Well I didn't notice anyone else use the term "Shrub' and I knew I had. I'm human, I make mistakes. I just agreed with you- name calling is a piss poor debate tool.

Straw man. In a previous post I had already made reference to banks that got money from AIG. One of the points is the false outrage over bonuses compared to the larger amounts at risk, paid to trading partners, etc. Perhaps, you should try to keep up with me.

what on earth are you talking about, ace? on what planet is that a strawman? you've made a series of false claims concerning the pressures that were brought to bear on the bush administration from outside the united states to bail out aig because both significant national banks and in some cases government themselves were in trouble if the firm went south. that's the point. you disputed this argument, i posted evidence, you misconstrued it to support an irrelevant claim that you had been making which i did not and do not consider interesting enough to bother with, you undertake an adolescent bait and switch and not presume to call a straw man?

this is a joke.

It just keeps getting better. Democrats (and stupid Republicans) rush a bailout through without reading it, and go public in an attempt to direct the public's attention away from their idiocy. They make fine statements about "rewarding incompetence" with straight faces, hoping no one will mention their re-elections in this context.

Unfortunately, it comes to light that Chris Dodd made sure the bonuses weren't reduced! He finally admitted this, after first denying it. Now he is saying he will return the $100,000 AIG gave him, some of it after the bailout vote. Let's see, that only leaves another $181,000 from them he's keeping.

Of course, the major media don't seem to want to mention any of the above. It would have been great to ask Obama if he was going to give HIS AIG $100,000 back, but NBC would never do that to their messiah.

You just couldn't make this shit up.

Chris Dodd AIG admission: Senator says he helped adjust bill to allow bonuses -- chicagotribune.com

What do our politicos plan to do about say, the British people who received bonuses? Or about the Fannie and Freddie bonuses? Is Franklin Raines going to give back the $24 million (or so, can't remember the exact number of millions) he received?

That's all for now. I want to watch Obama on the Tonight Show. It won't be much fun, because they'll edit out any portion where he thanks himself for giving himself a gift again. If Bush isn't too busy, maybe he could help Obama out with that public speaking problem he has.

Edit: Breaking news! Obama says Geithner is doing a "great job!"
:lol::lol::lol::shakehead:

Nope not aimed at Tully, most likely aimed at me, although I may be mistaken, oh well, I'd hardly consider 'shrub' name calling anyways, more like a nickname, not like I'm calling him that cock sucking donkey fucker George W. Bush or anything, now that would be name calling, or if I called him the little abortion that got away, that's name calling, but shrub, meh if it is considered a 'weak debate tool' so be it, I honestly don't care, I'm not using it as a debate tool, just a nickname, if it weakens my argument that much, people don't have to read or respond to what I type.:).

---------- Post added at 07:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 AM ----------

This makes me chuckle, it's like your pulling reasons out of your ass and hoping one sticks, especially when on the last page of this thread you agreed when I said the mission was something else, what is it going to change again to the mission was for shrub to spell mission?

Not quite as funny as what was it shrub(that's right I typed shrub) said about his buddy 'Brownie' again? That FEMA guy who ran horse shows?

Obama is a failure. He promised change. So far he hasn't changed that haters are still haters.

Impeach!!!

good god ace. When Bush got up there and declared mission accomplished he declared that major combat operations in Iraq were over. He said exactly what mission he was talking about. Stop trying to rewrite history.

Here ace, I'll even give you the meaty part of the text of the speech
Bush Mission Accomplished Speech Aboard USS Abraham Lincoln

When Silent Jay posted this, my response was "Yes".

I agree now and I agreed then. I had mixed feelings about the occupation. I finally agreed with the sentiment of Powel when he said "you broke it, you fix it". I think people in the Bush administration had mixed views on the occupation as well. It is clear there was no real and effective plan for the occupation. They developed a plan, and it was working for awhile and things took a turn for the worse. Eventually, the administration made the needed changes and developed a plan that actually did work.

I don't know what you folks want from me. It is clear in my mind that there was the initial phase of the war, the invasion and then a second phase which I would broadly describe as the occupation. The first phase was well planned and a success. The occupation was not initially well planed.

Sorry to post so late into the thread, but I've been reading it attentively from a distance, and waiting to hear more from the gov't on what was actually being done.

