Printable View
George Will said we should watch the special election in Mississippi to gauge how deep the anti-Republican sentiment has set in. Here are the results.
-edit-
Bonus video clip: McCain versus O'Reilly on torture. Naturally, McCain comes off as a classy guy, while O'Reilly comes off like a sweaty idiot.
(contains swearing)
Saw this on tv yesterday. Is it real? What a nutter.
:laugh4: :laugh4: That clip has to be 15 years old, at least (from his old gig at Inside Edition, before anyone knew he had a political opinion).
Besides, that clip is an obvious imitation of the original.
Obama, again shows his inexperience and general cluelessness by claiming that the war in Iraq is draining much needed Arabic translators from Afghanistan... where they don't speak Arabic. :inquisitive:
Edwards endorses obama.
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...ZotbmUH5jiHaTQ
Arabic speakers are vaporised instantly when they try to cross into Afghanistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Big whoopsie there. And I wonder when someone will ask why it's appropriate to now sport a flag-pin on one's lapel, when it wasn't OK in March (or February, or January...).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Somehow, I thought he'd explain how it wasn't necessary, was in fact non-american, to fly the flag on one's lapel, or SUV bumper... himself being the embodiment of the american dream and all.
:sigh: My high expectations* dashed again to the ground, in the service of political strategy.
*Full Disclosure: I've had a few beers.
I checked with my sources; you're allowed. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I'm old enough to remember the time when wearing a flag pin indicated that you were a military veteran. I distinctly remember the first time I saw a politico who wasn't a vet wearing one, and thinking, hey now ...
Not at all , since the pre invasion studies by the US military on Afghanistan stressed the importance of arabic in Afghanistan ,though for the life of me I can't think why but at a really wild guess I think that just possibly it has something to do with the students:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Big whoopsie there.
Oh and another so called gaffe the article Xiahou posted picks up on , agriculture . Before the coilition turned Iraq into a basket case wasn't it known as the bread basket of the middle east .
So is it Obama making mistakes or is it Abc being dumb ?
Last I checked, Iraq was indeed the bread basket of the Middle East. At least, before Saddam ruined an up-and-coming economy by attacking first Iran and then Kuwait in attempts to shore up his regime - not a great idea when the opponents can blow up all the recently made infrastructure from a distance.
Yep and the coilition countries are spending a fortune and sending lots of specialists in an attempt to get Iraqs second biggest industry back on track , but of course if they are sending so many to Iraq they cannot send them to Afghanistan , so Obamas "gaffes" were not gaffes at all .Quote:
Last I checked, Iraq was indeed the bread basket of the Middle East.
So not only does it show that Abc reporters are indeed the clueless ones but it also shows xiahou as clueless for siezing on its report as an example:yes:
McCain made similar mistakes, for instance when he said that Iran is training Al Qaeda terrorists and sending them into Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
These are bloopers. Big deal. Politicians make bloopers, particularly during campaigns when they are asked to hop, skip and jump from one subject to the next and the public demands clear-cut answers on every one of them. But they aren't specialists. Look at past Presidents. Ronald Raegan for instance didn't have a clue about foreign policy, economics and a host of other subjects when he took office.
What is important is how they handle the real experts once they are in office: will they put the right people in the right spot to make sure they get the information they need to make the right decisions and to make sure that these decisions are carried out properly.
Lyndon Baines Johnson used to give people what was known as 'the Treatment'. His Wiki quotes two journalists about it:
Central to Johnson's control was "The Treatment",[20] described by two journalists:[21]They might have added that one of Johson's favourite punchlines used to be: 'I badly need your help on this one, you see. I can't run this country on my own.'
The Treatment could last ten minutes or four hours. It came, enveloping its target, at the LBJ Ranch swimming pool, in one of LBJ's offices, in the Senate cloakroom, on the floor of the Senate itself — wherever Johnson might find a fellow Senator within his reach.
Its tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint and the hint of threat. It was all of these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breathtaking, and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless.
Could any of you Americans who follow this campaign tell me how the candidates compare when it comes to the quality of the people they appoint? Are they good judges of character? Can they work with people with whom they disagree?
Adrian, all three candidates have good records of working with people whom they disagree. You can quibble with all three, but the truth of the matter is that they're all on record doing well in the bipartisan area.
I don't know about the quality of McCain's hires and appointees, and would be glad to hear anyone with solid info. Sen. Clinton's campaign has been a long, tawdry tale of in-fighting, wasted money, lack of communication, everybody pulling in different directions, etc. Does not look good. Sen. Obama's campaign, on the other hand, has been a first-rate operation from top to bottom. In all three candidate's cases, the campaigns are the largest organizations they've ever run.
