#1 2010-09-01 16:45:55
We heard earlier that people were being warned to stay out of the Sonoran Desert National Monument because of violent drug smugglers. Now the local sheriff says the area is actually controlled by the drug cartels. This is 30 miles outside of Phoenix. Bad enough that Obama is willing to cut and run in Iraq, but this is supposed to be US territory. Does it still surprise you that rational Dems and independents are leaving his ship like rats?
Offline
#2 2010-09-01 17:01:30
phreddy wrote:
Sonoran Desert National Monument
Give the territory to Sheriff Joe.
Offline
#3 2010-09-01 18:18:58
phreddy wrote:
cut and run in Iraq
lol
Welcome back to 2004.
Offline
#4 2010-09-01 18:27:03
ah297900 wrote:
phreddy wrote:
cut and run in Iraq
lol
Welcome back to 2004.
I thought it was pretty disingenuous for Obama to take credit for winning the Iraq war after all the sniveling and predictions of failure he and his liberal cohorts made back when Bush proposed the surge. Not only did he take credit in his speech, he never mentioned Bush's part in it. Now he says we will cut and run completely by the end of next year.
Offline
#5 2010-09-01 19:00:12
Hells Bells, give em California up to Fresno. They can have Southern Arizona, all of Tejas and the lower part of New Mexico. Canada can give us BC, and assorted territories to the East. They can take upper Russia, and China. Russia and China can expand downwards.
Everyone will be happy.
Offline
#6 2010-09-01 19:01:08
We will soon have drones patrolling the border. There's no reason why they can't be armed drones that can be used to kill these unwanted wetbacks.
Offline
#7 2010-09-01 19:01:12
phreddy wrote:
ah297900 wrote:
phreddy wrote:
cut and run in Iraq
lol
Welcome back to 2004.I thought it was pretty disingenuous for Obama to take credit for winning the Iraq war after all the sniveling and predictions of failure he and his liberal cohorts made back when Bush proposed the surge. Not only did he take credit in his speech, he never mentioned Bush's part in it. Now he says we will cut and run completely by the end of next year.
If Clinton invaded, you still think it would have been a good idea? Shit, we could still be in Somalia right now if people were afraid to be called a pussy.
Last edited by ah297900 (2010-09-01 19:01:33)
Offline
#8 2010-09-01 19:09:56
Ah wrote:
Shit, we could still be in Somalia right now if people were afraid to be called a pussy.
I don't know, but we're still in Germany, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, and Cuba from previous wars, what do you think?
Offline
#9 2010-09-01 19:28:08
phreddy wrote:
Ah wrote:
Shit, we could still be in Somalia right now if people were afraid to be called a pussy.
I don't know, but we're still in Germany, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, and Cuba from previous wars, what do you think?
You're right, I'm wrong. NEVAR LEAVE ANYWHERE.
I don't see what the benefit is of still being in all those places--we don't seem to be getting much out of having hundreds and hundreds of military bases. But you'd be the first in line to pay the taxes we'd need to keep troops deployed everywhere we've ever been forever, right?
Offline
#10 2010-09-02 12:27:07
I think people would call our military leaving any godforsaken shithole "cut and run" even if 50 years had passed and they still didn't have their shit together. That ain't patriotism in my book.
Offline
#11 2010-09-02 12:29:20
ah297900 wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Ah wrote:
Shit, we could still be in Somalia right now if people were afraid to be called a pussy.
I don't know, but we're still in Germany, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, and Cuba from previous wars, what do you think?
You're right, I'm wrong. NEVAR LEAVE ANYWHERE.
I don't see what the benefit is of still being in all those places--we don't seem to be getting much out of having hundreds and hundreds of military bases. But you'd be the first in line to pay the taxes we'd need to keep troops deployed everywhere we've ever been forever, right?
Because spending hundreds of billions of dollars to spread our all-volunteer armed forces even thinner is reasonable when we're in this much debt. Cut taxes for the rich!
Offline
#12 2010-09-02 12:35:58
I believe we should be out of all those places I mentioned (with the possible exception of Gitmo). But you can't start a fight, convince the locals to be on your side, and then leave them to be slaughtered. (think Vietnam) The very worst thing you could do is advertise the date you are going to throw them to the wolves. This is called cut and run and it ruins any chance we will ever be trusted by locals in any conflict we find ourselves.
Last edited by phreddy (2010-09-02 12:36:57)
Offline
#13 2010-09-02 13:04:56
phreddy wrote:
The very worst thing you could do is advertise the date you are going to throw them to the wolves. This is called cut and run and it ruins any chance we will ever be trusted by locals in any conflict we find ourselves.
Yes, it is so much better to keep it a secret. Don't let them know until you're already gone. That way they'll trust us forever.
