assassinated the fucker and his sons.

My point? Saddam was a hell of a lot more than just some dictator. He was as nasty as they come, and something had to be done.
More...

Don't care. Countries all over the world--much of South America, Southeast Asia, China, North Korea, etc.--are full of similar assholes. Dictators generally kill thousands. Hundreds of thousands isn't as rare as you might think.

Let me take that back--I DO care, but I do NOT think it is worth busting our asses over. We cannot babysit the world, period... and if we try, we ARE going to wind up losing our superpower status.
 
IMAO: In Messiah's World: Comforting the Afflicted

"Fresh from single-handedly saving the state of Illinois from the ravaging flood waters of the Mississippi, Barack Obama arrived in Detroit in search of more hapless victims of seven years of Bush-McCain policies to rescue. Passing Wayne County Community College, damsel in distress Marilyn Pace cried out in anguish, causing the presumptive Democratic nominee to leap into action.

"There, there, photogenic white girl."

"Help me, Obamessiah!" cried Marilyn, "I've spent all my money on clothes, shoes, jewelry, vodka, Red Bull, piercings, and back tattoos! I've no money left for tuition! How will I pay for school without getting a job like some fat, unpopular girl whom the national media's cameras love not?"

"Fear not," declared Obama, striking a puffy-chested super-hero-like pose while patting her on the shoulder in a way that he hoped would be difficult to construe as sexual harassment, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. I will shower you with thousands of previously unavailable tuition dollars. All I ask in return is that you do a good job, keep hanging in there, and make good choices. Like voting for me to prove you're not racist," he added with a "maybe I'm kidding, maybe I'm not" grin that glinted under the glare from the press's light like an Orbit gum commercial.

"But how will you pay for it?", sobbed Marilyn.

"Same way I'll pay for everything I promise - by stealing money from someone who has more of it than you but less than me. Like from that kid over there who looks un-fair-sharingly wealthy."

"But I'm not wealthy!" objected the target of Obama's accusation. "My clothes aren't Old Navy faux-raggedy, they're Salvation Army REAL-raggedy!"

"Questioning me is racism!" Obama snarled, poking a menacing - yet impeccably manicured - finger into the boy's chest. "Now stop showing antipathy towards those who are different than you and pony up!"

"Like most of today's youth, I'd gladly give my life to support your hip & trendy multicultural neo-welfare state, but I spent my last dollar at the Friends of the Earth bake sale. Would a tofu brownie help?"

"Won't cooperate, eh?" frowned Obama. "Very well... YOU!... uh... Secret Service guy... uh... what's your name?"

"Tom"

"That's way too complicated for me to remember without a teleprompter," scowled Obama, "I'll just call you Whitey. Ok, Whitey, dangle that guy by his ankles & shake him until he dewealthifies. This white female demographic representative needs tuition money."

Tom's shaking produced nothing, save vaguely effeminate mewlings of protest, an unused-but-optimistically-kept condom, and a clearly not-empty crumpled plastic sandwich bag.

"ALLLL RIIIIGHT! WEED!" shouted Obama, stuffing the baggie's contents into the bowl of a colorful glass pipe which had traveled from his jacket pocket to his hand with eerie ninja quickness. "Time to inhale... frequently."

"But... but...", wept a befuddled Marilyn, "you said in your book that you'd given up drugs YEARS ago!"

"Change happens," whispered Obama hoarsely, exhaling as little as possible.

"I don't understand how this helps me pay my tuition," Marilyn blubbered as she turned a bit to her left to allow a CNN cameraman to capture her good side.

"Hope will pay your tuition. Hope for change. And change is me. Vote Obama '08. But now I must go."

"Don't leave me!" wailed Marilyn, pausing to make sure a New York Times reporter spelled her name right. "Only you and your blessed fountains of government revenue - which will NOT be gouged from the nearly-empty pockets of those who work hard and play by the rules - can save me from my undeserved and completely unavoidable fate which I couldn't possibly have seen coming or planned for when I first decided to attend college several years ago!"