Going back to the Republican malaise, I found this comment poignant:
The Republican Party does not represent conservatives.
Conservatives support Constitutionally-limited government, fiscal prudence, respect for individual rights, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and peaceful international relations.
The Republican Party currently supports unlimited government, runs catastrophic deficits, disdains individual rights, sees law as a tool for the powerful to crush the powerless, espouses an omnipotent and un-American “unitary executive,” and seeks to enrich its patrons with unlimited wars of aggression around the globe. It is conservative only in its rhetoric.
At least the Democrats are relatively honest about their philosophy of government.
I worked on Capitol Hill during the 1980s and I still revere President Reagan.
I’m supporting Barack Obama in 2008.
The California Supreme Court does its part to help the GOP by declaring a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
CR
Can you back this up? I have no idea, but it seems as though you are making a leap. What if, and this may sound crazy, we have enough agricultural advisors for both countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Now I know he is looking forward to shaking the hands of every dictator who has called for the death of America and Israel, but his record in the Senate has been quite partisan on all major issues and on most of the minor ones as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
John McCann, on the other hand, seems too eager to work with liberals. He doesn't seem to have an affinity for terrorists though. +1
So they ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as it was discrimanatory and that a tradition of discrimination doesn't make that discrimination constitutionaly legal ...and that helps the GOP eh .Quote:
The California Supreme Court does its part to help the GOP by declaring a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional:
Says a lot about the GOP doesn't it since the basis of the ruling is the case that said you cannot ban legal unions based on the colour of someones skin .:oops:
But hey Rabbit I thought you loved the constitution , surely you should be in favour of this ruling:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Yeah really. We'll be seeing more "ban" amendments on the ballots in the near future I predict. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Well first of all, I'd readily agree that McCain's comment made him look stupid too. But at least Iran is sending fighters into Iraq- just not Al Qaeda. He accidentally (apparently) said "Al Qaeda" instead of "terrorists" or "insurgents".Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
However, what could Obama have possibly meant? It wasn't just one term that was off the mark, it was the entire notion. By and large, Iraq and Afghanistan use entirely different sets of translators because they speak different languages. His entire point was erroneous as opposed to just misplaced verbage. It was definitely a gaffe.
I guess that's the benefit of being a blank slate candidate. The easily-duped can put whatever values they want into his mold. Obama is the virtual antithesis of Reagan- Obama and Hillary even were insultingly accusing each other of supporting Reagan's policy at a debate and they both vociferously denied it. Yet a person who "reveres" Reagan endorses Obama. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Tribesy, are you being purposely obtuse or do you really not understand?
I can see a lot of conservative discontent with the GOP, well put if exaggerated by the comment Lemur posted, but saying "McCain isn't close enough to my values so I'll vote someone much farther from my values" doesn't make sense. Throw your vote away in a manner that will make the GOP say "Hey, there's a bunch of people unhappy with us" by voting Libertarian or something.
CR
You posted a quote from an anonymous blog poster named 'Miles'?!? What would Frasier say? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
https://img528.imageshack.us/img528/...aaahydeui7.jpg
I think 'Miles', the poster of that comment is deluding himself thanks to his inability to differentiate substance from the hype. Either that or he's a lifelong Democrat or internet troll having a laugh at the expense of his fellow posters.
Ok so modern Republicans do not demonstrate Republican values. Granted. So how do the legions of pro-NAFTA Democrats stack up in this equation? What about those large number of Democrats who voted in favor of the first and second Gulf War (it's about the oil and... the oil!)? Where was their solidarity and outcry about The Dept. of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act? Were they all under the spell of Bush & Cheney's black magic or were they hedging their bets so as not to alienate their constituency who were in the throes of anti-Islamic Fundie bloodlust post-9/11? What about those Democrats who readily tacked on their own porkbarrel projects to bills passed during GW Bush's administration? And are modern Democrats living in denial about their foreign policy past? What about the generations of aggressive, proactive foreign policies based on a projection of liberal ideology? WW1, Korea, Vietnam, all wars begun or captained by beloved figures of the Democratic Party's past (Wilson, Truman, Kennedy & Johnson). Thanks to the Neo-Conservative movement the Republicans certainly showed themselves capable of bucking the trend with Iraq but why are the Dems still so gunshy about a strategy of nation building and global liberalism that they conceived and practiced for the better part of the 20th century? Where was their proactive interventionism & rabidly pro-UN stance on behalf of human rights when the massacre in Rwanda took place in 1996?
