Obama needs to go to Iraq. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

scout · 06-01-2008, 05:56 AM

I didn't realize I had misrepresented Sir Obama. To much is emphasis is put on single words rather than looking at the whole picture. A 16 month withdrawel is pretty much there one day and gone the next considering the scope of our operations there.

I just stated in my opinion he will change his tune before he takes office about getting the troops out of Iraq. I also believe everyone involved with Obama and all his supporters know it will have to change before he takes office.

The surge is at least partly successful. The daily attacks have stopped and the Iraqis are about ready to take care of their own security. You are correct that the surge hasn't solved all the political aspects but it has helped in the day to day living of everyone.

And be honest, do you ever see a day when the Sunnis and Shiites will coexist peacefully ? They have feuded for thousands of years and that has nothing to do with the invasion, Bush or Republicans and it isn't going to go away if Obama wins in November. But it sure sounds better if you can blame someone for that don't it ?

dc_dux · 06-01-2008, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

A 16 month withdrawel is pretty much there one day and gone the next considering the scope of our operations there.

WTF?

Quote:

The surge is at least partly successful. The daily attacks have stopped and the Iraqis are about ready to take care of their own security. You are correct that the surge hasn't solved all the political aspects but it has helped in the day to day living of everyone.

The goal of the surge was to lead to political reconcilliation....they are no closer to that goal than before the surge...in fact, they are probably farther apart and that will continue as long as there is a large US presence....particularly if we proceed with the Bush/McCain plan for an agreement with Malaki for a long-term US presence. No one in Iraq wants that..except Bush, McCain and Malaki.

Quote:

But it sure sounds better if you can blame someone for that don't it ?

It sure sounds better than admitting that Bush et al had no viable plan for post-Saddam Iraq....and still dont.

Tully Mars · 06-01-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

The surge is at least partly successful. The daily attacks have stopped and the Iraqis are about ready to take care of their own security. You are correct that the surge hasn't solved all the political aspects but it has helped in the day to day living of everyone.

Partly successful? Exactly what political successes have resulted from the "surge?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

And be honest, do you ever see a day when the Sunnis and Shiites will coexist peacefully ?

No, I don't. I didn't think there would be a resolution to these issues (Sunnis and Shiites) prior to invading Iraq. I don't think occupying Iraq changed anything. End result... thousands of lost lives, massive amount of injuries and disabilities (to not only our soldiers but to the Iraqi citizens) and trillions of dollars- the end game is little to no change.

aceventura3 · 06-01-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

I hope that this is not as widespread as you imply (at least on this site). To see data that contradicts your opinion and disregard or discount it (EDIT: without cause other than that it contradicts your opinion) does sound a bit questionable.

I am honest. I understand I have biases. I know what my biases are. However, I do read opposing views and arguments. I have changed my views on occasion. If you have a problem with that, what can I say. If you have no biases, you have my respect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Is Ace American Idol judge Randy Jackson?

Getting back.... did you do any looking into the PNAC, Ace? I'm still really interested to get your take on that particular subject.

Withdrawals started the day after Syesha Mercado was voted off. The two Davids just don't do it for me. Yes, I watch the show - I even TiVo it.

I posted a comment on PNAC in another thread.

sapiens · 06-01-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am honest. I understand I have biases. I know what my biases are. However, I do read opposing views and arguments. I have changed my views on occasion. If you have a problem with that, what can I say. If you have no biases, you have my respect.

I wasn't suggesting that I am unbiased, but when I see data that contradicts my position, I try to account for it (rather than ignore it). Even with such efforts, I'm sure that my biases influence my perceptions.

scout · 06-01-2008, 03:52 PM

Funny how life is. At first everyone pointed their fingers and said look there are attacks daily and soldiers are still dying so the surge isn't working. Now that the daily attacks have stopped and there are no soldiers dying daily it's all about political progress. I thought the surge was about both, stopping the daily attacks on our soldiers and the Shiites and Sunnis so everyone could work things out. Here's an excerpt from the state of the union address in 2007

Quote:

"In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. (Applause.) We didn't drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq."

It really doesn't matter, you all will believe what you want to believe and I'll still believe what I want to believe, thats the way life is. Variety is the spice of life. Just don't be surprised when Obama changes his tune about bringing the troops home and the effectiveness of the surge if and when he goes to Iraq or soon after he returns and definitely sometime before taking office, I know I won't be. It will be a rerun of Nancy Pelosi between Nov '06 and the swearing in of the Democratic majority. A total reversal of everything promised while on the campaign trail.

roachboy · 06-01-2008, 04:07 PM

there's been a cease-fire with al-sadr's mahdi army for the duration of the "surge." i don't suppose fox news puts a big emphasis on that part--i happened to stumble across the endless blah blah blah of faix news the other night and say that nitwit morton kondrackie making almost exactly your argument, scout.

if you leave out enough information and are politically motivated to boot, anything can be made into anything.

as for obama--my suspicion is that the entire impetus to make this photo-op trip is coming from the right. but the right is is huge trouble these days, as i hope you'll see in spades in a few months (but who knows in this bizarre-o place)--i don't see them as being able to call the shots any more. so if there's no particular reason to go or not go, except in that the conservative talking-head class is braying for it to happen, and if that talking-head class has no particular traction, except for amongst the choir it preaches to, then why on earth would obama do it? think about it tactically--why would he cede this to the imploding right? why should he cede anything to the right? why should anyone?

this is really little more than an influence test, a meme making its way across the american media apparatus. there's no reason to take it seriously if you're not predisposed to think that conservatives setting the ideological and tactical agenda for the election is desirable. i am not one of those people.

