Burgold Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I find it interesting that during the first week people are questioning his rhetoric not being backed by actions (not by all, but a few). It's the first week! Methinks during the first week one is allowed to set the tone and talk with one's tongue and not ones tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I find it interesting that during the first week people are questioning his rhetoric not being backed by actions (not by all, but a few). It's the first week! Methinks during the first week one is allowed to set the tone and talk with one's tongue and not ones tanks. bring out the shermans!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 bring out the shermans!!!! Sherman, set the Wayback Machine . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsonian Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 You know, I can't help but notice that you're not all that wilsonian, wilsonian. It's unfortunate we share the same name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Sherman, set the Wayback Machine . . . yeah, i know. but it sounds cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsonian Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Apparently you missed some of the long threads about the crazy uncle's plans for the military that involved closing all bases, funding them with bake sales (necessary because there would be no income taxes) and replacing them with pirates. Ron Paul got more donations from military members than any other Republican candidate during the primaries. That must just be a coincidence, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I find it interesting that during the first week people are questioning his rhetoric not being backed by actions (not by all, but a few). It's the first week! Methinks during the first week one is allowed to set the tone and talk with one's tongue and not ones tanks. I got the impression that people weren't questioning his rhetoric because it wasn't backed up by actions, but instead acknowledging that since no actions have--or could have--been taken yet, the words are just that: words. Saying "nice first step" to each of Obama's spoken statements is probably just as premature, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 So you will approve of Obama until he starts an unnecessary war and questions your patriotism? Fair enough. Please...a HUGE portion of the democratic/leftwing (whichever lol) was criticizing Bush just from the 2000 election results alone. I must be the only one who remembers all of the remarks of "He's not my president", "he stole the presidency", "He had his conservative judges hand the presidency to him", "he's stupid", etc, etc...along with constantly referring to Gore as "president Gore". And this was before the war in Iraq and even before 9/11. The idea that it was the war that brought about all the criticism is nonsense. And for the record, pretty much every democratic congressman/woman voted in favor of the war at the time as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Did all Muslims think we were there enemy? I know some viewed as us their enemy. They viewed us that way LONG before Iraq. If President Obama can address the reasons why those Muslims thought we were their enemy(the Muslims that did take direct action us and our interests) then I think he will be successful and will be happy for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Did all Muslims think we were there enemy? I know some viewed as us their enemy. They viewed us that way LONG before Iraq. Good point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsince72 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 So you will approve of Obama until he starts an unnecessary war and questions your patriotism? Fair enough. Define unnecessary. Better yet, have the victims of the rape rooms define it. Or the political adversaries of Saddam. How bout the people of Northern Iraq? I won't even talk about the new brides that Saddam's son "had" for himself. A lot of people like to point out that the war was unneccesary. Was it for all the right reasons? No. But I can almost guarantee that everyone on ES wasn't sure if there were weapons of mass destruction or not. Matter of fact, most of us were sure of it. Let me ask you this: If Saddam did have WMD, do you think he would have thought twice about using them on the US if he thought he could get away with it? **** no! I'm former military and I have a different view of our Commander in Chief. His political party, color, gender, religious preference makes no difference. I knew (and so does every other soldier that signs up) that I may be asked to go fight and not have a say. God bless our troops but that is their job. I would say the same thing about Obama had he lead the war. If you want to bash Bush continuously, have at it. But I remember the Iraqis that danced in the street thanking Bush and the Americans for setting them free. You should remember that also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Good point... Oh, many of them have hated since we kicked out a democratically elected government and put the Shah in place, instead. Although, granted, some of them are still using The Crusades as an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Define unnecessary. Better yet, have the victims of the rape rooms define it. Or the political adversaries of Saddam. How bout the people of Northern Iraq? I won't even talk about the new brides that Saddam's son "had" for himself. And what that has to do with defending The United States is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Let me ask you this: If Saddam did have WMD, do you think he would have thought twice about using them on the US if he thought he could get away with it? **** no! This is where I stood and pretty much where I stand. I believed that Iraq had WMDs. I think I still do. There was a lot of lead time where the war seemed inevitable to get them out or hide them or whatever. I don't think he had what he wanted everyone to think he had, but I think that everyone was not wrong. Regardless, I didn't think that those weapons were a threat to us. Certainly not an imminent threat. Probably not an intermediate threat. Why? Because of the first Gulf War. Iraq got its butt royally handed to them. They didn't want a direct confrontation and as with 9/11 if they did something and we tracked it to Iraq... well, Sadam was a monster, but he wasn't insane. Now, I could buy the humanitarian reasons for going over there. That made sense to me. As I said, Sadam was a monster. Of course, when doing that you have to wage the ethical war of why Iraq and not Rwanda or someplace equally worthy. Still, at this point it's mostly academic to rehash it. Bush did lie and exaggerate and cherry pick. We probably should not have gone if we were basing it solely or primarily on terrorism or U.S. safety. Still, done is done. Obama's message today is fine. We are not your enemies as long as you are a friend of peace. If you choose violence we will not recoil. We will act and act strongly. Going back to 2003 doesn't really help us too much except in trying to make sure mistakes aren't repeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 You know what it is feeble joke, suggesting that non-interventionism is the same thing as isolationism. There is nothing isolationist about an agenda that embraces free trade and open borders ( though I am not sure SS is down for open borders). Only in this country can embracing a foreign policy that is defensive can be considered isolationist. It is a sick and deliberate perversion of political