So if the cynics are right (and they often are when it comes to politics) and both parties really are mild variations on a theme then how does a Democratic controlled Congress & White House offer an assurance to the American people that they won't be just as contradictory, reckless and irresponsible as the Republicans were during GW Bush's administration? Can we please get something in writing? If Democrats are true to their creed then we're guaranteed to be in for a tax and spend ride the likes of which might actually rival that of the Republican Presidency & Congress which preceded them. We need proof and we're getting nothing but speeches, promises and cries of 'no more GW Bush blah blah' rhetoric. My hometown, a bastion of American liberalism and Democrat stronghold, spent itself to near bankruptcy thanks to bloated social welfare programs and corruption during the 70s and our leading Democrats had the nerve to beg the Federal Government to bail them out of the mess.
Ok, let's say either one of the Democratic candidates win this Fall and we pull out of Iraq lickety split (or so they say) and immediately cut defense spending. Now where will that money formerly spent on the military and Iraq campaign go? To pay back our debt? Yeah right. This is not to say that a small percentage may not be put towards paying back the debt but we are dealing with polticians, not accountants. Keeping in mind that a much bigger percentage of our tax dollar is spent on Medicare and other social programs than on Defense does anyone honestly think that the lion's share of the money formerly spent on Defense will be put into infrastructure, green programs and alternative power sources? Fat chance. Cynic rules say it will immediately be diverted towards social programs and universal healthcare (i.e. that new $290 billion farm subsidy & food stamp bill proposed by the Democrats). And does anyone honestly believe that an American borne universal healthcare system will cost less than the existing Medicare system which is itself a bloated, money sucking model of incompetency, government waste and corporate graft? And do we have any assurance that the Democrats are even serious about universal healthcare and not just using it to pander to the 15 million (or is it 30 million?) or so who are uninsured? Gosh, that doesn't sound like a shameless political ploy to get votes in an election year does it? How in the world does any of that sound attractive to a pro-Reagan conservative?!?
A conservative voting for Obama as a punishment or protest vote against the sins of the modern Republican party is like putting your kid's hand in boiling water because he disobeyed your ministrations about standing too close to the stove. 'Miles' comment is ridiculous because it demonstrates a decidedly superficial grasp of the current candidates. Obama has demonstrated nothing but scripted speeches and photo opportunities to offer up as proof of his 'moderate appeal' (read as Reagan Democrat appeal). Saying you'll do something and shaking hands with other politicians during an election year means absolutely nothing (i.e. "Read my lips, no new taxes!"). The real test of a politician is their record during non-election years, most of which is either unknown or indecipherable voodoo magic to the average voter. What little pre-election political record Obama has is decidedly liberal to an extreme (drivers licenses for illegals?!?). Socialized healthcare is not a traditionally conservative issue, nor is a weak position on illegal immigration. And I guess the fact that the typically unbiased National Journal voted Obama as the most liberal politician in Congress is somehow reassuring to a pro-Reagan, 'true' conservative? I say 'Miles' is talking out of his ascot.
'Miles' shenanigans aside anyone who considers themselves a true conservative and/or unabashed Reaganite is certainly in a bind this election year. A true protest vote would be for a write-in candidate such as Ron Paul or some other Republican or Conservative Party candidate with greater ideological and political credibility. The idea of Obama bringing fresh new ideas into the arena is laughable, especially when you consider the fact that his platform practically mirrors that of Hillary Clinton and that countless entrenched, unreformed, veteran Democrats who were part of the problem (i.e. they voted for the Iraq war and other Bush era policies) are supporting him. Things are clearly rotten in Denmark but nobody is noticing the smell. The only thing new about Obama is his racial makeup and his penchance for speechcraft, both of which have seemingly won over the overwhemling majority of blacks and the youthful ADD crowd.
Seriously now, if Obama was the genuine article for change and hope and pink happy gooey goodness then he'd be doing the bold and noble thing by running as an independent. However a symbolic run for the nation's highest office won't get him elected and would do nothing to sate that delicate and bloated ego with a voracious appetite for affirmation. I say again, does anyone not find it interesting why someone with absolutely nothing to show for the time between when he graduated law school and when he first ran for political office felt compelled to write two books about himself and what he intimated he would do if he ran the country... all before the age of 45?!? The truth is Obama is simply more of the same from Democrats albeit in a carefully marketed, pop culture friendly package. A Republican voting for Obama only demonstrates a sign of ideological self-loathing or delusional thinking. Traditional conservatives have every right to be disgusted with the current state of their party. However any true conservative or Republican living in a state where their vote will actually count ought to realize that selling out the entire family to the whackos next door because of the actions of a few crazy uncles is sheer madness.
Last but not least I am a bit puzzled by your indecisiveness for this election year Lemur. I naturally assumed you would be voting for a Republican this November. Some time ago (could be a few years) I distinctly remember you posting about the need (or desire) for political gridlock in Washington, the result of having Republicans behaving like non-Republicans when given the keys to the capitol. Now that we're faced with the prospect of having the Democrats in the same position you're still undecided? Change of heart?
