What, exactly, has Obama done....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursFanFirst

Wow. Do you know something we don't know?
He may be old(er) than past Presidents, but that doesn't mean he'll die while in office.

For crying out loud, my great-grandmother just passed away earlier this year at the age of 99.

People are living longer these days.

---

Did your great grandmother have one of, if not THE most stressful job in the world at any point during her life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

I would be mad if McCain didn't do the same thing.

Of course, John McCain fixed Iraq, so I have reason to believe he could fix Afghanistan.

---

This is where you lost all credibility. Now you're simply spouting McCain talking points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I understand that he voted against the stupid Iraq war, that he wants us out of the war for oil, and to refocus where the real theater is, Afghanistan. But most importantly, I also understand that he doesn't want 100 years in Iraq, or that he understood that we were not going to be greeted as liberators, and that the war was going to be a piece of cake.
Then again, Palin's reference to foreign policy was that McCain is a maverick. I mean, really?

---

Im pretty sure Americans were greeted as liberators. It just didn't last. You must have forgotten all the 2003 footage.

Then again, we're looking at whos best for the future: The guy who fixed Iraq, or Obama.

While you think about that, think about this: If we had left Iraq when Obama first wanted, what would Iraq look like right now? What would the price of gas look like right now?

Is it reasonable to assume that Iraq would still be in the midst of civil war without McCain's "surge"?

Is it reasonable to assume that oil exports from Iraq might have been crippled?

Is it reasonable to assume that Gas would seven dollars a gallon right now?

Seven dollars is just a wild guess estimate, so you tell me.

The Iraqis had 5 years to segregate their populations - Shiite got rid of Sunni, Sunni got rid of Shiite, and they both got rid of Kurds...then the U.S. troops built walls and huge land bunkers to keep everyone apart...yeah. that's success...


........in post WW2 Germany....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

:rolleyes

The awakening councils were happening before the surge....

---

Look, you'll never admit that surge worked because that would give way too much credit to McCain.

But getting back to your last post, how is Obama going to reduce overall spending? I would love to read you hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

Ah yes, the proverbial "The Surge didn't work. Those thirty thousand extra troops just happened to arrive EXACTLY when the Awakening started."
:rolleyes

---

Obviously you don't read so good.

Quote:

---

Rather, Woodward reports, "groundbreaking" new covert techniques enabled U.S. military and intelligence officials to locate, target and kill insurgent leaders and key individuals in extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

---

And the surge coincided with altered STRATEGY, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

This is where you lost all credibility. Now you're simply spouting McCain talking points.

---

For me it was when he called something an Ad hominem attack that wasn't.

Quote:

---

But getting back to your last post, how is Obama going to reduce overall spending? I would love to read you hypothesis.

---

Eliminating programs that don't work for one.....including military programs..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

Look, you'll never admit that surge worked because that would give way too much credit to McCain.

---

Why because he thought of it? Because he didn't. He was a proponent but that point is moot seeing as how the Surge itself didn't reduce violence.

We never should have been in Iraq period.

Whether we leave now or 10 years from now won't make a difference in that country. It's likely going to descend into a Civil War, Saddam was the only thing keeping that country together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

Why because he thought of it? Because he didn't. He was a proponent but that point is moot seeing as how the Surge itself didn't reduce violence.

---

I guess the General in charge is wrong and you are right. Forgive me for questioning your infinite wisdom on this matter and for being cynical that thirty thousand extra GIs had no effect on reducing violence even though violence was reduced dramatically after they got there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

Im pretty sure Americans were greeted as liberators. It just didn't last. You must have forgotten all the 2003 footage.

---

Why? I mean, how can you be a liberator one day, and the bad guys the next day? I mean, what did we do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

Then again, we're looking at whos best for the future: The guy who fixed Iraq, or Obama.

---

My opinion is that the guy that gets us out of Iraq is what's best for the future. That's Obama, not '100 years' McCain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

While you think about that, think about this: If we had left Iraq when Obama first wanted, what would Iraq look like right now? What would the price of gas look like right now?

---

It would have stayed as a sovereign country, probably pretty devastated as it was with the economic sanctions. But more importantly, we would have 4000+ soldiers alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

Is it reasonable to assume that Iraq would still be in the midst of civil war without McCain's "surge"?

---

Iraq will be on a civil war for just as long as we remain there. And make no mistake, we won't be there for eternity, and they'll have their civil war. It's really inevitable. My question is, do we have to keep spilling our soldier's blood for their war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

Is it reasonable to assume that oil exports from Iraq might have been crippled?

---

Not really. Even if the Oil-For-Food program was relatively corrupt, their Oil exports were supplying the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

Is it reasonable to assume that Gas would seven dollars a gallon right now?
Seven dollars is just a wild guess estimate, so you tell me.

---

I think it's unreasonable. Just as much as it was unreasonable for it to be $4/gallon back when it was that amount, IMO. I think the current price is a more real amount (under $3).

So you really think our soldiers should have died for cheaper gas? Is that your theory?

Quote:

---

We never should have been in Iraq period.

---

+1 The Iraq war has been a trillion dollar + boondoggle that has done nothing to eliminate the terror threat against the U.S...

McNasty even fights spending for VN MIA/POW and all vets. His rating with the vet orgs is about 20%, but HUSSEIN's is about 80%.

This question about what HUSSEIN has accomplished, was it asked about dubya in 2000? and what were the answers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

I guess the General in charge is wrong and you are right. Forgive me for questioning your infinite wisdom on this matter and for being cynical that thirty thousand extra GIs had no effect on reducing violence even though violence was reduced dramatically after they got there.