Rekna · 06-01-2008, 04:17 PM

I don't see what he will learn on the ground in Iraq (amid extreme security) that he wouldn't learn in discussions with our commanders. It seems like an unnecessary risk to put Obama's safety in the hands of Bush right before the election.

This is just the right trying to make Obama jump through hoops. It doesn't matter what he does they will always find another hoop for him to jump through. If Obama doesn't jump through a hoop they will make a big stink out of it. At some point we need to just tell the talking heads to fuck off and ignore there ramblings for what they are and our chance to do that comes this November when the GOP is going to lose more seats in the house and senate and will possibly not even have the ability to filibuster.

dc_dux · 06-01-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

...Just don't be surprised when Obama changes his tune about bringing the troops home and the effectiveness of the surge if and when he goes to Iraq or soon after he returns and definitely sometime before taking office, I know I won't be.

Actually, I would be shocked if Obama "changes his tune" particularly when more pro-war members of Congress lose this November and considering the fact that an overwhelming majority (more than 2 out of 3) of Americans want this president (or the next) to start bringing the troops home and ending our occupation of Iraq.

But I am still trying to understand how any objective person would consider a 16 month orderly withdrawal from Iraq as "pretty much there one day and gone the next."

Quote:

It will be a rerun of Nancy Pelosi between Nov '06 and the swearing in of the Democratic majority. A total reversal of everything promised while on the campaign trail.

Wow...rewriting history...before the ink is even dry on the accomplishments of the 110th Congress?

Pelosi achieved more of her first term legislative goals than Gingrich with his Contract with America, in spite of the Republicans in the Senate blocking more legislation than any minority in recent history.

It seems to me that McCain is the one doing the about face. He was opposed to Bush's tax cuts in 01 and 03 and now wants to make them permanent.... He was opposed to a constitutional amendment to ban abortions and now "finds it acceptable"...He promotes his campaign and lobbying reform efforts as evidence of his commitment to open government and fiscal responsibility and then votes against the bi-partisan lobbying/earmark reform bill last year (one of Pelosi's accomplishments) and surrounds himself with lobbyists in his campaign.

Scout...you can believe what you want...no one would argue that.

But when you misrepresent the facts.... how many times must it be said here...."we need a fact check in the politics aisle"

Tully Mars · 06-01-2008, 06:47 PM

Life is funny. Funny that a person would post this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

And be honest, do you ever see a day when the Sunnis and Shiites will coexist peacefully ?

Would then post this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

I thought the surge was about both, stopping the daily attacks on our soldiers and the Shiites and Sunnis so everyone could work things out.

So which is more humorous? That you really don't see a "day when the Sunnis and Shiites will coexist peacefully?" Or that you would then, several posts later, argue you "thought the surge was about both, stopping the daily attacks on our soldiers and the Shiites and Sunnis so everyone could work things out?"

Almost laugh out loud funny... if people weren't dying.

guyy · 06-01-2008, 09:31 PM

Wait, wait, this doesn't compute.

Our Fearless Leader

has already told us one happy day 5 years ago that the mission has been accomplished.

If i, as a regular, heartland guy, believe everything our Esteemed Leader says, how can i argue that Obama needs to go to Iraq?

scout · 06-02-2008, 02:24 AM

Ok you all win, I surrender. Resistance is futile. Long live Obama.

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Ok you all win, I surrender. Resistance is futile. Long live Obama.

scout....have any belief or opinion you want for any reason you want...but please spare the theatrics.

When you attempt to rationalize your opinion with comments like:

"A 16 month withdrawal from Iraq is pretty much there one day and gone the next...."

"It will be a rerun of Nancy Pelosi...A total reversal of everything promised while on the campaign trail."

or

when you conveniently misrepresent the stated intent of the surge (as Bush and war supporters have done) because the Iraqis have failed to meet political benchmarks ("its now 'partly' successful because there have been fewer attacks on US forces")

...you should expect to be challenged.

more:

I still think Obama should (and will) go to Iraq (and Afghanistan) before the election...but at a time and in a manner of his own choosing, not in response to political grandstanding by McCain (who has repeatedly misrepresented the facts on the ground in Iraq).

The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan represent nearly 200,000 voters (Wyoming barely has more than 300,000 in the entire state) and they deserve an opportunity to hear from the candidates directly.

aceventura3 · 06-02-2008, 10:30 AM

Will I ever stop "cherry picking"? No. This "cherry picked" WSJ opinion piece says A) our world standing ain't so bad, and B) perhaps Obama/Clinton won't deviate much at all from Bush. Wow.

Quote:

OPINION

Don't Expect a Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy
By TIMOTHY J. LYNCH and ROBERT S. SINGH
June 2, 2008; Page A15

Want more George W. Bush foreign policy? Elect John McCain – or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.

None of the main candidates has disavowed the war on terror. Each has called Mr. Bush tactically deficient. But the debate over the war on terror is over how, where and when. The candidates have all argued that they would do a better job of fighting it.