I don't know, maybe the point he was making was that we are sending resources to iraq that should be in afghanistan? :juggle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
:2thumbsup:Quote:
The idea of Obama bringing fresh new ideas into the arena is laughable, especially when you consider the fact that his platform practically mirrors that of Hillary Clinton and that countless entrenched, unreformed, veteran Democrats who were part of the problem (i.e. they voted for the Iraq war and other Bush era policies) are supporting him.
of course :yes:Quote:
Can you back this up?
really I would never have guessed , but it does explain that first question doesn't it .Quote:
I have no idea
That would be speculation of a slightly unwise nature wouldn't it Panzer given that you have said you have no idea .Quote:
but it seems as though you are making a leap
But I will get back to you once I give this little nugget the consideration it deserves.......:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
It wasn't just one term that was off the mark, it was the entire notion. By and large, Iraq and Afghanistan use entirely different sets of translators because they speak different languages. His entire point was erroneous as opposed to just misplaced verbage. It was definitely a gaffe.
Ok Panzer thats Xiahous nonsense sorted most definatively and may I say so myself , rather eloquently with all the due consideration it deserves due to its content .
So now , you do ask a good question ...a damn good question , and undoubtably the answer would be of course you have enough for both countries , the problem is you can only send so many and only commit the finances for so many (plus another problem that I shall return to) , the main focus of that commitment has been Iraq . Which might be justified by noting that agriculture is Iraqs biggest employer and second biggest potential revenue earner ...so it does kinda make sense to pour the available and usable(fundable) resources into Iraq .Quote:
What if, and this may sound crazy, we have enough agricultural advisors for both countries?
I mean seriously they are doing all sorts there from fish farming , forestry , irrigation all the way down to machinery replacement and overhauls .
But heres the bugger , while 25% of the Iraqi population are involved in agriculture 80% of the Afghanis are , that does kinda suggest that investment in that field (sorry Gregoshi)should be more directed to afghanistan right :yes: Yet the effort is only being directed towards 10% of the agriculture area there (linked in part to that problem I shall come back to) . Now of course there are other problems , part of the effort in Iraq is to push for more cash crops , afghanistan has a big cash crop and some (very major part) of it is run by your "allies" , it a real struggle to get them to turn away from lucrative trade and as such would require lots more effort and lots more money(plus some new allies) .
There is also the problem with land mines everywhere and several decades worth of unexploded munitions making farming a bit of a high risk occupation . That stuff is very labour intensive and very expensive to get rid of .
Now of course to get back to that elusive problem I mentioned , which surprise surprise is security:yes: There is a reason why only 10% of the land in Afghanistan is recieving the assistance , its because that is about all the coilition can claim to hold any sort of reasonable control over, apart from that held by your allies who have no interest whatsoever in diversifying away from their cash crop of choice .
So to sum up Panzer , Obama was spot on with his comments , your government is attempting to fight two wars and two reconstruction efforts when it only has the finances and resources for one , and the effort is being mainly focused on the country where it is least important .(But there is a reason why the focus is there , it could even be described as a good reason , but the reason when properly examined is pretty futile almost to the verge of pointless)
Now perhaps you may well believe that I am making all this crap up , but a quick perusal of the aid project targets , finances and programs from your own (and other)government agencies will lay that belief quickly to rest .
Of course I could go on about the translator issue that xiahou thinks is a gaffe , but bloody hell that would be just too easy and the answer so obvious that only someone lacking in perception couldn't see it for themselves .
So let's just move on, okay? That's enough about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
It shouldn't be terribly confusing. My main hope has been for Hillary Clinton to be denied the White House. Of the three remaining candidates, she's the one I really, really want to keep away from power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
I like Senator McCain and I like Senator Obama. Once Clinton is out of the picture, I will relax and luxuriate. Yeah, I am a big fan of divided government. The only thing that might tempt me to pull the lever for Obama is a desire to see the Republicans take as hard a hit as possible. They deserve a serious spanking for the last seven years. Punishment should be meted out, for it is surely deserved.
(But I'll probably go for McCain anyway.)
The truth of the matter is that the neocon, imperialist agenda is dead now that Clinton cannot become President. Torture? Done with. Imperial executive branch bound by no law and no counterbalance? Kaput. Karl Rove's "permanent majority"? A hallucination. It's time for the grown-ups to take charge, and in the two remaining candidates, I see two grown-ups.
I expect this will earn me extra-bonus grief, since I will now be trolled by people who despise both men. Surely taking Xiahou's I-hate-everyone-and-will-only-vote-based-on-fear approach would be more restful. But that's where I'm at.