"I'm sorry, but I must. I have to go vet the vetter who's vetting my Veep vetter. UP, UP, AND AWAY!" shouted Obama as he thrust his clench-fisted arms in the air, leapt towards the sky, and landed chin-first onto the ground a moment later.

"Heh" chuckled Obama, standing up and dusting himself off, "forgot that I can't fly. DAMN that's some A-Prime smoke! Hey kid - still got that tofu brownie?""

:) :) :)
 
I'm an isolationist so I agree with much of what you're saying philosophically BUT the political reality is America acts as Israels defense team. I'm agnostic about it.

No matter which party is elected that'll be the way it's played. In fact the Dem's are probably further up Israels ass than the GOP. Something like 18 of the largest 25 individual political contributers are Jewish and their money goes to Dem's. Look who voted for the war. Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein, Biden ect. They know where their bread is buttered.

A disproportionate number of Jews are in Congress and among the Democrats it's ridiculously disproportionate. Out of 51 Dems in the Senate 10 of them are Jewish. Of course we're going to have a foreign policy tilted toward fighting enemies of Israel. And make no mistake, Saddam was virulently anti-Israel. He was training Hamas bombers and giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Without doubt his activity was in violation of his 1991 U.N. Surrender and Bush should've stated the case for war on those grounds. IMO Bush figured political consensus with the public for warring on behalf of Israel was weak and he honestly believed enough WMD's would be found to make the public rational for the invasion plausible. Of course we now know that Saddam was walking a thin line between complying with inspectors and trying to not appear militarily impotent to Iran.
Quote from LodeRunner:

You want to guarantee our safety? Let's get the hell out of Iraq and use the ~$2.5 billion WEEKLY savings to build that border fence people keep yammering on about. Also, mandatory surveillance of all non-citizen Middle Easterners in the country. If they don't like it, tough, they can be deported. I'm all for civil liberties, but as long as it's not overtly disruptive, non-citizens can just fucking live with it.

I bet we could *easily* do it for under $10 million/week , and I guarantee you it'll make us a hell of a lot safer than we are now. Right now, we're shelling out a couple billion dollars each week for the privilege of kicking a hornet's nest. (See my post at the top of the page for details.)
More...
 
First, nothing justified the war for me at that time. I would not have gone to war just yet and most importantly, not the way it was done. But it wasn't my call. So, since the case was made and folks agreed, we went. Since we went, I want a solid victory. And unlike the administration, I can define it.

It does have a face and a milestone that the public WOULD have accepted then. And this current phase the war would have been jointly financed by Iraq and America. They would easily be brunting 50% of the costs. And that number would rapidly be approaching 75%. This is inner city fighting in Iraq, most of my tanks would be home buy now. Drones would be ruling the sky in a major visible way. Along with the military vehicles that operate on the roads, we'd be making the needed progress. But wait, we are!!!

We opted for a sanitary war. Stupid concept, but some idiot declared that in war we need to minimize opposition casualties. We needed to fight a war with hours of fighting rules to go along with a list of approved/unapproved targeting regulations. I guess I prosecute war differently than most. After hearing the current clamor from the left, and I am sure while brief and decisive, it would not be able to be viewed on the 5'oclock news. But for me that's ok because, IT'S WAR!!!

Reasearch done, but not in school under the guidance, training and direction of a professor. That explains many of your positions and prosus development. Ok, now I have some reference. Interesting. I continue.

History will evidence, if you broaden your research, most of the bad guys in the world had noble beginnings. Many times couched in support from the US and other major powers. The seduction of power and accolades generally plays a solid role also. Vengence and vindictive bents account for atrocities throughout. But it has always lead to a point in time where the carnage could no longer be tollerated. And dethroning the infamous has always come at a horrible cost, both in blood and dollars. It's a real jungle out there.

And in the ether of time, justifications and the lack thereof, have fueled many a college campi discussion room. And for a brief instant, I too wondered aloud of the correctness of the war postures in history. But it was brought around for me long ago by a well respected great grandfather. Back in the 80's, long before it was fashionable to discuss Darfur, he said something to put it into perspective for me. Somehow we were discussing tribal war and the regions history for slavery. Wait, not true, I remember why we talked it up. My nickname in high school was Bonaparte. Seems ole' Bonaparte was the recipiant of 2000 slaves from the region and the fact that I was proudly flaunting the nickname pissed him off.

