Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
The Perineum Falcon said:Did someone say McCain?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s
Just saw this on tv... it's pretty scary.
The Perineum Falcon said:Did someone say McCain?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s
Peregrine_Falcon said:That is true, but civilians are not "someone their own size".
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:Just saw this on tv... it's pretty scary.
The Perineum Falcon said:I especially enjoy the part where the granny begins to dematerialize.
Sanguinius said:I thought this would be of interest here although you might have heard this already.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/03/breaking_pledges.cfm
The Perineum Falcon said:Did someone say McCain?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s
Griffith No More! said:They're actually more closely related than I thought, surprisingly so in some cases (such as McCain and Mrs. Bush being only sixth cousins). Even if the Clintons are denied, it seems there's no way to stop the Presidency from being some sort of twisted family affair this time around, all these freaks were breeding with each other. =)
_Noone_ said:I don't feel good about anyone except for Ron Paul. He would, in fact, cause an economic revolution. He is not televised, though, and you know the media elects these fools.
Peregrine_Falcon said:One of my biggest issues with Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup1j1GZ0l0
Griffith No More! said:I don't see what's so bad there, other than the idea of the original bill honestly, his later answer to a similar, though not the same question, was actually the more thoughtful and reasonable one if anything. Blindly pledging to remove all troops from the region no matter what is a totally unrealistic and irresponsible one to make, impossible even. While it does leave something to be desired, I like his reserved answer a lot better than some disingenuous promise he can't keep.
Of course, like so many of us here, I'm typing this in between cleaning Obama's sheets and making his bed. Anyway, I'll have more time tomorrow after I cook his breakfast and finish cleaning the pool. =)
Peregrine_Falcon said:Analysts have said that this war would require decades of occupation. Can we even afford that?
Peregrine_Falcon said:I don't doubt that you spend a lot of time on his bed :)
Aazealh said:Should have thought about that before going there in the first place.
Peregrine_Falcon said:And now we should accept our losses and bring our soldiers home. Let's not let our lack of knowledge, our fear, a biased media, a lobby that does not care about our interests, and corporate greed continue to hurt us.
Peregrine_Falcon said:And now we should accept our losses and bring our soldiers home. Let's not let our lack of knowledge, our fear, a biased media, a lobby that does not care about our interests, and corporate greed continue to hurt us.
Peregrine_Falcon said:Either Obama is being indecisive or is saying what is convenient for his campaign, as opposed to what he actually thinks is best for our country when he changes his stances like this. I don't want to elect someone who doesn't know how to make a decision or who isn't honest about what our future under him will entail.
Peregrine_Falcon said:This war has created a disaster and staying here would increase our problems. Continuing this war would further endanger our soldiers, drain our budget, and kill even more Iraqis. This war has cost us THREE TRILLION dollars, and the lives of 4,000 Americans. I have seen estimates putting the number of Iraqi deaths at 600,000 and over 1.2 million (more than the Rwandan genocide). These numbers of course do not reflect the number of people who have gone insane or who have become permanently crippled. And as more people suffer, terrorist groups will become even more influential.
Peregrine_Falcon said:Analysts have said that this war would require decades of occupation. Can we even afford that?
Aazealh said:Yeah, and just leave the country in ruins. How responsible that would be, after all the promises the US government made. Unfortunately, things have gone too far now to just say "sorry guys, we're not up to the ask after all!"
Griffith No More! said:Why quote me when you don't even address what I had to say?
CnC said:I think you're blowing this out of proportion. The spliced video you posted are of two different questions, the first one on a general stance on the war, the second was a reaction to the notion that there might still be troops there in 2013. I could see how you could strongly disagree with the idea of a phased withdrawal but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call what Obama said in one of the early debates a lie. In our previous military disaster, Vietnam, it took about 3-6 years to completely get everyone out.
On a similar note, I think the McCain "hundred year" war quote is also blown out of proportion. McCain was speaking of military presence, not combat/full-blown occupation. Now while I think thats a stupid idea, I at least know what he meant.
Griffith No More! said:My point was he really didn't, and if one didn't allow themselves to be swayed by the editing and obvious purpose of the video, they would realize that. And from what you say about leadership, you basically want an anti-war George W. Bush. Someone that'll do whatever they, and in this case, you, want because they think it's idealogical the "right thing" despite the real world consequences. I'm tired of that kind of autocratic thinking from our leadership, which is exactly what...
...got us in THIS situation in the first place. Anyway, are we talking about Obama's stance on Iraq, or waxing poetic on the horrors of war? If it's the latter, fine, but what does this type of grandstanding have to do with the actual problem we're facing, or how to best proceed? It's exactly that kind of emotional rhetoric and hasty action that got us into this in the first place, and we can't just go back in time, it's too late to do the right thing by simply not being there. I'd rather have a reasonable course of action to responsibly disengage without causing more severe damage. Isn't that important to you however cynical you might be about the prospect? In any case, it takes time, and how we leave is more important than when, but people just want the instant gratification of an arbitrary date (that'll get pushed back). It's like people think that because we're the one's that made the hole, we should now just pull our finger from the dyke in shame. That's not okay, that's not the right thing, and it's not going to fix the problems we've created over there or do anything to improve our stance or reputation abroad, on the contrary, it would be quite disgusting of us.
It depends on what they, or you, mean by occupation, the U.S. military rarely ever leaves somewhere it engages like this. We still have a military presence and bases in sovereign nations all over the world, which is a difficult concept for us to really grasp since we don't see a lot of foreign soldiers walking down our streets over here. Anyway, considering that opposite extreme, what makes you think it's realistic to expect us to just leave immediately? I want us out ASAP, but that's still going to take years after we begin the process, and won't include extremes like every troop being gone.