P.S.: The Republican's disgusting behavior was not the origin of my admiration of divided government. Single-party control of the entire Federal gov has always been a bad idea. And no doubt if Obama takes the White House the Dems will make a mess in their usual style, and balance will be restored. My only question for myself is how hard the Republican party needs to get hit for what it has done.
Yes, please do. Although, "go on" would imply that you addressed the issue in the first place- which you didn't. Doubtless, you'll take your argument directly from the Obama campaign itself and mention something about their being foreign fighters in Afghanistan- some of who speak Arabic. ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Or just as likely, you'll continue to obfuscate and state the obvious, yet unrelated talking points about how there isn't as much money and troops available for Afghanistan as we'd like since there's a war on in Iraq. It's funny how people will completely re-write something stupid that Obama said in an intelligent manner and then proclaim, by evidence of the new statement that he never made, he was "spot on". :laugh4:
Edit: Oh, and before it's swept away under the inevitable torrent of Tribes's emoticons, Spino, excellent post. :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Thanks for the (mostly) civil response. I first tried to follow the link by Obama's campaign chairman in response to the blog, and it was broken. I then googled "shortage of agricultural advisors iraq afghanistan", "agricultural advisors iraq afghanistan", "farming aid iraq afghanistan", etc with no substantial results mentioning a shortage of advisors or a diversion of advisors to Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan. :shrug:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Yes, please do. Although, "go on" would imply that you addressed the issue in the first place- which you didn't.
Oh dear , might I suggest you read the first post I wrote in response to your newsarticle , its all there .
Is it a lack of perception you have ?:inquisitive:
BTW , I understand your pain , it must be very hard when faced with the problems of seeing Afghanistan slide into failure due to the ballsup in iraq that you support most vocally despite all reason .
Panzer , forget google its crap even when you narrow down the parameters you end up with a list of irrelevant rubbish to wade through in the hope of finding reliable relevant information .
Go straight to the source .....your government , they do make some damn good and easy to use sites and publish lots of reports on current and recent programs , and future ones and their aims and financing.....and their results .
Damn I do think I just called the US a government a reliable source:oops:
I saw your typical unsubstantiated nonsense. Nothing that struck me as particularly noteworthy. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I will take advantage of the opportunity to highlight more of the article though.Obama totally missed the ball on this one. It's not that one couldn't easily make the argument that resources are short in Afghanistan because they're being utilized in Iraq. The "gaffe" comes in when he picks an erroneous example like this that underscores his lack of experience and knowledge when it comes to foreign policy.Quote:
The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population.
Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that’s Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it’s any of a half dozen other languages — including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.
Edit: I also wanted to link a few articles about how stupid McCain's "cap and trade" plan to fight global warming is- but this said it so much better...:beam:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
There is a severe shortage of Arab translators on all 'fronts', in the U.S. itself as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan (where Arab combtants are among the most active, well-organised and well-connected), and even in Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. government often had to make do with contractors. As a result, intelligence has been compromised and there have even been several arrests of apparently perfidious translators in Guantanamo Bay.
This is all over the media and all over the web since 9/11 and more so since the Iraq invasion. Already in January 2002, the General Accounting Office warned that the Army was short of translators fluent in Arabic and other difficult languages and that it "does not have the linguistic capacity to support two concurrent major theaters of war."
And oh look, since last year the Arabs are returning to Afghanistan where they occupy leading roles again.
Instead of working on this problem your army is kicking out Arab translators by the dozens because they are gay. Apparently religious nuttery takes precedence over national security.
It didn't strike you as you lack perception and as you call it unsubstatiated you clearly lack basic knowledge .Quote:
I saw your typical unsubstantiated nonsense. Nothing that struck me as particularly noteworthy.
A simple trawl of your national security archives on Afghanistan policy shows the relevance and need for arabic translators and even the most dense warmongering buffoon should know what "students" means in relation to Afghanistan , or Pakistan for that matter neither of which is an "arabic" country :dizzy2:
But hey keep piling it onoh please....The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population.Quote:
I will take advantage of the opportunity to highlight more of the article though.
OMG absolutely unbelievable , since it is the arabic speakers in the local population in Afghanistan that you are fighting against then how on earth do you recruit the local arabic speakers as translators ?
So once again your post deserves another :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and no further comment other than that you make dumb remarks about Obama missing the ball when the "gaffe" was non existant and you still attempt to kick the ball long after it has been thouroughly punctured and the game is well and truly over .:thumbsdown:
But Adrian surely the Armys plan should have worked out by now , the arabic speakers that were there would have lost the pashtun respect and the new arabic speakers sent over would be giving the new message from the west~;) You know the old hearts and minds and working within the local cultural and religeous set up .Quote:
And oh look, since last year the Arabs are returning to Afghanistan where they occupy leading roles again.