---

I believe Bob Woodward who researched this and got quotes from military officials (and the President!) about those new techniques I alluded to above. And do you think adding 30,000 troops in a country the size of Iraq really made such a large difference? That's ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Eliminating programs that don't work for one.....including military programs..

---

How many military programs will Obama have to cut to offset the amount of spending:

1) He proposes
2) The Democrat congress asks for that he won't veto


What are we at? A 3 trillion dollar national budget with a 1 trillion dollar deficit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

Good luck, "Mr. Scalpel."

I find it mildly humorous when republicans who support the war bitch and moan about increases in spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

I find it mildly humorous when republicans who support the war bitch and moan about increases in spending.

---

Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

That argument is over.

That doesn't mean Obama is going to improve our situation. Looking at his policies and record, one would think just the opposite.

John McCain is not George Bush in disguise. He doesn't govern like George Bush. He doesn't spend like George Bush.

I think Ive heard one good argument for Obama this entire thread (the guy who said his foreign policy and health care views were more in line with his).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

That argument is over.

That doesn't mean Obama is going to improve our situation. Looking at his policies and record, one would think just the opposite.

John McCain is not George Bush in disguise. He doesn't govern like George Bush. He doesn't spend like George Bush.

I think Ive heard one good argument for Obama this entire thread (the guy who said his foreign policy and health care views were more in line with his).

---

McCain wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely. How would that reduce spending? I support Obama because of his views on foreign affairs, healthcare, education, and the economy. I don't agree with trickle-down economics. I don't like the fact McCain is gonna tax healthcare benefits. Happy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

How many military programs will Obama have to cut to offset the amount of spending:

1) He proposes
2) The Democrat congress asks for that he won't veto


What are we at? A 3 trillion dollar national budget with a 1 trillion dollar deficit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

Good luck, "Mr. Scalpel."

---

Reagan, Bush41 and Dubya EACH have individually ADDED more to the national debt than ALL Democratic Presidents combined......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Why? I mean, how can you be a liberator one day, and the bad guys the next day? I mean, what did we do?



My opinion is that the guy that gets us out of Iraq is what's best for the future. That's Obama, not '100 years' McCain.



It would have stayed as a sovereign country, probably pretty devastated as it was with the economic sanctions. But more importantly, we would have 4000+ soldiers alive.



Iraq will be on a civil war for just as long as we remain there. And make no mistake, we won't be there for eternity, and they'll have their civil war. It's really inevitable. My question is, do we have to keep spilling our soldier's blood for their war?



Not really. Even if the Oil-For-Food program was relatively corrupt, their Oil exports were supplying the world.



I think it's unreasonable. Just as much as it was unreasonable for it to be $4/gallon back when it was that amount, IMO. I think the current price is a more real amount (under $3).

So you really think our soldiers should have died for cheaper gas? Is that your theory?

---

This post is so stupid its not even funny.

Obama wanted troops out in 2007. Im not talking about 2002. Im talking about 2007. So unless you think he can bring people back from the dead, then 4000+ troops would still be gone if we had listened to him in 2007.

Obama was not a senator in 2002. He didn't have classified information in 2002. He was not responsible for the safety of our nation in 2002. I do not care what speech Obama made at an anti-war rally back in 2002. He was doing what all his friends were doing.

When Obama WAS a senator in 2007, he stated that a troop surge that saved our collective asses wouldn't work. He did have resources (such as the ability to speak with the commander in charge) that he did not use.

This "judgement" argument is so stupid. Millions of people (20% of the country) were against the war back in 2002. That doesn't mean they were able to prophesize that the CIA intelligence that they had no access to was innacurate.

The only time Obama had to make a real judgement call, he fell flat on his face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

When Obama WAS a senator in 2007, he stated that a troop surge that saved our collective asses wouldn't work. He did have resources (such as the ability to speak with the commander in charge) that he did not use.

---

You continue to ignore the research done by Bob Woodward.

The best argument for HUSSEIN is that he's not Repug.

The Repugs having fucked up federal govt and the USA for 8 years. Mc95% would do nothing to change the Repugs' path.

Also, the quality and nature of the people on McBottomGun's staff are the same nasty, neo-c*nts that were installed into govt to be All Politics, All the Time with no policies. The Repug were not interested in governing, only in building their Permanant Repug Majority. They were too incompetent to do that.

McSenile will continue Repug policies, and some observers say he's even more radical than dubya.

btw, McStupid wanting to cut govt spending now is the worst that any govt could do. Govt spending when credit is tight and consumers aren't purchasing is the only thing they would keep the economy going and give some hope of a recovery sooner rather than later. aka, Keynsian economics, not failed Miltonian economics.

Repugs should just STFU about deficits as bad since they create much bigger ones than Dems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

McCain wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely. How would that reduce spending? I support Obama because of his views on foreign affairs, healthcare, education, and the economy. I don't agree with trickle-down economics. I don't like the fact McCain is gonna tax healthcare benefits. Happy?

---

Ah yes....you are of the "Grampy McSame wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years" crowd.

McCain makes the statement that he would be in favor of having a permanent base in Iraq (as we do in Germany, Japan, Bahrain and half the other nations in the freaking WORLD) if there was no more violence and you disingenuously claim that he wants the fighting to continue forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gino

Ah yes....you are of the "Grampy McSame wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years" crowd.

McCain makes the statement that he would be in favor of having a permanent base in Iraq (as we do in Germany, Japan, Bahrain and half the other nations in the freaking WORLD) if there was no more violence and you disingenuously claim that he wants the fighting to continue forever.

---

When did I say he wants the fighting to continue? I said he wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Am I wrong?