Offline
#14 2010-09-02 13:11:10
phreddy wrote:
I believe we should be out of all those places I mentioned (with the possible exception of Gitmo). But you can't start a fight, convince the locals to be on your side, and then leave them to be slaughtered. (think Vietnam) The very worst thing you could do is advertise the date you are going to throw them to the wolves. This is called cut and run and it ruins any chance we will ever be trusted by locals in any conflict we find ourselves.
But where do you draw the line, and when do you start the draft?
Offline
#15 2010-09-02 14:49:05
taffy wrote:
phreddy wrote:
I believe we should be out of all those places I mentioned (with the possible exception of Gitmo). But you can't start a fight, convince the locals to be on your side, and then leave them to be slaughtered. (think Vietnam) The very worst thing you could do is advertise the date you are going to throw them to the wolves. This is called cut and run and it ruins any chance we will ever be trusted by locals in any conflict we find ourselves.
But where do you draw the line, and when do you start the draft?
Yeah, I see what you're saying phreddy. I really do. But with Vietnam, was the problem that we didn't commit enough? And is it possible that no level of commitment is high enough to make certain situations work? Say that we committed everything we possibly could to Iraq--it's still entirely feasible to think it wouldn't be enough, and we'd still eventually be leaving, but having wasted so much more in the meantime.
You're going to say "that's the definition of cut and run," to which I would say: "cut and run is a phrase designed to inflame and make people like me seem like pussies. Inflaming people doesn't help anybody arrive at good decisions."
Offline
#16 2010-09-02 15:23:55
Solution:
+
= 
Offline
#17 2010-09-02 18:06:37
ah297900 wrote:
taffy wrote:
phreddy wrote:
I believe we should be out of all those places I mentioned (with the possible exception of Gitmo). But you can't start a fight, convince the locals to be on your side, and then leave them to be slaughtered. (think Vietnam) The very worst thing you could do is advertise the date you are going to throw them to the wolves. This is called cut and run and it ruins any chance we will ever be trusted by locals in any conflict we find ourselves.
But where do you draw the line, and when do you start the draft?
Yeah, I see what you're saying phreddy. I really do. But with Vietnam, was the problem that we didn't commit enough? And is it possible that no level of commitment is high enough to make certain situations work? Say that we committed everything we possibly could to Iraq--it's still entirely feasible to think it wouldn't be enough, and we'd still eventually be leaving, but having wasted so much more in the meantime.
You're going to say "that's the definition of cut and run," to which I would say: "cut and run is a phrase designed to inflame and make people like me seem like pussies. Inflaming people doesn't help anybody arrive at good decisions."
Unfortunately for any president who inherits a war, the commitments were already made before he stepped in. Regardless of whether he agrees with the war or not, he is still obligated to do certain things. He can end the war, but he still must protect those in our military and any local civilians who signed on to help us. I accuse Obama of a cut and run policy because his deadlines are 100% politically motivated and could end up getting people killed. If you disagree, then give me one reason why he or anyone in his position would set a date certain if not to satisfy his political base.
Offline
#18 2010-09-02 19:37:15
phreddy wrote:
Unfortunately for any president who inherits a war, the commitments were already made before he stepped in. Regardless of whether he agrees with the war or not, he is still obligated to do certain things. He can end the war, but he still must protect those in our military and any local civilians who signed on to help us. I accuse Obama of a cut and run policy because his deadlines are 100% politically motivated and could end up getting people killed. If you disagree, then give me one reason why he or anyone in his position would set a date certain if not to satisfy his political base.
Every President's primary responsibility is to make decisions that best serve the country; exiting from a zero-sum situation as rapidally as possible would be one of those situations. There is no good reason for us to stay in Iraq one moment longer than we absolutely have to. 4,400 servicemen have already payed the price for the extremist attitude you spout; every one of those sacrifices was in vain.
More importantly, this is something he promised to do and he has fulfilled that promise.
Offline
#19 2010-09-02 19:45:33
phreddy wrote:
ah297900 wrote:
taffy wrote:
But where do you draw the line, and when do you start the draft?Yeah, I see what you're saying phreddy. I really do. But with Vietnam, was the problem that we didn't commit enough? And is it possible that no level of commitment is high enough to make certain situations work? Say that we committed everything we possibly could to Iraq--it's still entirely feasible to think it wouldn't be enough, and we'd still eventually be leaving, but having wasted so much more in the meantime.
You're going to say "that's the definition of cut and run," to which I would say: "cut and run is a phrase designed to inflame and make people like me seem like pussies. Inflaming people doesn't help anybody arrive at good decisions."Unfortunately for any president who inherits a war, the commitments were already made before he stepped in. Regardless of whether he agrees with the war or not, he is still obligated to do certain things. He can end the war, but he still must protect those in our military and any local civilians who signed on to help us. I accuse Obama of a cut and run policy because his deadlines are 100% politically motivated and could end up getting people killed. If you disagree, then give me one reason why he or anyone in his position would set a date certain if not to satisfy his political base.