Oh I forgot , the muppets from the GOP decided to ignore the army and intelligence assessments on "how to do Afghanistan" didn't they and instead perversly followed the army and inteligence "what not to do in Afghanistan" reports instead .
But remind me again Adrian , as I seem to be missing the basics, this afgany place sort of thing its got a sorta like fighting thingy going on right and there are these groupy like group things where one of them sorta like comes mainly from a places where they have this language thing and another group is scholars specialises in this languagy thing and both have this attitude that this language is like sort of essential in their and everyone elses everyday life so would it be kinda good idea to have some peoples like pehasps who know a little of this language whatsitthingamy ...or would that be a gaffe ?
Though I personally believe that they need more maps because in the Iraq and such like they don't have enough maps as USamericans .
Oh but they have, dear Tribesman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The answer to all their problems is the IBMMasturbMastor, a speech-to-speech laptop utility. It enables U.S. units to "communicate effectively with speakers of different languages in real-world tactical situations". Would you believe it!
It has Mandarin Chinese as well. Someone is thinking ahead. :yes:
So Adrian, you're now saying that calling Obama's statement a "blooper" was a blooper? Even Obama recognized his error and corrected himself. It's probably worth noting that Arabic fighters, especially leaders who are returning to Afghanistan are also going to be fluent in the local dialects, otherwise they wouldn't have much luck recruiting their suicide bombers. Communicating with them in the local language isn't likely to be a problem complicated by Iraqi Arabic interpreters in Iraq.
Having translators for the local populace is always going to be of fundamental importance. There will never be enough military linguists to fill the role, nor are they familiar with local cultures the way local translators would be. You can point out problems with them, but that will never change the fact that local talent is always going to be a necessity that will be used extensively. Gitmo, as a prison camp where translators are also intelligence officers is really in a different class from translators that the troops in the field need to speak.
What's really unfortunate though, is that I found a transcript of Obama's offending statements and they weren't nearly so sexy as they were originally billed- certainly no 'bitter clingers':Apparently he realized it as soon as he said it and then just trailed off into something about Urdu, Pashtun ect. That changes the statement in my mind from one that made him look profoundly ignorant to a statement who's point fell apart halfway in when he realized his own mistake. Not quite a gaffe the level of which I had previously been led to believe.Quote:
"Right now, we don't have enough troops, and NATO hasn't provided enough troops because they are still angry about us going into Iraq.
So we just don't have enough capacity right now to deal with -- and it's not just troops, by the way. It's like Arab -- Arab -- Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers, we only have a certain number of them, and if they're all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them, and -- and obviously they may not speak Arabic, but the various dialects that they speak in Afghanistan, oftentimes people who speak Urdu or Pashtun or whatever the languages are, they're going to be needed in those areas, and a lot of them have ended up being placed elsewhere."
OTOH, when McCain made his Al Qaeda in Iran comment, it took a whispering Joe Lieberman to make McCain correct what he said. How disappointing. :shame:
I think some of Obama's big troubles are going to come from his associations with certain people, like Bill Ayers, who's support for Obama has already been pointed out. IIRC, Hilary didn't pound that issue at all (surprising in a way), so it'll be fresh meat for the GOP machine come fall.
CR
Actually McCain is a continuation of it. One could make an argument that Obama is as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Well done Xiahou you showed an Obama blooper in your last post without even spotting it , it really shows his inexperience .
What, that Pashtun isn't even a language? :juggle2:
Xiahou, don't be so terribly childish. Read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
And Tribesman probably means to say that Urdu (mentioned by O.) is not a local Afghan language, but given the presence of many Pakistani fighters and the intensive cross-border traffic I believe it may be relevant to have Urdu translators there.
Yeah, far as I know there are a whole lot of Urdu speakers in the Pakistan border area.
Quote:
What, that Pashtun isn't even a language?
No , its in the first line . He takes a simplistic approach , adds in an emotional and fails to deliver .
You are right, 'wary' would have ben a better word than 'angry'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Indeed so Adrian , they would be wary about the lack of resources , the seperation of the command structure , the lack of clear and obtainable objectives , theuse of extremely dubious drug lords as allies and the fact that Afghanistan has the real potential to be a major long lasting balls up .
Anger wouldn't come into it , that would be the realm of those that talk of cheese eating surrender monkeys when others question their plans and thoughts .
So Obama did make a big booboo he likened other countries to the current bunch of muppets in the white house ...not a very diplomatic thing to do eh:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I don't think so. I think that since 'Iraq' they are wary of large joint operations with the U.S. in general. What keeps them back is their unwillingness to be dragged into new conflicts (for instance war against Iran) by a U.S. government that consults less then before with its allies and maintains that 'the mission defines the coalition'. Any new president will have to restore confidence in this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Well adrian , that raise a new question , are any of the candidates even remotely able for that job ?
