ThomasK wrote:
I'm not sure what your problem is. When I read and ponder what is going on in Iraq, I see many issues. I've said before that I didn't think going into Iraq was a "good idea". So I'm not supporting anyone concerning that.

I stated on this forum back in February that Iraq looked like a no win situation. There didn't seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel.

The surge happened. Work with the Iraqi government progressed. Iraqis themselves started to take control of their lives. Mosul, Basra, and Sadr City are examples of that. Suddenly there seems to be some hope. The Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, went from a 5-year pullout to much less than that. They have worked on reconciliation with the Sunnis. The Kurds seem to flourishing. None of this can be denied. What is worrisome is, will this continue? I hope so. So the Iraqi people as well as our troops
Actually, the Kurds flourished right off the bat (they consider themselves a separate country for all intents and purposes, even have their own flag), and as for the surge, the jury is still out. You remind me of baseball team declaring victory in the 6th inning after having been 10 runs behind in the third inning. Has violence gone down? Yes, but there were other contributing factors besides our troops being there, and we still have 150,000 there, 15,000 more than when the surge started. Time will tell if it really worked. We won't know for sure until our troops our gone, the question is whether that will be in two years or twenty. Except now the Iraqi's are leaning toward the two and forcing the issue. Closer to the Obama position than the McCain one. Much closer.

Now he is all for a surge in Afghanistan. If surges don't work, why the about face? To me, it shows inconsistency with how he would deal with these problems.
Now he is all for a surge in Afghanistan? You seem to think this is a new Obama stance on Afghanistan. It is not. Here is an article from August 2007, almost a year ago.

WASHINGTON -- Democrat Barack Obama said it, the Republican Party pointed out in a screaming headline Tuesday that highlighted the presidential candidate's comments on Afghanistan and the killing of civilians.

Behind the scenes, Obama's rival campaigns buzzed about his statement uttered Monday during a campaign stop in New Hampshire when he was asked about his plan to move troops into Afghanistan.

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said....

...THE FACT CHECK:

A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians.

Washington Post Article

He wants more troops in Afghanistan now, and he wanted more there a year ago, and the situation is worse now than it was then. Where is the inconsistency there?

McCain was not my first choice. He is the only other viable choice there is. I don't see these contradictions with him on this situation. The Middle East aside, the "other big" problem I have with Obama is his stance on trade. I believe his ideas on trade are not good for the country and the American worker. As far as the stress and mess our economy is in, I don't believe either can do much for the economy overall. There are so many factors and cycles that whatever they think they can do will be futile. In my opinion.
Hmmm. So you were against going into Iraq in the first place and felt it was a no win situation, and you agree that our economy is a mess and you don't have much hope that it will improve no matter who is elected. Got it.

But, you support the nominee of the party who lied us into the Iraq quagmire in the first place and who made the economy a mess (and yes, Bush's failed economic policies and energy policies did that...we can't drill ourselves out of this one, no matter how much Bush and McCain would like folks to believe we can) as being the only viable candidate. Further, this so called "only viable choice" is not really suggesting anything different, on Iraq or the economy, than what the guy who got us into the mess in the first place did.

I'm glad I'm not you, Thomas....it must be hell.

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
I'm not sure what your problem is. When I read and ponder what is going on in Iraq, I see many issues. I've said before that I didn't think going into Iraq was a "good idea". So I'm not supporting anyone concerning that.

I stated on this forum back in February that Iraq looked like a no win situation. There didn't seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel.

The surge happened. Work with the Iraqi government progressed. Iraqis themselves started to take control of their lives. Mosul, Basra, and Sadr City are examples of that. Suddenly there seems to be some hope. The Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, went from a 5-year pullout to much less than that. They have worked on reconciliation with the Sunnis. The Kurds seem to flourishing. None of this can be denied. What is worrisome is, will this continue? I hope so. So the Iraqi people as well as our troops
Actually, the Kurds flourished right off the bat (they consider themselves a separate country for all intents and purposes, even have their own flag), and as for the surge, the jury is still out. You remind me of baseball team declaring victory in the 6th inning after having been 10 runs behind in the third inning. Has violence gone down? Yes, but there were other contributing factors besides our troops being there, and we still have 150,000 there, 15,000 more than when the surge started. Time will tell if it really worked. We won't know for sure until our troops our gone, the question is whether that will be in two years or twenty. Except now the Iraqi's are leaning toward the two and forcing the issue. Closer to the Obama position than the McCain one. Much closer.