language. I suggest you embrace your inner progressive and put down TNR. I read many of Ron Paul's various proposals and musings over the last couple of years. They were not just "non-interventionism," even though that was what he and his followers like to call it so it sounds better. Withdrawing from the UN and NATO is not "non-intervention." Closing all overseas bases is not "non-interventionism." Dismantling all world trade institutions and shutting down our intelligence agencies is stupid. Believing that we are on the brink of a being forced into a North American Union is loopy. Pretending that your views are the same as the views of the Fouding Fathers is dishonest. And pointing out that the guy is basically a nutty conspiracy theorist who attracts other nutty conspiracy theorist is not an unfair debating tactic. By the way, I don't like my "inner progressive." I find that most people who label themselves as progressives are really just angry Code Pink-style America-hating ignorant leftists. They are just as irritating as far-Right neanderthals. Actually, they are more irritating, because they are usually educated enough to know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Define unnecessary. Better yet, have the victims of the rape rooms define it. Or the political adversaries of Saddam. How bout the people of Northern Iraq? I won't even talk about the new brides that Saddam's son "had" for himself.A lot of people like to point out that the war was unneccesary. Was it for all the right reasons? No. But I can almost guarantee that everyone on ES wasn't sure if there were weapons of mass destruction or not. Matter of fact, most of us were sure of it. Let me ask you this: If Saddam did have WMD, do you think he would have thought twice about using them on the US if he thought he could get away with it? **** no! I'm former military and I have a different view of our Commander in Chief. His political party, color, gender, religious preference makes no difference. I knew (and so does every other soldier that signs up) that I may be asked to go fight and not have a say. God bless our troops but that is their job. I would say the same thing about Obama had he lead the war. If you want to bash Bush continuously, have at it. But I remember the Iraqis that danced in the street thanking Bush and the Americans for setting them free. You should remember that also. This doesn't address the context of the post you quote. That was in response to this whiny post I promise to treat him as nicely as the left treated W over the last 8 years. And in that, MJ is asking this guy if he intends to give Obama overwhelming support as Bush got until people began to (vehemently) disagree with his policies. Arguing the war itself is an entirely different topic. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Symbolism means a lot with the Presidency. Going on an Arabic network in the first week of his administration with this message, combined with the symbolic power of closing Gitmo, sets the right tone to further push the Muslim majority away from the extremist elements that had gained strength in response to previous U.S. actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the untamed northwest of Pakistan. And he has combined this rhetoric with tough talk against terrorists. He's offering an open hand to moderates and a clenched fist to extremists. Al Queda has sounded a bit desperate in its recent communiques. They've lost Bush as their boogeyman, and even fundamentalist Muslims who might previously have been inclined to support or even join have become disillusioned by the campaign of killing innocent people, many of whom are Muslims. So Obama's timing and method of this message is a smart move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Please...a HUGE portion of the democratic/leftwing (whichever lol) was criticizing Bush just from the 2000 election results alone. I must be the only one who remembers all of the remarks of "He's not my president", "he stole the presidency", "He had his conservative judges hand the presidency to him", "he's stupid", etc, etc...along with constantly referring to Gore as "president Gore". And this was before the war in Iraq and even before 9/11. The idea that it was the war that brought about all the criticism is nonsense. Well, something dropped him from 90 percent approval in 2001 to 30 percent approval in 2008. Or were the polls just lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I'm just glad I finally found out who the hell the crazy uncle was...only took 3 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Define unnecessary. Better yet, have the victims of the rape rooms define it. Or the political adversaries of Saddam. How bout the people of Northern Iraq? I won't even talk about the new brides that Saddam's son "had" for himself.A lot of people like to point out that the war was unneccesary. Was it for all the right reasons? No. But I can almost guarantee that everyone on ES wasn't sure if there were weapons of mass destruction or not. Matter of fact, most of us were sure of it. Gee. I wonder why that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsince72 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 And what that has to do with defending The United States is? Nothing at all. I was responding to someone calling it an unnecessary war. Do you think the war was unnecessary? I'm not asking about it being unnecessary for Americans. Just unnecessary in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nothing at all. I was responding to someone calling it an unnecessary war. Do you think the war was unnecessary? I'm not asking about it being unnecessary for Americans. Just unnecessary in general. From a pure and US-centric POV, it probably was unnecessary (for more detail see above) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Ron Paul got more donations from military members than any other Republican candidate during the primaries. That must just be a coincidence, right? So you're saying he got at least 7 votes? What percentage of the military voted for Paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 i read many of ron paul's various proposals and musings over the last couple of years. They were not just "non-interventionism," even though that was what he and his followers like to call it so it sounds better. Withdrawing from the un and nato is not "non-intervention." closing all overseas bases is not "non-interventionism." dismantling all world trade institutions and shutting down our intelligence agencies is stupid. Believing that we are on the brink of a being forced into a north american union is loopy. Pretending that your views are the same as the views of the fouding fathers is dishonest. And pointing out that the guy is basically a nutty conspiracy theorist who attracts other nutty conspiracy theorist is not an unfair debating tactic. +1 :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsince72 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 So you will approve of Obama until he starts an unnecessary war and questions your patriotism? Fair enough. This doesn't address the context of the post you quote.That was in response to this whiny post And in that, MJ is asking this guy if he intends to give Obama overwhelming support as Bush got until people began to (vehemently) disagree with his policies. Arguing the war itself is an entirely different topic. ~Bang Not quite. His post is clear as day about his view of Bush AND the war. Why even say "unnecessary"? Could he just not have said "Will you approve of Obama until he starts a war"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.