As our American members have already agreed among themselves, there is little cause for happiness about the avaliable rage of choice this time round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Of the 'big three' I think McCain is the only one who might command enough respect. If only he wouldn't commit so many bloopers. Like saying that General Petraeus drives around Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee. Or like saying that there are neighborhoods in Baghdad where he himself could walk freely when everyone could see the Kevlar vest he wore, the large security detail protecting him, the attack choppers above his head. The only one to best him lately was Israeli Defense minister Amir Peretz who was photographed overlooking a battlefield with the caps still on his binoculars.
Of course everybody understands that McCain is putting a brave face on a Bush-legacy that he didn't ask for. But any more of this crap and he will look like a wilful liar even before he takes office.
P.S. Having just read his latest speech where he mentions a withdrawal in 2013 when Iraq will be a 'functioning democracy', I don't know what to think of him any more. Yeah right, and in 2013 every Iraqi will have a pony in his garage. This from the same man who said the U.S. would be 'welcomed as liberators' or that 'there's not a history of violent clashes between Sunnis and Shias'. It is getting too much, it looks as if he is in Lalaland with Bush and all the rest. But none of the candidates seem to have a clue about Iraq and frankly I don't believe I have one. What a mess.
Then again, McCain favours a 'Ligue of Democracies' to replace the UN. Now that's an excellent idea that may help to swing round American foreing policy to multilateralism again and restore confidence in two ways. It isn't enough to restore foreign confidence, it is also necessary to restore the American public's confidence in multilateral foreign policy.
An article on what went wrong with Hilary's campaign, from campaign insiders, who all are, unfortunately, anonymous, but it does seem to jive with what we've heard so far:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-f252e8569915
CR
Here's your weekly Peggy Noonan fix, with a more nuanced take on Teh Reupiblicanz Iz Ded meme:
Out of touch? Desperate? Who would say that about the RNC?
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by RNC
75% of Americans support medical marijuana, and states rights is supposed to be a republican issue.
So we have the dems and the GOP, one is winning a civil war and the other is in meltdown mode. Heck, if I was president I'd direct fed agents not to bother with medical marijuana.
Here's a bigger 'gaffe' for Obama, which perhaps might be a meme that Obama's an ordinary politician who lies as it suits him (if fact, it's like Hilary's Bosnia thing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDn_...rt.tv/?p=97003
A video of Obama saying no one clapped at my Detroit speech telling automakers and the like they'll have to get higher emissions, and then a segment of that 2007 Detroit speech with people giving him a standing ovation.
I wouldn't mind the GOP getting a beatdown for what they've become, but why must the victor then be such a lefty? If we get national healthcare, talk about a huge government program that would take ******* decades to get rid of. gah
CR
The GOP is likely going to get pounded in November, I figured they would lose several seats, but with that Mississippi vote it might be worse than I first thought. Can't say I'll be sad to see it, but I do hope McCain pulls out the win. A Dem president with a large Dem majority in Congress would be a disaster (just as the last GOP domination was).
Deep wisdom, written by a Dutcher. Kudo's :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
It will be a huge leap for yanks to consent to our "blue helmets" being commanded by non-yank Generals. But, if we can re-establish a sufficient level of trust, both ways, militarily and politically, America will accept the idea.
To get there, we're gonna need a different structure for problem-solving and action-directing.
I was against the idea of a League of Democracies at first (I think the concept was floated 2 years ago here in the backroom by Pindar), thinking it would shut out (the few) good ideas coming out of the screaming left-and-right-fields, as it were. However, on reflection, properly structured and sourced, I can see its value as an action agency, and a 'clique' to which like-minded folks and governments might aspire.
It would probably kill the UN, a noble effort gone fallow nowadays, IMO.
Which candidate in the US's prez contest is up to that challenge? I hold my nose, and squint my eyes in distaste, while typing the name: clinton. I don't like her, her domestic agenda suxorz, her hubby (the de-facto VP if she is elected) is a lyin', cheatin', whorin' opportunist. But she's not afraid of the foreign policy field, and she knows the players, and though she's not inspirational, I'll bet she can garner more trust from democratic nations than the other two, combined. And after she's worked up that trust, she can present it to America as "the new way", or some such.
And we'll all be in a better place in 2012, for that. Providing we give her Lemur's beloved gridlock, in the form of a Loyal Opposition party majority in either the House or Senate, to thwart her more totalitarian domestic ambitions.
I've decided that I'm voting for Barr.