Administrations bequeath foreign policies to their successors that are then tweaked, but rarely transformed. The seeds of Ronald Reagan's Cold War strategy were sown in the defense buildup of the later Jimmy Carter years. President Bush's purported "obsession" with Baghdad began in the hawkish statecraft of Vice President Al Gore. In 1998, Bill Clinton made regime change official U.S. policy, and in 2003 Mr. Bush made it a reality.

The last great liberal hope to win the White House – Bill Clinton – committed more troops to more parts of the globe than any president since World War II. Since the end of the Cold War, America has undertaken at least nine military interventions overseas, under three presidents of both parties in two distinct historical eras (pre- and post-9/11). This history suggests that the next great liberal hope – Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton – would probably continue the trend.

Furthermore, the departure of Mr. Bush will hardly leave the nation's foreign relationships in tatters. Despite much American introspection, Euro-liberal sniping and Latin American leftist fantasizing, the quantity and quality of America's formal friendships have endured, if not actually increased, since 2001. Eighty-four governments, out of a world total of some 192, are formally allied with the U.S.

Foreign leaders such as France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel clearly see that their true interest resides in maintaining and renewing their relationships with the U.S. Few governments have prospered by severing such bonds. In Asia as well, nations are looking to strengthen their ties to America. China needs the U.S. market. India is moving toward America, not away.

The number of America's foes hasn't grown under the Bush administration. The actual number of our enemies can be counted on one hand: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela. With the exception of the latter, all these enmities predate Mr. Bush and his successor will inherit them.

Certain aspects of anti-Americanism are essentially immune to what any president does. The U.S. can bomb Christians to protect Muslims, as it did in Bosnia in 1994-1995 and Serbia in 1999, and still somehow augment the fury of radical Islamists.

It's also important to remember that we're winning the war in Iraq. A President Obama would risk too much with a precipitous withdrawal, especially if it was just to fulfill an early campaign pledge that was adopted more to establish blue water between him and Mrs. Clinton than to reformulate the war on terror. Mr. Obama's opposition to the Iraq war is empirical – "it didn't work" – rather than ideological.

Mr. Obama is capable of changing his position to reflect events on the ground. He is not dedicated to a peacenik vision of immediate withdrawal. He will not desert Iraq if doing so puts U.S. national security at risk.

The desire to get rid of George W. Bush will not make his replacement any less vociferous and committed to the current president's pursuit of American prosperity and security. As such, rising expectations in and outside America for rapid foreign-policy transformation are likely to lead to disappointment. As a Romanian proverb reminds us: "A change of leaders is the joy of fools."

Messrs. Lynch and Singh, academics at the University of London, are the authors of "After Bush: The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy" (Cambridge University Press, 2008).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212...n_commentaries

Let the ad hominem arguments begin. Ready, set, go!

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 10:49 AM

ace....another great editorial right (pun intended) up your alley

It just ignores many facts that I think Obama will consider...particularly that there has been virtually no political progress...which was the rationale for the surge.

.....the major Sunni party has been boycotting the government for almost a year now...and other Sunni tribal leaders have been building their own militia in Anwar with US funds and no interest in being part of the central government.

...the most popular Shiite in the country, al Sadr, has been boycotting the government and can call for massive anti-US demonstrations (and violence) at any time.

... the highest religious leader in the country, Sustani, is so opposed to the Bush/Malaki long-term US/Irag security deal, that is is prepared to issue a fatwah that permits attacking US forces.

....the Iraqi people dont want us there.

...the American people dont want us there

Our current "strategy is doing nothing to lead to political reconciliation. The only ones who want us there are Malaki, for his own political survival, and a small band of US neo-cons (supported by a small minority of the public).

So why would Obama change his current redeployemt strategy that focuses on getting us out and supplementing the US in the diplomatic process with the affected parties in the region.

If anyone will be able to to bring about political reconciliation...it will be the neighbors/supporters of both the Sunnis and Shiites....not an occupying military power.

aceventura3 · 06-02-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....great editorial

It just ignores many facts that I think Obama will consider...particularly that there has been virtually no political progress...which was the rationale for the surge.

Are you suggesting that if there is "political progress", Obama may change his view?

semantics again: How would you define "political progress"? Is it based on attaining one, more than one, all of the bullet points you listed? Is there some other measure?

{added} I forgot - you don't go round and round with me. My bad.

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 11:00 AM

I need to go to Iraq.

uncle phil · 06-03-2008, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I need to go to Iraq.

http://www.marines.com/page/usmc.jsp?flashRedirect=true

dc_dux · 06-03-2008, 11:02 AM

If you cant go there.....bring them here.

Tomorrow, in hearings of the House Foreign Affairs Committee., two members of the Iraqi parliament, one Sunni and one Shiite, will be testifying on the Bush/Malaki pending "strategic partnership" or "security pact" to establish the basis for a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq

Like an overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want the US out of their country now, both men oppose an open-ended U.S. troop presence.

The irony here is that the Iraqi parliament would have to approve the "strategic partnership" and/or any deal that provides an open-ended US troop presence and Bush asserts that such an agreement does not require approval by the US Congress.

Democracy abroad...just not at home.

jorgelito · 06-03-2008, 08:28 PM

What a wonderful idea, Obama should definitely visit Iraq. I think it would help quell some criticisms as well as allow an otherwise difficult to reach audience to "get to know him" a little. Obama has been pretty good about reaching people which is why he has a slight edge over Hillary for me personally.

