Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphbuick
I don't think it's unreasonable to adjust your point of view. The surge has taken nearly twice as long as expected to make any identifiable difference, but I don't hear anyone picking Bush up on this. In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met. And now it's all a success? Please. It's all propaganda, measured by the news channels. America lost the war a long time ago, and is simply fighting to maintain order. Even now, after more than one million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a result of the conflict, you are squabbling over how Obama picks over this? Ridiculous.
The surge was a fail? So I guess that's why we're seeing the dramatic results we see today?
I fail to see your logic. I can agree we should not have gone into Iraq, but we're there and there's nothing that can be changed about that. Even if you're against the war you can't deny the facts and statistics that have shown steady decline since
the surge.
Propaganda from the news channels? I'm not sure if you've noticed but the majority of all news are liberal prone. Even fox news isn't nearly as conservative as it used to be.
1 million violent Iraqi deaths? Evidence please
You've come onto this forum with an obvious angry voice full of bias. Post fact and maybe someone will listen. You'll have to excuse the brashness of this post but it does get a bit irritating seeing people with sub 50 posts come onto the forum seemingly trolling for a fight instead of debating a topic intellectually like it should be.
Fact > Opinion
Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
The surge was a fail? So I guess that's why we're seeing the dramatic results we see today?
I fail to see your logic.
It sounded to me like his logic was that the success or failure of the surge needs to be measured by the goals set out for it. There were specific "benchmarks" set out by which to measure the accomplishments of the surge, and his argument was that those were not met, so the surge did not accomplish its goals, therfore it failed.
Making progress is great, but it's not the same as succeeding.
I haven't seen a "report card" on the surge in awhile. Has anyone? In January, this is how it stood:
Government Benchmarks: 2 of 8 Accomplished
1. Perform constitutional review. Unmet
2. Enact de-Baâ??athification reform. Partial
4. Form semi-autonomous regions. Unmet
5. Hold provincial elections. Unmet
6. Address amnesty. Unmet
8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. Met
16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. Met
18. Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference. Unmet
Security Benchmarks: 1 of 8 Accomplished
7. Disarm militias. Unmet
9. Provide military support in Baghdad. Partial
10. Empower Iraqi Security Forces. Partial
11. Ensure impartial law enforcement. Unmet
12. Establist support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government. Unmet
13. Reduce sectarian violence. Partial
14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. Met
15. Increase independent Iraqi Security Focres. Unmet
Economic Benchmarks: 0 of 2 Accomplished
3. Implement oil legislation. Unmet
17. Distribute Iraqi resources equitably. Partial
Does anyone know if any of the other benchmarks have been met since January? That's how we will know if it has succeeded, failed, or had mixed success.
Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
You've come onto this forum with an obvious angry voice full of bias. Post fact and maybe someone will listen. You'll have to excuse the brashness of this post but it does get a bit irritating seeing people with sub 50 posts come onto the forum seemingly trolling for a fight instead of debating a topic intellectually like it should be.
Man, you just kind of jumped on that guy. What was so offensive about his post? It didn't sound like a troll to me --- just stating his opinion like everyone else. It's good you asked him to back up the million deaths claim with a fact. But what about this post is inapropriate?:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphbuick
I don't think it's unreasonable to adjust your point of view. The surge has taken nearly twice as long as expected to make any identifiable difference, but I don't hear anyone picking Bush up on this. In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met. And now it's all a success? Please. It's all propaganda, measured by the news channels. America lost the war a long time ago, and is simply fighting to maintain order. Even now, after more than one million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a result of the conflict, you are squabbling over how Obama picks over this? Ridiculous.
Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
Diahashi, I do not troll, it is you that decided to attack Obama, and I decided to defend him. If you had said McCain is psycho from POW camp and is an insane liberal (or conservative) douchebag, I still would have told you that you were out of line. I am a moderate, and above all I would like to see a fair representation of both candidates. You didn't give this, so I pointed it out and said the obvious bias made me sick.
You obviously don't grasp Hypocricy or irony, so let me spell it out for you, ok? McCain and Obama both change their views, but instead of calling it flip flopping and attacking them, I point out that BOTH OF THEM ARE DOING THIS. What sickens me is that you, in your righteous hypocricy, ignore McCains flip-flopping (god I hate that word) and verbally lynch Obama when he does the same thing. Both of them are politicians, and both of them sway with whatever breeze is currently blowing, but to target one and say he is a spinless liberal, while ignoring McCains identical tactics (flipflopping, *shudder*) is the epitome of stupidity, so I pointed this out.
You are insane though if you think I would spend my time defending a republican, especally when you and P4B are doing such a great job of that. I defend Obama because I like him, but my dislike of McCain doesn't blind me like you are implying. If you think I am a hypocrite for not defending McCain, does that mean you defend Obama? If so, you are doing one hell of a job, rofl.
