| 64 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
1/21/09 10:39:20 AM#51
"Healthy Skepticism", that is a good word for it. It is indeed healthy to be skeptical when the stakes are so high. It is like online games and your expectations for them. It is healthy to be skeptical about their future, because that helps the developer to keep on their toes on what you want to see :). Mathew "Berek" Anderson |
|
|
1/21/09 10:53:17 AM#52
Hell ....no sign of optimism ...i think thats what we re short of at the moment ...Obama is sure to recreate history and i guess if america can hold back its head high up ...ROTW will....we have none else but him to cling on too at the moment ! |
|
|
1/21/09 11:16:10 AM#53
This is what Obama has done so far. Obama Day One Suspend pending Bush policies. This, of course is understandable. Set a 16 month timetable for leaving Iraq. This is bad. Not bad in the sense he wants the war over, but bad as in saying "Hey, we are leaving in 16 months." Suddenly, violence seems to stop, but, when the pullout is over, Al Qaeda takes over once again. Suspend all trials at Gitmo - even for admitted conspirators in 9/11. Request the push through of the second $350 billion without accountability clauses. So much for this transparent government he has claimed to bring in his "change".
|
|
|
1/21/09 2:33:10 PM#54
Congratz on Obama guys, I hope he will make America stronger and respected again Waiting for: Archeage - Guild Wars 2 - Everquest Next - The Elder Scroll Online |
|
|
1/21/09 4:02:48 PM#55
Originally posted by Dekron Interesting. I believe it was 52 million who voted against him. How did that suddenly come down to 1 or 2? And this just amazes me that there are people like yourself who will not dissect his speech and discover agendas within his words. "To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders" "The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good." "Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." Paragraph 1 - Expansion of foreign aid. Paragraph 2 - Expansion of social programs and welfare. Paragraph 3 - Pacification. Disarmament. Retreat. Surrender. They are quite obvious. If you cannot see the messages in his speech, you are either completely oblivious or simply ignoring it for whatever reason.
Wow, you spin words almost as well as Faux News. God forbid we switch away from pissing off countries to gaining foriegn allies, helping the struggling at home, and not bombing the fuck out of everything that blinks at us. How can you honestly not want diplomacy over insurgency? Iraq is a total failure, and you are mad that Obama is going AGAINST that? Holy cow, you right wing nuts should stick to hating gays. Last time we let you have power the entire world started hating us and the economy collapsed. Our foriegn police -sucks- and needs changing, he promised that.
------------------------- |
|
|
1/21/09 4:07:47 PM#56
Originally posted by Netzoko Maybe you should read a few posts down from that one. And, who said I hate gays? Maybe you should search for for comments regarding such issues. And, the last administration was Republican. The last administration was George Bush. He was far from conservative. { Mod Edit } |
|
|
1/21/09 4:43:53 PM#57
Originally posted by Dekron Al Qaeda took over once before? Have you confused Iraq and Afghanistan? In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
1/21/09 5:16:24 PM#58
Originally posted by ste2000
It's not just about making America stronger, it's making the American people stronger without our own goverment becoming unstoppable. Hence the constitution's first priorities are to establish rules to keep the powers that be from ever seizing complete power.
Obama seems like a decent enough fellow from the couple of years he's been in national politics. Just because he is doesn't mean that the next in line will be the same though. Look at JFK and his vice president, JFK sent in assassins and insurgents to deal with the "enemies of freedom" after JFK was shot LBJ just sent in the entire military force. Without the permission from the other branches of goverment needed to declare war no less. Nixon and his guys weren't much better themselves really, still gets me though that the illegaly invaded the DNC and get hosed whereas the dems invaded countries and it's all forgotten. Listening to the speeches of that era of presidents makes my skin crawl at times. Hopefully that time is over and our future presidents don't confuse themselves as anything more than a president. |
|
|
1/21/09 5:26:51 PM#59
you know im pretty sure the one of the most stupid terms to be coined this year was "illegal invasion"... Never been a legal invasion ever, not once , ever, anywhere. Thats why its considered an act of war by everyone at all times , everytime. I really think someone invetned that term to test to see how ignorant people are, and how easily they can be influenced to ignore reality. Anyway so is the war in Afganistan now legal ? it was illegal ( man, how do you keep a straight face saying that, im serious) up until the point Obama said he was sending more troops there.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. |
|
|
1/21/09 5:31:52 PM#60
Originally posted by Sharajat Al Qaeda took over once before? Have you confused Iraq and Afghanistan? No. They took over many parts in Iraq after Baghdad was taken. |
|
|
1/21/09 5:32:37 PM#61
Originally posted by Gorair this dude is right...seriously...  |
|
|
1/21/09 6:07:40 PM#62
Originally posted by Gorair
lol, /agreed
Still, Vietnam was 10x bloodier and we invaded a country all the while the Democrates who sent us kept yelling "It's NOT a war it's a policing action". Thats where the illegal part came into our time I think, even though this time it was done the "right" way and the senate voted and sent us in rather than the president side stepping them and taking control of the military. |
|
|
1/22/09 11:13:05 AM#63
Originally posted by Dekron No. They took over many parts in Iraq after Baghdad was taken. You of course have citations for this, I assume.
The Congressional Report does not seem to think this is the case. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/crsiraq0907.pdf
In fact AQI is pretty thoroughly hated by the locals, who have worked with the US Government to eliminate them. There is very little chance that they would gain any ground absent United States involvement, since everyone else would still hate them.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
1/22/09 11:18:19 AM#64
Originally posted by Sharajat No. They took over many parts in Iraq after Baghdad was taken. You of course have citations for this, I assume.
The Congressional Report does not seem to think this is the case. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/crsiraq0907.pdf
In fact AQI is pretty thoroughly hated by the locals, who have worked with the US Government to eliminate them. There is very little chance that they would gain any ground absent United States involvement, since everyone else would still hate them.
You seem to think I mean they would take over with open arms from the villagers. If I was to get more specific and refer to al Sadr, would that jog your memory? Remember he and his happy band took over al-Amarah and Najef, to name a couple villages. He had pledged his loyalty to Osama and was, in part, a "member" of al Qaeda. Sure, he has seemed to seperate from them for now, but I don't beleive that will last.
|
|
