|
More fun with Sarah
Eisboch wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:09 am, HK wrote: Uh...Obama did not quit his job as U.S. Senator nor did he quit "being a U.S. Senator" to run for a higher office. He remained in the Senate. Actually, Obama resigned early .... November 17th, I think. The last senator to do so was JFK. Obama didn't want to remain in his Senate seat during his lame duck period. Eisboch I still contend that if a politician has enough confidence in their ability to be elected for a higher office, they should immediately resign so they can focus their efforts and not abandon their constituents. |
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:02:16 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:48:17 -0700, jps wrote: It certainly appears to me "the Bush Doctrine" is a term made up by the democrats and is anything they don't like about him. I have never actually heard a concise definition. It is also interesting that the best known "doctrine" the Monroe Doctrine was actually named many years after he left office. (according to the Presidents series on the History Channel) This seems pretty concise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine Concise would be a paragraph, not a rambling 30 page Wiki with 86 footnotes. If the point was that Bush had a fractured foreign policy with unclear objectives and disastrous outcomes, no argument. Let's see how Obama does and if he will ever settle down on a policy. So far he is just extending what Bush was doing, right down to the date of this "camp outside the city" initiative. That was negotiated between two "sovereign" nations before Obama took office. The Iraqis can't wait to get rid of us. |
More fun with Sarah
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:20:27 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:25:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:02:16 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:48:17 -0700, jps wrote: It certainly appears to me "the Bush Doctrine" is a term made up by the democrats and is anything they don't like about him. I have never actually heard a concise definition. It is also interesting that the best known "doctrine" the Monroe Doctrine was actually named many years after he left office. (according to the Presidents series on the History Channel) This seems pretty concise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine Concise would be a paragraph, not a rambling 30 page Wiki with 86 footnotes. If the point was that Bush had a fractured foreign policy with unclear objectives and disastrous outcomes, no argument. Let's see how Obama does and if he will ever settle down on a policy. So far he is just extending what Bush was doing, right down to the date of this "camp outside the city" initiative. That was negotiated between two "sovereign" nations before Obama took office. The Iraqis can't wait to get rid of us. I bet they do. (wait) We won't leave until they are no longer a threat to Israel. We certainly were nit out on Jan 20 as Obama started promising and he has been stepping back from that ever since. Sheesh. He said that during the campaign and almost immediately backed away by saying that he wouldn't do anything that would destabilize our responsible withdrawal. He took one large step backwards and when he became president he reassessed the situation and made what was a good call. Again, the terms of our withdrawal were negotiated with Iraq when Bush was in office. It was, in fact, on a schedule very similar to what Obama was promoting during the latter days of the election cycle. |
More fun with Sarah
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:16:29 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:05:50 -0700, jps wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:20:27 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:25:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:02:16 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:48:17 -0700, jps wrote: It certainly appears to me "the Bush Doctrine" is a term made up by the democrats and is anything they don't like about him. I have never actually heard a concise definition. It is also interesting that the best known "doctrine" the Monroe Doctrine was actually named many years after he left office. (according to the Presidents series on the History Channel) This seems pretty concise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine Concise would be a paragraph, not a rambling 30 page Wiki with 86 footnotes. If the point was that Bush had a fractured foreign policy with unclear objectives and disastrous outcomes, no argument. Let's see how Obama does and if he will ever settle down on a policy. So far he is just extending what Bush was doing, right down to the date of this "camp outside the city" initiative. That was negotiated between two "sovereign" nations before Obama took office. The Iraqis can't wait to get rid of us. I bet they do. (wait) We won't leave until they are no longer a threat to Israel. We certainly were nit out on Jan 20 as Obama started promising and he has been stepping back