At what cost as well, a trillion dollar war? record high oil prices? a terrible economy? A credit crunch and extremely high deficit? Letting bin Laden ecape? All for what - to get rid of saddam and give the iraqi people "freedom"????? That's a win according to basso? How can we win this war when no matter what the outcome the American people end up with the shorter end of the stick. It's just a question of how short our stick will end....i.e. - how badly we lose.
That’s really the point. Some people just can’t come to grips with the reality that we have, in the eyes of Americans and the world, indeed lost this war a long time ago. To keep pumping flesh and dollars into a failed cause is madness.
you don't understand, our history will be tarnished if we don't win every war. one thousand years from now when they compare us to the greeks/romans/egyptians/babylon, they will say america really wasn't that great because they withdrew from vietnam and iraq. and even though that may be good for the american people now, future world populations will look upon us with shame, and basso is fighting the good cause on clutchfans.net so that travesty will not occur. this is bigger than all of us guys, this is for our stake at being the greatest civilization EVA, in internet terms edit: my country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee i sing
This thread is kind of getting off track here with asking for war supporters to define what it means to win in Iraq, which I agree that we haven't heard a good definition of what it means to win in Iraq, but to follow up on what Deckard said. I too think Obama is walking a line but it might not be one that is that fine. If the polling can be believed Obama has a pretty good cushion and it makes sense for him to not pander to the base and try to go after the vast middle. Also I wouldn't necessarily say this is him turning his back on his rhetoric, or at least not a big part of it. One thing that annoyed me about Obama was that he would alternately talk about "change" and then talk about "uniting and reaching across the aisle." I always wanted to know what these meant since to a certain point they were mutually exclusive. If you are going to enact great change but at the sametime reach across the aisle what all of those who don't want to change? What I think we are finding out is that the message of uniting and reaching across the aisle is actually more important than the message of change. Obama understands that if he is going to not just win but win with something like a mandate he has to compromise liberal principles and strike a very centrist stand.
did you want to get the thread back on track on principle or just to rip into obama and his supporters some more for believing in change?
I'm going to repeat what I've said before. Barack Obama is going to end the war in Iraq just like Nixon ended the war in Vietnam. Over a really, really, really long period of time, with an ill-advised side mission in a neighboring country. If you voted for Barack Obama because of his anti-war stance, you are a sucker.
you can't vote on an anti war stance when the war is actually going on. the option is how to end the war, regardless of the b****ing, everyone knows we are leaving as soon as he gets elected (if elected). and obama never claimed to be anti force. edit: aren't leaving
"Winning" for the folks that Basso follows is having permanent US military bases, a compliant government and control of Iraq's oil by our oil companies. That is what we are fighting for. If Sadam had been compliant enough he would still be in power and you wouldn't hear much about him not being a democrat. You would hear about as much about it as you hear of Kuwait and Saudi not being democratic.
Where did Sishir "rip into obama and his supporters?" What exactly is he "refusing to let go?" And what was "rediculous" about his post? Do you know what is rediculous? People like you attacking folks who go to the trouble to give their own take on Obama's campaign tactics. Because their take, whatever it is, doesn't fit some viewpoint you have about Barack, that makes their posts "rediculous?" Why are your views any more "right" than his? Or mine? Or anyone else who is a Democrat? If we support Obama's run for President, does that mean that we have to toe some line drawn, at least in your mind, from what you percieve at the "Obama message?" Since when is having an opinion which differs from yours, or anyone elses, from someone who supports the same candidate, cause for rediculing or dismissing the opinions of that member? Impeach Bush/Cheney.
every thread, shirshir has to make the point that he knew Obama wasn't what Obama promised to be. that's the same thing he did here, he needs to let it go. thanks for taking up for him, notice he didn't respond himself, he knows what i'm referring to, you don't apparently. I don't give a flying crap about whether you agree with me or not, but quit the "i told you so act"
and btw, what was ridiculous about his post is that he makes "reaching across the aisle" a bad thing because it isn't change. ridiculous in the sense I don't know where he came up with that logic and secondly if a politician can reach across the aisle, that's ****ing great given our state politics. edit: next time read what you're responding to. the irony is that you (deckard) are always accusing obama supporters of flying off the handle when you do the same crap when an obama supporter responds to obama criticism. follow your own advice
How is it ridiculous? Do you disagree that Obama is reaching out more to the other side of the aisle than enacting change? I'm also not stating it as a bad thing, or a good thing for that matter, only that this answers the question about whether change was more important or unity. I'm stating my analysis you can disagree with it or agree.
one has nothing to do with the other, other than not reaching across the aisle is more polarizing politics. obama never promised to ram through some liberal agenda either
Then what would you consider the change that Obama was promissing? Is only marginal change going to meet his rhetoric?
less polarizing politics. now there are instances discussed in this thread when he may not have kept his promise about that, like jumping on mccain's 100 years comments.
I've already showed time and again concrete examples of change that has already come from Obama's campaign and it's style.
let's discuss the article, two examples are legit, the money issue (which obama would have been a fool not to take) and the filerbuster (or lack of) on the FISA bill. This is a disappointing. as far as the other two, examples the writer just disagrees with obama's stance and so he choose to add them to his mix. its just a semantics argument, and another silly op ed posted by the king of them