As for Obama and his "180", I cant help but laugh, because while his views might have changed (like a typical politician I might add, same as McCain), he is still fighting for democrats, and if he did a 180 he would be a republican. I would say he did maybe a 45, but as long as he represents the intrests of democrats, and fights republicans, I can forgive him a little meandering and pandering.
And finally, yes, I am aware we are in Iraq, but to assume there is nothing we can do about it is just dumb. My "solution" is to elect a man that wants to get us out of there, hopefully by 09. My solution offers a casuality free enviroment for our troops, and a self governing Iraq. What does yours offer?
Also, Ralph, ignore Diahashis comments, opinion has plenty of room in a debate, especially since we have seen how valid "facts" are *Cough BUSHLIEDABOUTFACTS Cough*. He is so biased that he ignored the facts you presented too, a la "In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met". I didn't even detect a harsh tone from you, only one of disapointment in our leaders and those that continue to follow their flawwed policies. I agree with you, and hope to see more posts from you, maybe then Diahashi will simmer down ;)
Have a good one! :s4:
Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
It sounded to me like his logic was that the success or failure of the surge needs to be measured by the goals set out for it. There were specific "benchmarks" set out by which to measure the accomplishments of the surge, and his argument was that those were not met, so the surge did not accomplish its goals, therfore it failed.
Making progress is great, but it's not the same as succeeding.
8 out of 18 have been met I believe.
And having ideas is great, but putting them into practice is not the same as saying it out loud.
Words for thought. It's easy to criticize when your hands are clean of the situation.
Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphbuick
I don't think it's unreasonable to adjust your point of view. The surge has taken nearly twice as long as expected to make any identifiable difference, but I don't hear anyone picking Bush up on this. In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met. And now it's all a success? Please. It's all propaganda, measured by the news channels. America lost the war a long time ago, and is simply fighting to maintain order. Even now, after more than one million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a result of the conflict, you are squabbling over how Obama picks over this? Ridiculous.
Welcome to the debate, Ralph. My advice would be not to get baited into a personal argument.
You are right, in January, 3 of the 18 benchmarks were met. Do you now what the "report card" is now? I haven't seen one in awhile, although I know things have improved in Iraq.
Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Man, you just kind of jumped on that guy. What was so offensive about his post? It didn't sound like a troll to me --- just stating his opinion like everyone else. It's good you asked him to back up the million deaths claim with a fact. But what about this post is inapropriate?:
I find any unsubstantiated claims inappropriate. Coming onto a political forum to bash a official with no backing seems a bit brash. Everyone is allowed to have their opinion. I've never denied anyone that. It doesn't mean I have to respect their posts when it is lacking in content.
I'm not keen on finger pointing without evidence. Doesn't matter which side of the fence it is.
Admittingly this is a personal problem of mine, but I feel there should be some level of fact checking in peoples posts.
Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
I find any unsubstantiated claims inappropriate. Coming onto a political forum to bash a official with no backing seems a bit brash. Everyone is allowed to have their opinion. I've never denied anyone that. It doesn't mean I have to respect their posts when it is lacking in content.
I'm not keen on finger pointing without evidence. Doesn't matter which side of the fence it is.
Admittingly this is a personal problem of mine, but I feel there should be some level of fact checking in peoples posts.
Asking for facts is great, but accusing someone of trolling when they are just stating their opinion is not helpful in my opinion. And bringing up another member's low post count like it makes any difference to the validity of their post is petty. As far as I know, there is no hierarchy here based on post count. If anything, it seems like you might cut someone some slack on their VERY FIRST POST to this forum.
Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen
Diahashi, I do not troll, it is you that decided to attack Obama, and I decided to defend him. If you had said McCain is psycho from POW camp and is an insane liberal (or conservative) douchebag, I still would have told you that you were out of line. I am a moderate, and above all I would like to see a fair representation of both candidates. You didn't give this, so I pointed it out and said the obvious bias made me sick.
for someone who is talking about fair representation of both candidates you sure seem to be bashing one of them and the support that he has.
For a moderate you sure are flying off the handle fairly easily. Again I bring to you the question.. Why are you not going into the Obama threads and defending him. Telling people how you are disgusted with their bashing of the republican candidate?
You obviously chose this thread to participate in and to come to Obama's aide, giving him a free pass of what you accuse McCain of doing.
Quote:
You obviously don't grasp Hypocricy or irony, so let me spell it out for you, ok? McCain and Obama both change their views, but instead of calling it flip flopping and attacking them, I point out that BOTH OF THEM ARE DOING THIS. What sickens me is that you, in your righteous hypocricy, ignore McCains flip-flopping (god I hate that word) and verbally lynch Obama when he does the same thing. Both of them are politicians, and both of them sway with whatever breeze is currently blowing, but to target one and say he is a spinless liberal, while ignoring McCains identical tactics (flipflopping, *shudder*) is the epitome of stupidity, so I pointed this out.