Now he is all for a surge in Afghanistan. If surges don't work, why the about face? To me, it shows inconsistency with how he would deal with these problems.
Now he is all for a surge in Afghanistan? You seem to think this is a new Obama stance on Afghanistan. It is not. Here is an article from August 2007, almost a year ago.

WASHINGTON -- Democrat Barack Obama said it, the Republican Party pointed out in a screaming headline Tuesday that highlighted the presidential candidate's comments on Afghanistan and the killing of civilians.

Behind the scenes, Obama's rival campaigns buzzed about his statement uttered Monday during a campaign stop in New Hampshire when he was asked about his plan to move troops into Afghanistan.

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said....

...THE FACT CHECK:

A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians.

Washington Post Article

He wants more troops in Afghanistan now, and he wanted more there a year ago, and the situation is worse now than it was then. Where is the inconsistency there?

McCain was not my first choice. He is the only other viable choice there is. I don't see these contradictions with him on this situation. The Middle East aside, the "other big" problem I have with Obama is his stance on trade. I believe his ideas on trade are not good for the country and the American worker. As far as the stress and mess our economy is in, I don't believe either can do much for the economy overall. There are so many factors and cycles that whatever they think they can do will be futile. In my opinion.
Hmmm. So you were against going into Iraq in the first place and felt it was a no win situation, and you agree that our economy is a mess and you don't have much hope that it will improve no matter who is elected. Got it.

But, you support the nominee of the party who lied us into the Iraq quagmire in the first place and who made the economy a mess (and yes, Bush's failed economic policies and energy policies did that...we can't drill ourselves out of this one, no matter how much Bush and McCain would like folks to believe we can) as being the only viable candidate. Further, this so called "only viable choice" is not really suggesting anything different, on Iraq or the economy, than what the guy who got us into the mess in the first place did.

I'm glad I'm not you, Thomas....it must be hell.

So you think your guy will bring us economic prosperity. Now that's funny. But then, know one has ever acused you of knowing anything about economics. Now what's in your drink?

ThomasK wrote:
eric hussein miami wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
eric hussein miami wrote:
Do you know what a non sequitur is?
"Obama war drums?"
I realize you can't insult the intelligence of the neo-cons, Thomas. Have some regard for the rest of us.

Don't concern yourself with "phrases" and your "labels". That is only self serving.

Why do you think it's a good idea to pull out of Iraq and increase our presence in Afghanistan?

I'm chastised, Thomas. I bow to the level of your intellect. Adios, cucaracha!

I wasn't looking for chastisement. I was looking for your ideas on these situations. You and truth are too busy worrying about one-upmanship.

My money's on Eric!

Uncle_Bud wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
eric hussein miami wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
eric hussein miami wrote:
Do you know what a non sequitur is?
"Obama war drums?"
I realize you can't insult the intelligence of the neo-cons, Thomas. Have some regard for the rest of us.

Don't concern yourself with "phrases" and your "labels". That is only self serving.

Why do you think it's a good idea to pull out of Iraq and increase our presence in Afghanistan?

I'm chastised, Thomas. I bow to the level of your intellect. Adios, cucaracha!

I wasn't looking for chastisement. I was looking for your ideas on these situations. You and truth are too busy worrying about one-upmanship.

My money's on Eric!

mine too!!!

ThomasK wrote:
So you think your guy will bring us economic prosperity. Now that's funny. But then, know one has ever acused you of knowing anything about economics. Now what's in your drink?
That's a curious comment, Thomas, considering McCain has admitted that he knows little about economics and his campaign co-chair and chief economic adviser (until just a few days ago), Phil "Enron" Gramm, said that we are a nation of economic whiners and that we are only in a "mental recession." That's your boy McCain for you.