But now we're talking about something that is not happening now, but has happened in the past. it is now part of recent, well document, broadly covered history, and to twist it is just not helpful.
How was the first phase of the Iraq war a success, exactly? Maybe the first part of bringing our soldiers into Iraq and beginning combat was, as in, they did that. But the outcome was a total failure.
It's a war that was started on false claims of WMDs and threats to America, and there shouldn't even need to be a debate on it.
The invasion was not "a mission", it didn't have a clear set of goals, or even a truthful reason to exist. It was not correctly justified, and ended in the worst possible way: the need for American and other troops from around the world to die for several years, get injured for life and often times handicapped, trillions spent, a distraction from larger threats such as Afghanistan, and especially lying to the people that this was about fighting back after 9-11.
I do not feel that America is safer after this still ongoing war, but it could have been if American efforts were focused in a more effective way on real threats to the American people.

To call what started this a "Mission accomplished" is a joke, no matter what way you turn it.

As for the other things being discussed in this thread, I would like to talk about later, since this thread's about Obama's achievements (hopefully) and not Bush's terms in office.

Has the messiah mentioned a)our goal/plans and b) our exit strategy in Pakistan?

-10 Respect for Marv.

You'll have to excuse Marv. He gets all his information about Obama from conservative conspiracy blogs circa mid-2008.

He is made of fail.

Filth, ratbastid.....in anticipation of the jazz or bakara coming around chastising you for your lack of effort, perhaps pm'ing you asking you to remove your posts so the high standards this board insists upon aren't jeopardized.........don't let it get you down.

This is what you do: apologize and ignore.

Um. Did you see Marv's post? High standards have been out the window on this thread for PAGES now. I'm to the point where I'm just having some fun with it. I'm WAY beyond taking this thread seriously.

Simple enough! Consider it done.

yeah, I'm not touching this pile of stink with a ten foot pole. I'm out.

I will respond to your question with a question to help clarify the way I see the situation.

Was the Normandy invasion during WWII a success?

The invasion was well planned and Allied forces obtained a foot-hold leading to the liberation of France. About one month after "D-Day" Allied forces had about one million troops in France. The Normandy invasion was a pivot point. In the history of most wars, we can point to clearly defined "pivot points". I think there were about three in the Iraq war, two were in the favor of the US - the first being the initial invasion.

I think the Normandy invasion was a mission, and Allied forces accomplished their mission. To me that does not mean the war ended, however, that mission was critical to success and was a clear pivot point in the war.

He hasn't done bad on his March Madness picks :D

The way it was explained to me in Boot Camp was soldiers go on missions in battles and those battles win wars.

What are the three pivot points in your opinion?

First, the initial invasion and the elimination of Sadaam's military to wage war or to instigate Israel into the conflict.

The second:

Bombing Shatters Mosque In Iraq

Prior to the bombing political progress was being made in Iraq. Afterward sectarian violence increased and US forces seem to loose control.

The third was the "surge".

The surge was only necessary because the original mission and it's aftermath were such a clusterfuck

Sorry, Ace, but to me this is what happens.
WW2: D-Day, troops go in, many die, but still kick ass. A bit later, they defeat the Third fucking Reich.
GWOT(Iraq): troops go in, a few die, kick some Sadaam statue ass. A bit later, many years of a few deaths every day, thousands of civilians and soldiers killed.

If your "mission" was: let's start a "Civil War", then OK. Otherwise, no, nothing was "Accomplished."

The old butterfly effect argument. Sure, how about this -the surge was necessary because Saddam was not breast fed, leading to him becoming a tyrant.

---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Unfortunately wars are not faught in a vacuum. In war there are normally two sides - each with people formulating strategies to win and adjusting to what the opponent does. A strategy can work, or work until the other side adapts with a better strategy of their own.

It takes a bit of arrogance to think one side can formulate a perfect strategy that can be executed perfectly from beginning to end. If your expectation of our military is based on that level of arrogance your perception will always be one of a focus on temporary failures.

Dude, that's weak. My point is that you're taking credit for a "successful" mission that was only necessary because we created a mess that needed cleaning up. Had we not made the mess to begin with, we wouldn't have needed the surge. Is this hard to comprehend?

Yes. At least for me it is, I don't get your point at all. I understand being responsible for initiating an action, and I understand that if things go bad still being responsible for initiating the action and being responsible for things going bad. But, if things go well, you accomplish what you wanted to accomplish - I would call that a success.

So, if in the course of accomplishing a goal, I create a mess - and then I clean that mess up allowing me to accomplish my goal, I would consider cleaning the mess up a success. And I would call accomplishing my goal a success.

I generally divide large goals into smaller pieces, pieces necessary for the large goal. I measure success by accomplishment of those smaller pieces - or "missions".