from that ever since. Sheesh. He said that during the campaign and almost immediately backed away by saying that he wouldn't do anything that would destabilize our responsible withdrawal. He took one large step backwards and when he became president he reassessed the situation and made what was a good call. Again, the terms of our withdrawal were negotiated with Iraq when Bush was in office. It was, in fact, on a schedule very similar to what Obama was promoting during the latter days of the election cycle. If he is just doing what Bush was going to do, where is the "change"? I was excited about a candidate who was going to end this stupid 18 year war, not keep it going another 18 years. Afghanistan is even worse. Now Obama is saying we will have the Russians "help" us in Afghanistan. How do you think the Afghan citizens will feel about that? We are certainly creating terrorists far faster than we can kill them. 1. Obama is keeping his word to get us out of Iraq. Bush took a 3 day raid and turned it into six years. Surely you understand that withdrawing is a sensitive endeavor for many reasons. 2. Afghanistan is complicated. I didn't want to go in originally and still would prefer we weren't there but the situation is among the scariests on the planet. Not in Afghanistan of course, but Pakistan. If al Qaeda and those Afghani fundamentalists team to take Pakistan, we've got a serious problem on our hands. That's not very far afield at this point. Our presence there is probably the best investment we could make to ensure nuclear war doesn't break out. |
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:35:43 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:21:02 -0400, wrote: Nobody has really explained why we went to Afghanistan in the first place or why we are still there. I'll explain it, as I remember it. We went in to get Osama Bin Laden. Remember 9/11/2001? Then he fled to Pakistan when we left it to ragheads to do our job in Tora Bora. Then we failed again, by not pursuing him into Pakistan. Killing him was the mission. Tommy Franks was a **** up. Glad he's gone. Best thing that ever happened to the U.S. Army. Of course Bush, Rumsfeld, and that whole crew were **** ups. We needed a Patton on the battlefield, and had Tommy Franks running things from an air-conditioned room in Tampa, Florida. Seems Franks always refers to Osama as "Mr. bin Laden." Wonder if Patton ever said "Mr. Hitler," or "Mr. Goering." Osama Bin Laden is still alive. Shame, shame. Why are we still there? Can't leave until Bin Laden dies. It would be an admission of our abject failure. He'll probably die of natural causes. Shame, shame. No vengeance for our victims and our country. All this talk of the Bush crowd being hard asses. Biggest bunch of pussies this country ever had. Talk, talk, talk. Osama Bin Laden is still alive. Businessmen running the country. A country isn't a business. That was Franks' college degree. Bachelor of Business Administration. --Vic It's morphed into something larger than bin Laden or al Qaeda. It's now threatening the further destabilization of Pakistan and access to nuclear weapons. We didn't take care of business the first time with the Taliban, now we've got the same problem the USSR had before Afghanistan helped cause their bankruptcy. Brilliant. |
More fun with Sarah
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:32:39 -0700, jps wrote:
It's morphed into something larger than bin Laden or al Qaeda. It's now threatening the further destabilization of Pakistan and access to nuclear weapons. That's all overblown, IMO. The Pakis can take care of the Taliban, which come in different colors. And the Northern Alliance - former Taliban - may have been on the verge of defeating them when 9/11 interceded. 9/11 was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, and Al Qeada. Taliban is a side show of the ever-changing tribal muslim savages holding sway in Afghanistan. Besides that, the Taliban are mortal enemies of Shia Iran. We can leave at any time - except bin Laden is alive. Once he's dead, and if we left - doubtful now because we would be abandoning "women's rights" - if Iran got nukes they'd probably nuke Afghanistan instead of Israel. Taliban can't strike back. They have no friends. Not even the Pakis, who are only about 15% Pashtun, mostly on the north border areas. We didn't take care of business the first time with the Taliban, now we've got the same problem the USSR had before Afghanistan helped cause their bankruptcy. Brilliant. Nation building. The only business we had there was to kill Al Qeada and bin Laden. And we didn't get the job done. Now we're stuck there to prevent women from being kept in burkhas and thrashed. BTW, the Soviets were fighting the Pakis, the U.S. and some others when they were there. U.S. and NATO strength is already more than half of the max strength the Soviets had there. Soviet total KIA was about 14,000 over about 8 years. Hard to compare then and now. Taliban have no allies. The big problem is telling people how to live. Social engineering. --Vic |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com