Democrats versus Republicans

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

"Perhaps, sck5, you could share with us, just where a President McCain would start more wars?"

Iran. Unless Bush and Cheney beat him to it. Funding? He will worry about that later. Authorization? Republican Presidents seem to think they are king so why worry about that?

Is this a prediction? No, for two reasons. First, I am just telling you what I worry about given the rhetoric of both McCain and Bush (Check youtube for McCain's song about "Bomb Bomb Iran". Second and more important, pigs will fly before McCain is President!!!

Are you saying that we shouldn't go to war with Iran?

They're behind the decimation of all major efforts to modernize the region:

Lebanon -- They were and are the driving force that keeps that alleged civil war going.

Israel -- they fund and train many -- most? -- of the factions that are opposed to Israel's influence in the region.

Iraq -- they've played a major role is stalling our efforts there.

Afghanistan -- they're supporting the insurrections that are stalling progress there. (I'm not sure how much Pakistan is to blame for the border skirmishes, but in my book, it's all our fault -- sovereignty of a dictatorship is a contradiction in terms.)

Iran should've been the target all along (I assume we had good reason for starting elsewhere.) Now that it's clear that they'll be able to deliver nuclear weaponry in the foreseeable future, how do we have a choice? And if you thought Iraq took time to settle....

[PBzeer]

Rags, I think you misunderstand sck5. He isn't referring to the need for action, but that McCain will deliberately create a war. Whether for cause or not.

Now me, I'm trying to figure out why, since we have been told repeatedly, that there should be no War on Terror, but rather, a criminal prosecution, why Mr Obama finds it necessary to keep troops in Afghanistan, instead of sending in the FBI.

[sailaway21]

A truly hilarious column that purports to represent women, all women, and explain why they should be afraid, very afraid, of J-Mac. The only thing that it proves, once again, is that the liberal left has no sense of humor, with the exception of when they're attempting to be serious like this. Then they're just hilarious!
McSexist -- In These Times

[sailaway21]

A brilliant short analysis of why the left in Yurrup will eventually hate Obama as they do Bush-they're basically anti-American. The article does provoke the thought though as to why the American left relies so heavily on their oh-so enlightened opinions. (g)

Eventually, we will all hate Obama too | David Aaronovitch - Times Online

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Rags, I think you misunderstand sck5. He isn't referring to the need for action, but that McCain will deliberately create a war. Whether for cause or not.

Oh. Well, thanks, PB. I didn't realize the whole military industrial complex conspiracy was still with us. Then again, I have a room full of LPs...(99% 33s, some 78s.)

[sailaway21]

Off script,as he is now in the ME, Obama doesn't sound much different than, well, dumb ol' George Bush.

We're dealing with a very arrogant man here, one to whom the words, mistakes were made, is foreign to the tongue. Mind you, he's in good company with Harry Reid of the Senate.

Obama claims that he would still be against the surge today and vote the same way. Hunh? What part of success is he arguing with? First he says that what changed Iraq was the Sunni awakening to the al-Qaeda threat and the cease-fire by al Sadr's Mahdi army of Shia. Oh, and the addition of 30,000 American fighting men. And he cites the political progress made by the Iraqi government.

Now all of that, which is not an outright lie, is demonstrably false and mis-leading. Obama, Reid, and most of the Democrat leadership said that we must get out of Iraq because the political changes were not happening, the "benchmarks" were not being met. (This is not a problem with a military solution. It can only be solved through the internal Iraqi political process. Iraq is in a civil war.)

What actually happened? Along with the surge, there was a change in military strategy. General Petraeus got and kept the girene's asses in the grass. No more conquer and leave for a hot shower back at the base. These soldiers and marines now take and hold their territory and become integrated with the local tribal leaders. Tribal leaders who were open to help if they could just trust the help to be reliable, ie..stay around. That they were open to us is largely due to first hand experience with al-
Qaeda. That they were initially suspicious of us and our reliability is from first hand experience with past Americans, ie..our promise under successive administrations to not abandon the Kurds, for instance. And what they'd seen us do previously in this current conflict. The Shia aren't dumb. If al-Qaeda wants to fight the US military in Iraq and get their asses kicked, it's fine by the Shia. al Sadr realized that he could remain a force, complete with his own militia, or he could attract American attention and be crushed along with al-Qaeda. Indeed the principal on-going concern within Iraq will be what path al Sadr elects to take in the future. Will he be a friend to Iran and a destabilizing force within his own country, or will he be content to operate within the political system?

Obama, with his foot already lodged in his mouth, contends that his opposition was an effort to change the dialogue on Iraq, and that's why he'd do the same thing over again. From where I'm sitting, it was "cut and run" and nothing I've seen since makes it any less so. This over-educated lightweight wants us to believe that the Sunii awakening and the Shia standdown were seperate, unrelated issues to not only a change in American strategy but a surge in forces. He uses similarly unconvincing arguments to explain the recent surge and success in training Iraqi forces.

The man is a naif wandering in the woods.

[chucklesR]

Sway makes a good point the media has absolutely not talked about.
Previously in Iraq the strategy was much like that used in Vietnam, to wit hunker down in fire bases and go out on patrol hoping to elict a response then meet it with overwhelming firepower: Meanwhile the enemy recaptures the country and terrorizes the populace.

The surge was not about building up manpower to continue hunkering down with a larger force - it was about putting boots on the streets and therein lies the reason for the success.

Obama has always been a jackass politician who spouts popular nonsense for the polls; I truly hope America wakes up in time to see it but history says it won't.

[PBzeer]

It may well be, that Mr Obama's increasingly obvious air of arrogance may be a major factor in the minds of undecided, and possibly some decided, voters. Americans generally want to see the game played on the field, not on paper, and have a noted liking for underdogs. At this point, things are taking on the appearance of a coronation, rather than an election, and I think, in the end, that will hurt Obama.

[PBzeer]

4 Billion for cities to buy up foreclosed property, renovate, and resell. Anybody want to take a guess how that will work out?

[sailaway21]

"The Speech" said a lot of nothing rather well. Some thoughts:

If learning a second language is such an issue how is it that Sen. Obama was able to give a speech in English to a reported couple hundred thousand people with no problems?

Why is he praising Berliners for the Berlin airlift? Are Harry Truman and the US Army Air Corp chopped liver?

Citing American and democratic societies willingness to bear any burden and how we're all in this together, making the world safe for democracy and pursuing liberty, sounds rather ironic coming from a man who has been more than willing to throw the Iraqi's under the bus at every opportunity. He might want to be careful in how much he attempts to channel JFK too. There are more than a few people around who recall JFK's singular efforts at foreign policy. We had the Cuban missile crisis because Khruschev perceived JFK to be a spineless wimp. Then we had the Bay of Pigs which some wag has referred to as the blueprint for Jimmy Carter's fiasco in the Iranian desert. And, before a short presidency was done, we were not only involved in Viet Nam but the White House had sanctioned the killing of that country's president. Now that's a legacy to run on!

"The speech was a case of premature inauguration." Kathryn Jean Lopez/NRO