I feel Obama has more interest in me than Hillary does. To be fair, I think Hillary may just have a bad campaign manager and staff etc so I don't take it personally.

If Obama does visit Iraq, I think he would up his vote considerably.

Willravel · 06-03-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

http://www.marines.com/page/usmc.jsp?flashRedirect=true

No, not to murder people.

host · 06-03-2008, 09:36 PM

Again no need for a "visit" to Iraq....sneaking in unannounced, then huddled inside the Green Zone for most of his time in Iraq. The reporting of it would only make Obama look weak and impotent, like:

Quote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Cheney makes surprise visit to Iraq

Mar 17 04:25 AM US/Eastern

US Vice President Dick Cheney swept into Baghdad on an unannounced visit Monday, looking to highlight security gains and promote elusive political progress days before the war enters its sixth year....

....The unheralded visit, shrouded in secrecy and blanketed with security, came as Cheney opened a nine-day visit to the Middle East and beyond,

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/30645.html

....Cheney spent Monday in a tightly choreographed hopscotch, moving at least six times for high-level meetings. In the fortress-like Green Zone compound.....

...Traveling under military guard along roads that had been swept for bombs and were lined with security forces, Cheney ventured a mile or so outside the Green Zone to call on Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Abdelaziz al Hakim,.....

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3941689.shtml

McCain Makes Unannounced Trip To Iraq

BAGHDAD, March 16, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP) Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, arrived in Baghdad on Sunday for a visit with Iraqi and U.S. diplomatic and military officials.....

....Further details of McCain's visit, which had been anticipated, were not being released for security reasons, the embassy said.....

...McCain was combative toward reporters' questions in the heavily guarded Green Zone, and responded testily to a question about his comment that it was safe to walk some Baghdad streets. He later acknowledged traveling with armed U.S. military escorts....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...aq-797144.html
Tuesday, 18 March 2008

...With their heavy security and meetings with Iraqis mostly confined to the Green Zone, it would scarcely have been evident to either American politician that the Iraqi capital is divided into hostile townships of Sunni and Shia. The top US commander General David Petraeus complained last week that security gains had not been matched "by sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation"......

Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29212.html
Visit by Iran's president shows depth of Iraq's divisions
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Sunday, March 2, 2008

BAGHDAD — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday became the first Iranian head of state to visit Iraq in three decades and immediately became the focus of demonstrations that underscored Iraq's sectarian split....

....Meanwhile, Iraq's Shiite ruling elite, many of whom had been taken refuge during Saddam Hussein's time in Shiite Iran, listened to Ahmadinejad without need of translation into Arabic, clearly comfortable hearing his Farsi......

....No U.S. soldiers were in sight near Talabani's home and security was provided by Kurdish soldiers known as the peshmerga......

......Last week, 500 people demonstrated against the visit in Diyala province, and Arab leaders in Kirkuk rejected the visit in a written statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...q.ahmadinejad/
updated 5:57 p.m. EST, Sun March 2, 2008

....His official welcome and meeting with Talabani was at the presidential house outside of the heavily-fortified International Zone where most high-level events in Baghdad are held.

Ahmadinejad shunned the security measures followed by many other leaders on visits to Baghdad, riding from Baghdad's airport in a civilian-style sedan -- and not an armored military vehicle or helicopter -- to central Baghdad.

How powerful and confident did McCain and Cheney, appear....sneaking into Iraq separately unannounced, holed up in a heavily fortified compound, venturing out only briefly, just a mile away from the Green Zone, under tight military escort, over roads lined with US troops, swept in advance for IEDs, vs. Ahmadinejad arriving in advance of two weeks public notice, despite some vehement protests, with no heavy security, traveling in a civilian sedan, spending almost two days living and sleeping outside the Green Zone?

Why would Obama want to contribute to that stark comparison of who appears unconcerned and in control, and who seems weak and apprehensive?

Why would his plan for Iraq need to be changed if conditions improved?

Quote:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iraq
#

5. In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

# Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
# Press Iraq's leaders to reconcile: The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
# Regional Diplomacy: Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors – including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction....

jorgelito · 06-03-2008, 09:49 PM

Host, I was thinking much simpler than that. At a PR level or campaign level, I just think it would be nice for our boys over there to have a chance to see Obama in person over there. I think it would go a long way in showing Obama to a group that is not as exposed to him as say McCain or Cheney. I would guess that a significant (just a guess) of the men and women in service over there, either support Bush Administration, or at the very least, identify with or idolize a war hero like McCain. Obama's presence over there, along with his charisma and sincere speech would go a long way in my opinion in gaining new supporters.

Come to think of it, Hillary should go too. Wait, don't members of Congress tour Iraq and A'stan already?

host · 06-03-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Host, I was thinking much simpler than that. At a PR level or campaign level, I just think it would be nice for our boys over there to have a chance to see Obama in person over there. I think it would go a long way in showing Obama to a group that is not as exposed to him as say McCain or Cheney. I would guess that a significant (just a guess) of the men and women in service over there, either support Bush Administration, or at the very least, identify with or idolize a war hero like McCain. Obama's presence over there, along with his charisma and sincere speech would go a long way in my opinion in gaining new supporters.

Come to think of it, Hillary should go too. Wait, don't members of Congress tour Iraq and A'stan already?