Could it possibly be because the date certain was set by your man W?
Offline
#20 2010-09-02 19:51:22
phreddy wrote:
Unfortunately for any president who inherits a war, the commitments were already made before he stepped in. Regardless of whether he agrees with the war or not, he is still obligated to do certain things. He can end the war, but he still must protect those in our military and any local civilians who signed on to help us. I accuse Obama of a cut and run policy because his deadlines are 100% politically motivated and could end up getting people killed. If you disagree, then give me one reason why he or anyone in his position would set a date certain if not to satisfy his political base.
I don't know--the same reason I never could quit smoking until I set a date-certain in stone.
There's a point where you can say you've done all you can do, and that it's time to go home. What if we stabilize a place and get ready to hand it over to the locals, only to find that nobody's ready or willing to take it? It seems like we got the violence down and stabilized things, but the politicians are jockeying for total control and personal enrichment--at that point, we don't have to wait until a decent generation of altruistic leaders are born.
The problem with staying until all that happens is that it removes any incentive for locals to get their shit together. We're telling them "We'll be here to guarantee your safety in perpetuity, or until you take it upon yourselves to shoulder that difficult and expensive responsibility for yourselves." They end up just fighting among themselves for positions that get them kickbacks and bribes. Besides, I still can't figure out what staying indefinitely gets us. Gratitude? Monetary rewards? Pride in doing the right thing?
Let me put this in perspective. Since this war started, I got a masters degree, started a career, was published, and am almost done with a PhD. That's long enough.
Offline
#21 2010-09-02 19:53:38
All that said, phreddy, I really do see the logic of what you're saying. I'm not trying to get you to change your convictions, I'm just asking that you try to see the logic of what I'm getting at too.
Offline
#22 2010-09-02 22:07:13
What if we stabilize a place and get ready to hand it over to the locals, only to find that nobody's ready or willing to take it?
I would make the same point, except it isn't "what if", it's what's happening! Somebody's blood has to be spilled for this to turn out good, and one day Iraqis have to learn to take the reins. I think the events of this war should have been sufficient wakeup call to any future defenders of Iraq.
Offline
#23 2010-09-03 04:05:45
phreddy wrote:
Unfortunately for any president who inherits a war, the commitments were already made before he stepped in. Regardless of whether he agrees with the war or not, he is still obligated to do certain things. He can end the war, but he still must protect those in our military and any local civilians who signed on to help us. I accuse Obama of a cut and run policy because his deadlines are 100% politically motivated and could end up getting people killed. If you disagree, then give me one reason why he or anyone in his position would set a date certain if not to satisfy his political base.
Which way would you like to have it? You can't have it both ways. Did Obama inherit a commitment, specifically the commitment to withdraw combat troops by a certain date? If so, that comittment has just been discharged. Or was the setting of this date a dishonor to the United States and it troops, made for purely partisan political considerations? If so, Obama didn't have a thing to do with it and the blame should be laid squarely at the feet of Bush and Cheney. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. Obama DID NOT sign the Status of Forces Agreement.
As for protecting local civilians, tell that to the Kurds who listened to Bush senior when he told them to revolt after the first Gulf war. Instead of watching their backs, he watched Saddam gas and torture them. Cut and run......
Now, I do agree with you more than you might expect. Since we went into their country and fucked the place royally, we do have a duty to restore peace and prosperity in as far as that's possible. Throwing illogic and nasty names around isn't going to get us much farther down that particular road. Sit down, calm yourself and have a drink, you'll live longer. I'll even buy a round.
Offline
#24 2010-09-03 06:25:35
Tall Paul wrote:
Now, I do agree with you more than you might expect. Since we went into their country and fucked the place royally, we do have a duty to restore peace and prosperity in as far as that's possible. Throwing illogic and nasty names around isn't going to get us much farther down that particular road. Sit down, calm yourself and have a drink, you'll live longer. I'll even buy a round.
See Phreddy, now that's the problem with partisianship, you lose sight of the actual facts in the attempt to smear the other side. As an independent I'm not beholding to someone else's take on the issue and can sit here on the fence, have a icy cold one and weigh the facts through unfiltered lenses.
Offline
#25 2010-09-03 15:34:20
phreddy wrote:
ah297900 wrote:
phreddy wrote:
cut and run in Iraq
lol
Welcome back to 2004.I thought it was pretty disingenuous for Obama to take credit for winning the Iraq war after all the sniveling and predictions of failure he and his liberal cohorts made back when Bush proposed the surge. Not only did he take credit in his speech, he never mentioned Bush's part in it.
Yes, and every one of those neocons should get down on their knees and lick his shoes for not mentioning Bush's part in it. I take it you forgot already that he's the asstard that started the war?
Offline