Perhaps, we just don't communicate or see things in the same way.

ace--everything about your position on iraq is patently absurd. i'm not going to waste my time arguing against your ridiculous analogy to d-day for example---but suffice it to say on this "surge" business that a fact--and it is a fact--which explains the reduction of violence FAR more than does the "surge" is the trace agreed to with the mahdi army that coincided with it. look it up.

What goal? What is, or was the goal? What did we win?

Of course it is, you told me that a long long time ago.:thumbsup:


Good for you. But, you waste time telling me you are not going to waste time...what is that all about?

You miss the point of the surge. The surge was not so much about the number of troops as it was about the US commitment to see the issue through and to provide the needed support to the Iraqi people who wanted to move toward a independent elected government.

The man managed to turn a 300 year old Capitalist/Mixed Economy into a Socialist leaning government.

From your point of view I am going to assume that going to war in Iraq had no value, so "winning" has no value to you. The war had value from my point of view, and I see the value in "winning" the war. I can not explain what we "won" if you don't understand or accept the reasons for the war or the value in going to war in the first place. In many of the threads on the subject of the Iraq war and the value in going to war in Iraq has been discussed frequently. I eventually came to the conclusion that it is not possible to reconcile the differences between those who honestly supported the war and those who honestly don't. Just like now, it is not possible for me to understand how some think the initial invasion was not a "mission" and not a success.

I hope you don't think this. There are an infinite number of factors in war, far beyond just two flags going at it, and the fact that you have this very limited idea that two differently colored flags are the main players show's your lack of knowledge and understanding of the reality of the World. Unless, of course, you choose to limit yourself to the extremely narrow, extremely simplified view, then by all means go for it.

Certainly, individuals participate or support wars for various reasons. Governments participate or support wars for various reasons. And certainly wars can be fought on different fronts with local participants having their own goals and objectives. However, normally, in war, there are two sides. It is very rare to have like, a triangular war, with three sides and each side at war with the other two, normally an alliance would be formed, leading to two sides and then potentially a second war after the first ended.

{added} It is getting boring having people say things like I "lack knowledge", my views are "absurd", and then when I respond with a counter-point or ask a question, they turn tail and run. I don't get that. Why include the personal attack, why not make your point, let me respond, and then you respond? And, if I am not worthy of a dignified response, why read what I post?

just to say this, ace, when i find myself qualifying a position you outline as absurd, it's not about you as a person but about the position. obviously, using words like absurd creates problems for that separation, both for myself and you and for other folk who read the posts. i feel like we've been fencing long enough that you would understand as much, but maybe this is a good time to remind you and myself of this.

the persistent explanation for talking past each other is that there's no agreement on framework.
given that a framework is what allows one to define variables, see relations between them and assign importance or weight, if there's no agreement about framework there won't be agreement about anything else.

maybe at some point we'll figure out how to get around this, but for the moment it seems like that's where things are stuck.

but it's not personal, for what it's worth.
i'll try to ramp back my writing a bit so that fact is clearer.

In other words, it was about an increase in troops...

The more important point is regarding backing up a claim. I have no problem with occasionally being the target of someone blowing off steam or whatever (I do it), but when a direct question is asked or a response given to a counter point and then those making personal attacks don't have the (fill in the blank) to respond with an answer/agreement or further justification for continued disagreement, it kind of takes the fun out of an exchange and certainly is not a challenge.

---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

I think the Iraqi people were getting mixed messages from the US regarding our resolve to see the Iraqi matter through, creating an environment of uncertainty. In an environment of uncertainty, those promoting chaos can easily prevail. The surge sent a message that the US was committed to the "end" (not literal).

Well, I don't think it had "no value." I think some people made money off of it, but I think that those who supported didn't justify it with true, valid arguments. The WMD's weren't found, and it looked to me (and many other people) like it was a distraction from the other, bigger problem: Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan.
But I would sincerely like to know what made it worth it, or more exactly, what was planned as an achievement at the start of it. I don't usually go in Tilted Politics, and the past threads about Iraq were such clusterfucks of bitter bickering that they were hard to read.
Maybe you can tell me what it was, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on whether it was worth it.
My problem with this thing is that many right-leaning people(and I know you don't like labels, ace, but I mean no disrespect) tend to not want to admit it was a mistake, because they supported it at first. So that's why I'd like to know if they still deeply feel that it was a great decision, or not. I know where you stand, so I'm asking you.

Nothing?