Your not getting it, jorgelito....how many enlisted troops do you think Obama would appear before in the Green Zone? The military is ideologically republican, but it isn't about votes, is it? That would bring accusations of "campaigning".

Obama doesn't need the extra votes, and he is not a USO entertainer. Why were there no reports or expectations of Cheney and McCain appearing to audiences of large US troop assemblies during their March visit?

He can greet the troops as they return, on his orders as CIC.

Tully Mars · 06-04-2008, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Your not getting it, jorgelito....how many enlisted troops do you think Obama would appear before in the Green Zone? The military is ideologically republican, but it isn't about votes, is it? That would bring accusations of "campaigning".

Obama doesn't need the extra votes, and he is not a USO entertainer. Why were there no reports or expectations of Cheney and McCain appearing to audiences of large US troop assemblies during their March visit?

He can greet the troops as they return, on his orders as CIC.

Ditto.

Any visit he makes there will be a strain on the troops and the his ability to gain any thing from a hand held, heavily guarded, arranged tour would be seriously limited and likely inaccurate.

Rekna · 06-04-2008, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

No, not to murder people.

Sorry will thats uncalled for. I'd let this statement fly if it was about Bush but the majority of our troops are not murders.

Derwood · 06-04-2008, 06:41 AM

Obama had a great point in his nomination victory speech last night.

I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something to the effect of, "Senator McCain says that I should go to Iraq to see what's going on there first hand. But I say that Senator McCain needs to visit all of the states that I have, to see first hand how crippling our economy has been on the citizens of America."

He was more eloquent about it, but his point is a good one; at this juncture, this election is going to hinge more on our collapsing economy than it is on Iraq. Granted, the two go hand in hand to a certain extent, but Iraq hasn't been headlining any news programs or blogs recently....it's not a top issue anymore.

The_Jazz · 06-04-2008, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Sorry will thats uncalled for. I'd let this statement fly if it was about Bush but the majority of our troops are not murders.

Agreed. Marines are not murderers. If they are, they go to jail.

abaya · 06-04-2008, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

if you leave out enough information and are politically motivated to boot, anything can be made into anything.

This sums up much of my opinion as I watch the campaign from abroad (not to mention read other people's opinions about pretty much anything, on the internets).

Tully Mars · 06-04-2008, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Sorry will thats uncalled for. I'd let this statement fly if it was about Bush but the majority of our troops are not murders.

Umm, no shit. I missed this first read through this morning.

Will I love ya man, but that was out of line.

Derwood · 06-04-2008, 07:16 AM

some people consider killing others murder regardless of the circumstances.

The_Jazz · 06-04-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

some people consider killing others murder regardless of the circumstances.

And others consider those same folks naive and unfamiliar with the way the world actually works.

Not to mention that on TFP that kind of thing can fit into the "troll post" catagory.

Derwood · 06-04-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

And others consider those same folks naive and unfamiliar with the way the world actually works.

Not to mention that on TFP that kind of thing can fit into the "troll post" catagory.

just because "the world" says that killing in the name of war isn't murder doesn't mean everyone should agree

Willravel · 06-04-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Sorry will thats uncalled for. I'd let this statement fly if it was about Bush but the majority of our troops are not murders.

I guess your definition of murder is different than mine.

Mine is something like:
Murder: the willful killing of another human being.

The legal definition includes a necessity for breaking the law, but in many places and under many circumstances killing someone is legal, so I can't really accept that definition.

/threadjack

Derwood · 06-04-2008, 10:05 AM

if it makes people sleep better at night to believe that their fathers/uncles/brothers aren't murdering anyone during war time....

host · 06-04-2008, 11:08 AM

The_Jazz, I found will's position to be less naive and less "unfamiliar with the way the world actually works."..... and not trolling at all. What is a fair way to describe a post in response to willravel's that can be distilled to, "you're probably too young to know what you are talking about"?

Yes, a corporal shot the Iraqi in the video, but it was the Marines command and judicial administration that failed to follow up by really investigating what was documented in the video, and it was the USMC that attacked the journalist who videotaped and reported the incident..... they make their reputation, and there has been no justice in these incidents, (and we only know or the incidents that have not been successfully covered up....)commensurate with a "liberating force", they and their CIC propagandize that they are in Iraq to accomplish, in the first place.

There is also the decision to ignore this life saving weapon:

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...65_page3.shtml
The Pentagon's Ray Gun
David Martin Reports On A Non-Lethal Weapon Straight Out Of Buck Rogers
Comments 213 | Page 3 of 4
June 1, 2008

....But Sid Heal, a former Marine who has followed the ray gun's progress for nearly a decade, says the potential for abuse is not what's holding it up. It’s something else: cowardice.

"There's no other way of saying it. You could try to save people’s life with a non lethal weapon and fail and it’ll still be noble. But failing to try is cowardly. . . That is completely unacceptable," Heal explains.

Heal was once the Marine Corps' point man for non lethal weapons. He took them to Somalia in 1995 after America’s ill-fated attempt to relieve the famine there had degenerated into a shooting war.

"It's very difficult to make a case for a humanitarian operation if the only way you have of imposing your will is by killing the people you’re sent to protect," Heal says.

Heal has tried to teach Marines to use everything from sticky foam to lasers.