I have a firm grasp on hypocrisy and irony. The question is do you? Because Hypocrisy and Irony are two seperate things. Hypocrisy is the fact that you say it's ok for Obama to do one thing but then chastise McCain or his supporters for doing the same thing. That sir is hypocrisy. You did not point out that both of them are doing this. You only pointed your finger in the direction of McCain and his supporters.
I've never denied McCain was using political strategy. This is an election and it would be ridiculous to think otherwise. I agree that they are both politicians and they both are going to say whatever it takes to win.
My problem is that you portrayed Obama as being innocent. That the McCain supporters have no reason to criticize Obama. However, again, you do not go into the Obama threads to go defend McCain. For someone who says they are for fair representation you sure seem to be traveling down a one way street.
Quote:
You are insane though if you think I would spend my time defending a republican, especally when you and P4B are doing such a great job of that. I defend Obama because I like him, but my dislike of McCain doesn't blind me like you are implying. If you think I am a hypocrite for not defending McCain, does that mean you defend Obama? If so, you are doing one hell of a job, rofl.
Ahh.. so the truth comes out. I'm insane to think that you would spend your time defending a republican. So I guess it's safe to say that you are definitely biased toward Obama. For someone who claims to want fair representation and then points the finger at McCain and his supporters it sure sounds contradictory to what you've been saying all this time.
And yes, I have defended Obama on the RARE occassion. I believe in fact not opinion or speculation. I believe P4B can attest to this. He may have seen 1-2 of my posts where I defended Obama. I've even said very recently that I anticipate that Obama will most likely win the election.
Sorry to disappoint you on that front.
Quote:
As for Obama and his "180", I cant help but laugh, because while his views might have changed (like a typical politician I might add, same as McCain), he is still fighting for democrats, and if he did a 180 he would be a republican. I would say he did maybe a 45, but as long as he represents the intrests of democrats, and fights republicans, I can forgive him a little meandering and pandering.
What exactly is he fighting for? And tell me why have his interests suddenly reversed from what his voting record indicates? Does this not bother you at all? Even though McCain has made a move toward the center.. most of what he has said has been fairly consistent withhis voting record. Sorry I don't like feeling as though I'm being lied to, with Obama's voting record in contrast to what he says... it feels like the man is lying to me. Straight up, no questions about it.
It's funny you should say fights the interest of democrats because for the last 8 years Dems have typically been supportive of Bush. It is only around 2007 that the entire democratic party had made a shift to distinguish themselves from the republican party.
Now let me ask you this.. How can you trust a party that has been going along with Bush this entire time.. and then 6 years into his presidency they suddenly change gears... What a coincidence with the presidential election year coming up. But I suppose you don't see it that way, you see it as the Democrats having a change of heart.
Face it... the Dems are not the saints you paint them out to be.
Quote:
And finally, yes, I am aware we are in Iraq, but to assume there is nothing we can do about it is just dumb. My "solution" is to elect a man that wants to get us out of there, hopefully by 09. My solution offers a casuality free enviroment for our troops, and a self governing Iraq. What does yours offer?
I said there is nothing we can do about the fact that we are in Iraq. I never said there was no way out. Please outline for me how Obama's plan will offer a casuality free enviorment for our troops and for Iraq. Furthermore tell me how your plan will ensure the safety of the Iraqi people and their Government once we're gone.
Look at what happened to afghanistan after we left it. Or here is a better example. Look at Afghanistan in the late 70's after Russia left. It fell apart and into the hands of the Taliban... and later it became a safehaven for Al Queda.
Leaving a job half done and not ensuring stability in that region will do nothing but undermine what our troops have been over there for to begin with. While I can strongly say I never agreed with the US going into Iraq... I can also strongly say that we have a moral obligation to ensure that nation succeeds. Pulling out now would be a waste of all of our tax dollars and American lives that have been put out into Iraq.
I don't want my fellow Americans to have died for nothing. Perhaps that's a sentiment we don't share?
Quote:
Also, Ralph, ignore Diahashis comments, opinion has plenty of room in a debate, especially since we have seen how valid "facts" are *Cough BUSHLIEDABOUTFACTS Cough*. He is so biased that he ignored the facts you presented too, a la "In January, the surge was a Fail. Straight out bad move. Only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met". I didn't even detect a harsh tone from you, only one of disapointment in our leaders and those that continue to follow their flawwed policies. I agree with you, and hope to see more posts from you, maybe then Diahashi will simmer down ;)
Have a good one! :s4:
Debating is one thing, but your posts have no substance.. no backing to your claims and is just opinion. While opinion is perfectly acceptable you truely shouldn't act like you're above it all... especially when you're left back peddling now to try to cover yourself.... in which you've contradicted yourself a few times now.
Fact not fiction..
Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem
I'd advise ALL people to read over the sticky at the top of the forum. This has gotten a bit out of hand and it ends here and now.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, nobody deserves a personal cut down because of it. End of subject and unfortunately this one is closed!
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