Long story short, he ended his conversation of American slavery by saying that there were several slaves who would have gladly accepted some other country coming over and killing some asses to free them. I'm also sure that fear was a major player in the south when the sun went down and the clan ran rampant because the folks who provided protection went home. Sort of like what we advocating here for Iraq don't you think?

History is filled with atrocities that started out nobly. The salt of time and the fading of anger will no doubt cause the proper judgment of this event also. But while it is being prosecuted, it should be done to the best of the ability of the forces. It should also be executed swiftly. Swiftly, a word that in this instance is truly relative.

In the interim, I would have you temper you ire and angst with the knowledge that more kids were killed/crippled and in the inner cities of this country than troops killed in the war during the same period. Use that energy that you treasure to help us out here, where you can. Verses there, where you can not! Your assistance would be greatly appreciated on the frontlines against the Crips, Bloods, M5, etc.!!

This war is winnable. And it's easier to do now than ever before. Hit the insurgence with a concentrated burst at its weakest point, the childern of Iraq. Help them develop a mindset for a reason to live, and the war will be greatly shortened. Create that vision for the kids and you'll start to win the skeptical parents also!! :)


Quote from LodeRunner:

My monitor is messed up at the moment and I'm pressed for time, so I'll make this brief and focused.

Do some research. In its earliest years, Osama intended to use al-Qaeda an anti-Iraqi/ANTI-SADDAM militia. Along the way he got his panties in a twist and the organization developed a strong anti-West/anti-American ideology, but Osama never liked Saddam and there's no indication he ever changed his mind. There was no connection--Saddam was (by Middle Eastern Standards) a SECULAR ruler. Osama was (and still is? if he's alive) a uber-religious nutjob. They didn't give each other back rubs. They didn't exchange Christmas cards (err, Ramadan cards or whatever.) I repeat, bin Laden helped found al-Qaeda with intentions of using it against Saddam Hussein, enemy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (his homeland.)

Bearing that in mind, why does 9-11 in any way justify the Iraq war? We didn't "drive out" al-Qaeda; they didn't have a strong presence there to begin with. What we did was remove a relatively secular Sunni leader and gave the country to the Shi'ites (with good democratic intentions, of course.) This, of course, pissed off the vast majority of the Sunnis... and as I'm sure you know al-Qaeda is an extremist Sunni organization.

So. Before the war al-Qaeda--the organization responsible for 9-11--had a minimal presence in Iraq due to the fact that SADDAM HAD EVERY REASON TO FEAR AND REPRESS THEM. Now, we've removed al-Qaeda's enemy (Saddam) and given them vast numbers of fresh recruits (pissed off Sunnis who are now watching their country being taken over by Shi'ites.)

The Iraq war has made al-Qaeda, the organization that murdered your cousin, vastly stronger.

Tell me... PLEASE tell me... how was/is the Iraq war a rational or reasonable response to 9-11?

In your response, I would suggest you avoid using the word "hindsight." Back in 2003, on the eve of the war, I was discussing this with my professors and paying attention to as many news outlets as I could (not just domestic.) Everything I am saying now was researched and talked about five years ago, except we were using future and hypothetical tenses. Two years before the news networks discovered the phrase "sectarian violence", every semi-knowledgeable person I talked to (professors, a reporter, a Moroccan, an Egyptian, etc.), knew that there was going to be massive problems due to the ensuing Shi'ite/Sunni power reversal.

I am pro-military. I am pro-Afghanistan war. I am not pro-shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot. But the republicans of the new millennium, apparently, are.

EDIT: To clarify, al-Qaeda wasn't primarily formed as an anti-Saddam militia (it grew out of anti-Soviet movements), but Osama presented it for that purpose to the King of Saudi Arabia prior to its campaign of violence against the USA. Some of their goals are to unify Sunni Muslims, fight nationalism amongst Muslim nations and establish a new caliphate. Long story short, it's batshit crazy to say that Saddam would've gone along with those ideals. He was a selfish despotic asshole, not a religious nutjob.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top