"A major came up to me and said that the Marine Corps wasn't overly thrilled with the whole non-lethal concept. And his idea was, is that the Marine Corps’ idea of force escalation went from M-16 to F-16. How many people we could kill and how fast we could do it."

The non-lethal weapons Heal works with at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department today are no more advanced than what he had in Somalia 13 years ago.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Agreed. Marines are not murderers. If they are, they go to jail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

And others consider those same folks naive and unfamiliar with the way the world actually works.

Not to mention that on TFP that kind of thing can fit into the "troll post" catagory.

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4646406
David Banks, NPR
Kevin Sites at the studios of NPR West in Culver City, Calif.

Day to Day, May 10, 2005 · Alex Chadwick talks with freelance journalist Kevin Sites about footage he videotaped last November in Iraq that appeared to show a U.S. Marine shooting an unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque.

The U.S. Marine Corps announced that it won’t prosecute that Marine corporal, who was not identified, for his actions.

Sites was on assignment for NBC on Nov. 13, 2004, and was following a squad into a mosque that the day before insurgents were using to fire on U.S. troops. The Marines were part of a U.S.-led offensive to clear Fallujah of its insurgent strongholds.

Sites' video shows five men wounded from the previous day's fighting lying on the floor of the mosque. One Marine can be heard shouting to others that a man was only "playing dead."

The Marine corporal in question appears to fire a round from his weapon into the Iraqi's head, and another Marine says, "Dead now."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6556034/
What happened in the Fallujah mosque
NBC correspondent writes about the killing of an injured Iraqi
Conflict in Iraq video

Kevin Sites
Correspondent

OPEN LETTER TO MARINES
By Kevin Sites
Correspondent
NBC News
updated 7:14 p.m. ET, Wed., May. 4, 2005
This story was originally published on Nov. 22, 2004

Since the shooting in the mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well. As you know, I'm not some war-zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a "gotcha" reporter -- hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.

This week I've even been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read my dispatches is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to play it straight down the middle -- not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right.

But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.

It's time you have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds about whether you think what I did was right or wrong. All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me.

Here it goes.

Nov. 13, 2004
It's Saturday morning and we're still at our strong point from the night before, a clearing between a set of buildings on the southern edge of the city. The advance has been swift, but pockets of resistance still exist. In fact, we're taking sniper fire from both the front and the rear.

Weapons Company uses its 81's (mortars) where they spot muzzle flashes. The tanks do some blasting of their own. By mid-morning, we're told we're moving north again. We'll be back clearing some of the area we passed yesterday. There are also reports that the mosque, where 10 insurgents were killed and five wounded on Friday, may have been re-occupied overnight.

I decide to leave you guys and pick up with one of the infantry squads as they move house-to-house back toward the mosque. (For their own privacy and protection I will not name or identify in any way, any of those I was traveling with during this incident.)

Many of the structures are empty of people -- but full of weapons. Outside one residence, a member of the squad lobs a frag grenade over the wall. Everyone piles in, including me.

While the Marines go into the house, I follow the flames caused by the grenade into the courtyard. When the smoke clears, I can see through my viewfinder that the fire is burning beside a large pile of anti-aircraft rounds.

I yell to the lieutenant that we need to move. Almost immediately after clearing out of the house, small explosions begin as the rounds cook off in the fire.

At that point, we hear the tanks firing their 240-machine guns into the mosque. There's radio chatter that insurgents inside could be shooting back. The tanks cease fire and we file through a breach in the outer wall.

We hear gunshots from what seems to be coming from inside the mosque. A Marine from my squad yells, "Are there Marines in here?"

When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.

The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"

One of the Marines raises his hand signaling five.

"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?

"Roger that, sir, “the same Marine responds.

"Were they armed?" The Marine just shrugs and we all move inside.

Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat -- those Marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.

During the course of these events, there were plenty of mitigating circumstances like the ones just mentioned and which I reported in my story. The Marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before.

I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one Marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report.

No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone with you, would deny that a soldier or Marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.

In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the Marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat -- the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.

I can't know what was in the mind of that Marine. He is the only one who does.

According to Lt. Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Fallujah required soldiers or Marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.

Making sure you know the basis for my choices after the incident is as important to me as knowing how the incident went down. I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.

We all knew it was a complicated story, and if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation -- providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.

For those who don't practice journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all -- especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behavior or character of an organization as a whole.

The answer is not an easy one.

In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both -- though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting. For example, acts of selfless heroism are likely to be as unique to a group as the darker deeds. But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective — will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge. That doesn't make the decision to report events like this one any easier. It has, for me, led to an agonizing struggle -- the proverbial long, dark night of the soul.

Pool footage
I knew NBC would be responsible with the footage. But there were complications. We were part of a video "pool" in Fallujah, and that obligated us to share all of our footage with other networks. I had no idea how our other "pool" partners might use the footage. I considered not feeding the tape to the pool -- or even, for a moment, destroying it. But that thought created the same pit in my stomach that witnessing the shooting had. It felt wrong. Hiding this wouldn't make it go away. There were other people in that room. What happened in that mosque would eventually come out. I would be faced with the fact that I had betrayed truth as well as a life supposedly spent in pursuit of it.

When NBC aired the story 48 hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that Marine's actions. We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible. Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world.

The Marines have built their proud reputation on fighting for freedoms like the one that allows me to do my job, a job that in some cases may appear to discredit them. But both the leaders and the grunts in the field like you understand that if you lower your standards, if you accept less, than less is what you'll become.

There are people in our own country that would weaken your institution and our nation — by telling you it's okay to betray our guiding principles by not making the tough decisions, by letting difficult circumstances turns us into victims or worse ... villains.

I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Fallujah began. He said something very powerful at the time — something that now seems prophetic. It was this,

"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground."

I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.

The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.

I pray for your soon and safe return.

Kevin Sites is an NBC News correspondent. The letter first appeared on his personal blog www.kevinsites.net under the title "Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1."

I think if willravel had narrowed his response to "too many murderers in those ranks, and too much of an urge, by the command, to cover up and whitewash the implications of that, let alone administer fair and timely justice to all the guilty, regardless of rank, especially considering they purport to be a liberating force in Iraq."... and I could agree with what he posted and why he posted it.

Shauk · 06-04-2008, 11:55 AM

I agree with will actually...

whats the difference between a soldier and a gang member?

not much.

just some legal loopholes.

they're both just protecting some turf and killing people and indulging in their own fantasy of right, wrong, and what they can do to justify upholding their beliefs.

The_Jazz · 06-04-2008, 12:21 PM

The statement is that Marines are murderers. Look up the definitions of each, and you'll see that I'm right, especially with my caveat.

Another definition to pay attention to: "troll post" - posting to draw the ire of your fellow board members. Considering that Will's statement called any Marine on TFP a murderer, that's an important definition.

Now, let me be perfectly clear about this next part - if this conversation continues in this vein, the thread will be locked and warnings will be handed out. It is only by sheer luck that none of the retired or active military folks haven't happened across this yet. My sop to them at this point is the above. So make your choices now, folks, but be ready to live with the consequences. Inflamatory statements will be dealt with in the appropriate manner.

Derwood · 06-04-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

The statement is that Marines are murderers. Look up the definitions of each, and you'll see that I'm right, especially with my caveat.

Another definition to pay attention to: "troll post" - posting to draw the ire of your fellow board members. Considering that Will's statement called any Marine on TFP a murderer, that's an important definition.

Now, let me be perfectly clear about this next part - if this conversation continues in this vein, the thread will be locked and warnings will be handed out. It is only by sheer luck that none of the retired or active military folks haven't happened across this yet. My sop to them at this point is the above. So make your choices now, folks, but be ready to live with the consequences. Inflamatory statements will be dealt with in the appropriate manner.

is it possible to discuss the concept of "killing in wartime is still murder" without pointing fingers? i think it's an interesting debate on a moral/ethical level.

Willravel · 06-04-2008, 12:45 PM

Der, I went ahead and made a thread for this. I don't want to have this thread close.

06-01-2008, 04:07 PM	#47 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there's been a cease-fire with al-sadr's mahdi army for the duration of the "surge." i don't suppose fox news puts a big emphasis on that part--i happened to stumble across the endless blah blah blah of faix news the other night and say that nitwit morton kondrackie making almost exactly your argument, scout. if you leave out enough information and are politically motivated to boot, anything can be made into anything. as for obama--my suspicion is that the entire impetus to make this photo-op trip is coming from the right. but the right is is huge trouble these days, as i hope you'll see in spades in a few months (but who knows in this bizarre-o place)--i don't see them as being able to call the shots any more. so if there's no particular reason to go or not go, except in that the conservative talking-head class is braying for it to happen, and if that talking-head class has no particular traction, except for amongst the choir it preaches to, then why on earth would obama do it? think about it tactically--why would he cede this to the imploding right? why should he cede anything to the right? why should anyone? this is really little more than an influence test, a meme making its way across the american media apparatus. there's no reason to take it seriously if you're not predisposed to think that conservatives setting the ideological and tactical agenda for the election is desirable. i am not one of those people. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-02-2008, 10:49 AM	#55 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....another great editorial right (pun intended) up your alley It just ignores many facts that I think Obama will consider...particularly that there has been virtually no political progress...which was the rationale for the surge. .....the major Sunni party has been boycotting the government for almost a year now...and other Sunni tribal leaders have been building their own militia in Anwar with US funds and no interest in being part of the central government. ...the most popular Shiite in the country, al Sadr, has been boycotting the government and can call for massive anti-US demonstrations (and violence) at any time. ... the highest religious leader in the country, Sustani, is so opposed to the Bush/Malaki long-term US/Irag security deal, that is is prepared to issue a fatwah that permits attacking US forces. ....the Iraqi people dont want us there. ...the American people dont want us there Our current "strategy is doing nothing to lead to political reconciliation. The only ones who want us there are Malaki, for his own political survival, and a small band of US neo-cons (supported by a small minority of the public). So why would Obama change his current redeployemt strategy that focuses on getting us out and supplementing the US in the diplomatic process with the affected parties in the region. If anyone will be able to to bring about political reconciliation...it will be the neighbors/supporters of both the Sunnis and Shiites....not an occupying military power. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-02-2008 at 11:36 AM..

06-03-2008, 11:02 AM	#59 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	If you cant go there.....bring them here. Tomorrow, in hearings of the House Foreign Affairs Committee., two members of the Iraqi parliament, one Sunni and one Shiite, will be testifying on the Bush/Malaki pending "strategic partnership" or "security pact" to establish the basis for a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq Like an overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want the US out of their country now, both men oppose an open-ended U.S. troop presence. The irony here is that the Iraqi parliament would have to approve the "strategic partnership" and/or any deal that provides an open-ended US troop presence and Bush asserts that such an agreement does not require approval by the US Congress. Democracy abroad...just not at home. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-03-2008 at 11:47 AM..

06-04-2008, 12:21 PM	#78 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	The statement is that Marines are murderers. Look up the definitions of each, and you'll see that I'm right, especially with my caveat. Another definition to pay attention to: "troll post" - posting to draw the ire of your fellow board members. Considering that Will's statement called any Marine on TFP a murderer, that's an important definition. Now, let me be perfectly clear about this next part - if this conversation continues in this vein, the thread will be locked and warnings will be handed out. It is only by sheer luck that none of the retired or active military folks haven't happened across this yet. My sop to them at this point is the above. So make your choices now, folks, but be ready to live with the consequences. Inflamatory statements will be dealt with in the appropriate manner. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-01-2008, 05:56 AM	#41 (permalink)
scout Psycho	I didn't realize I had misrepresented Sir Obama. To much is emphasis is put on single words rather than looking at the whole picture. A 16 month withdrawel is pretty much there one day and gone the next considering the scope of our operations there. I just stated in my opinion he will change his tune before he takes office about getting the troops out of Iraq. I also believe everyone involved with Obama and all his supporters know it will have to change before he takes office. The surge is at least partly successful. The daily attacks have stopped and the Iraqis are about ready to take care of their own security. You are correct that the surge hasn't solved all the political aspects but it has helped in the day to day living of everyone. And be honest, do you ever see a day when the Sunnis and Shiites will coexist peacefully ? They have feuded for thousands of years and that has nothing to do with the invasion, Bush or Republicans and it isn't going to go away if Obama wins in November. But it sure sounds better if you can blame someone for that don't it ?

06-01-2008, 04:17 PM	#48 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I don't see what he will learn on the ground in Iraq (amid extreme security) that he wouldn't learn in discussions with our commanders. It seems like an unnecessary risk to put Obama's safety in the hands of Bush right before the election. This is just the right trying to make Obama jump through hoops. It doesn't matter what he does they will always find another hoop for him to jump through. If Obama doesn't jump through a hoop they will make a big stink out of it. At some point we need to just tell the talking heads to fuck off and ignore there ramblings for what they are and our chance to do that comes this November when the GOP is going to lose more seats in the house and senate and will possibly not even have the ability to filibuster.

06-01-2008, 09:31 PM	#51 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	Wait, wait, this doesn't compute. Our Fearless Leader has already told us one happy day 5 years ago that the mission has been accomplished. If i, as a regular, heartland guy, believe everything our Esteemed Leader says, how can i argue that Obama needs to go to Iraq?

06-02-2008, 02:24 AM	#52 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Ok you all win, I surrender. Resistance is futile. Long live Obama.

06-02-2008, 11:00 AM	#57 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I need to go to Iraq.

06-03-2008, 08:28 PM	#60 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	What a wonderful idea, Obama should definitely visit Iraq. I think it would help quell some criticisms as well as allow an otherwise difficult to reach audience to "get to know him" a little. Obama has been pretty good about reaching people which is why he has a slight edge over Hillary for me personally. I feel Obama has more interest in me than Hillary does. To be fair, I think Hillary may just have a bad campaign manager and staff etc so I don't take it personally. If Obama does visit Iraq, I think he would up his vote considerably.

06-03-2008, 09:49 PM	#63 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Host, I was thinking much simpler than that. At a PR level or campaign level, I just think it would be nice for our boys over there to have a chance to see Obama in person over there. I think it would go a long way in showing Obama to a group that is not as exposed to him as say McCain or Cheney. I would guess that a significant (just a guess) of the men and women in service over there, either support Bush Administration, or at the very least, identify with or idolize a war hero like McCain. Obama's presence over there, along with his charisma and sincere speech would go a long way in my opinion in gaining new supporters. Come to think of it, Hillary should go too. Wait, don't members of Congress tour Iraq and A'stan already?

06-04-2008, 06:41 AM	#67 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Obama had a great point in his nomination victory speech last night. I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something to the effect of, "Senator McCain says that I should go to Iraq to see what's going on there first hand. But I say that Senator McCain needs to visit all of the states that I have, to see first hand how crippling our economy has been on the citizens of America." He was more eloquent about it, but his point is a good one; at this juncture, this election is going to hinge more on our collapsing economy than it is on Iraq. Granted, the two go hand in hand to a certain extent, but Iraq hasn't been headlining any news programs or blogs recently....it's not a top issue anymore.

06-04-2008, 07:16 AM	#71 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	some people consider killing others murder regardless of the circumstances.

06-04-2008, 10:05 AM	#75 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	if it makes people sleep better at night to believe that their fathers/uncles/brothers aren't murdering anyone during war time....

06-04-2008, 11:55 AM	#77 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	I agree with will actually... whats the difference between a soldier and a gang member? not much. just some legal loopholes. they're both just protecting some turf and killing people and indulging in their own fantasy of right, wrong, and what they can do to justify upholding their beliefs.

06-04-2008, 12:45 PM	#80 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Der, I went ahead and made a thread for this. I don't want to have this thread close.