The GOP is going down hard either way. When it eventually does rise from the ashes, hopefully it will see mine and others' votes for the Libertarians and mold itself to properly acclimate our interests. When it finally gets strong again a decade or so down the road, it will do things right this time.
Yep sounds like an embellishment to me. Can't say I'm impressed with the applause though--the speeches I've seen of his he had to pause for lengthy periods while people quieted down. But I don't believe his speech went over very well in detroit so the implication is still accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
That essential quality of 'truthiness' Dan Rather fruitlessly pursued, eh?
Oh, and apparently some people are really thick. There's been a recent brush-up when Bush scorned appeasement in a speech and Obama took it personally. A Seattle Times editor wrote to defend...Hitler and said his demands were reasonable for the time.
And of course, once the Palestinians have secured their just claims, they'll stop fighting and become peaceful, just like the historical example used earlier in the...oh, wait. :wall:Quote:
The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state.
...
When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following the historical lesson they had learned 1914-1918: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.
In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless.
...
In September 1939, when Germany started the war, it had no just claim to any more territory. But the Palestinians who fight Israel do have a just claim to territory. We can argue what it is; we can argue about the justness of their military tactics, and so on. And the same for the Israeli side, which is equally arguable.
The step that must be taken now is for the two sides to talk, so that they can make a deal that both will accept, and that each side will enforce against its radical elements.
If you're going to defend appeasement, why not try and search for, oh, something other than the greatest example of why not to use appeasement?
GH - Barr might be a very good choice, especially for a democratic-all-the-way state (for Pres, at least) like mine.
CR
Yes. And here is what McCain had to say about it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
"Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain," McCain said. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States," he said, referring to the release of U.S. hostages by extremists in Iran on the first day of the Reagan presidency.We all know why the hostages were released. They were released because the U.S. negotiated with terrorists (Hezbollah) and because it delivered weapons to Iran. In Reagan's own words of March 4, 1987:
Asked if he thought that former President Jimmy Carter, who struggled with the hostage crisis, was an appeaser, McCain replied: "I don't know if he was an appeaser or not, but he terribly mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis."
Source
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind."Is McCain becoming senile? :inquisitive:
No he is just another of those politicians who live in the big egyptian river .Quote:
Is McCain becoming senile?
No, I think it's just a pose when he says he will be 'Hamas' worst nightmare' and all that. McCain ain't no fool. Here is what he said about the issue two years ago in a much more relaxed atmosphere and without right-wing idiots breathing down his neck. Like Reagan and most other Presidents he is quite able to play to the gallery and at the same time act like a realist on the basis that foreign policy is the art of the possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
But to make that public statement about Reagan and the Iran hostage crisis is a major booboo. He'll be very lucky if he gets away with it. Go figure, what kind of message to Hamas is this? Was he actually saying: "Just like Reagan, I'll vilify you in public and trade with you behind the screens"?
Or maybe he is indeed losing (some of) his marbles. The mildest explanation would be that the statement was actually a Freudian slip, signalling that, like Reagan, he is quite aware of the difference between public persona and policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Most Americans aren't aware of the specifics.
I think the issues with Obama are his willingness to meet with Iran's president and to do it unconditionally.
As a citizen, I would have a major problem with my president having a friendly meeting with the leader of a nation arming, training, and funding groups that are killing American soldiers. There is a big difference between that and targeted negotiations through surrogates.
There is the problem with your thinking , it can only be unconditionally , if you want to attach pre-conditions then they attach pre-conditions and the pre-conditions never get met so there are no talks and you are left carrying on with the same perpetual cycle of crap from the past decades .Quote:
I think the issues with Obama are his willingness to meet with Iran's president and to do it unconditionally.
"We don't talk to evil" isn't a foreign policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
That is why it should not be done at all. I see no reason whatsoever our President would have for meeting with a government that is not only funding terrorist organizations throughout the middle east, but directly killing American troops. We have other methods of communicating with the regime without lending them that level of legitimacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
On the other hand, meeting with Kim Jong Il might be beneficial. It certainly wouldn't be insulting to the families of dead soldiers.
Every nation is different, and Obama's broad declaration doesn't take that into account.
Legitamizing it is, I guess, but not a very good one.Quote:
"We don't talk to evil" isn't a foreign policy.
Sorry Panzer but your argement falls apart with the fact that your government is also funding terrorist organisations . You could take that moral high ground if it wasn't for the fact that your country is also a state sponsor of terrorism...and your preferred party of government is trying to remove blocks to funding more terrorists throughout the middle east .Quote:
That is why it should not be done at all. I see no reason whatsoever our President would have for meeting with a government that is not only funding terrorist organizations throughout the middle east, but directly killing American troops.
But since that moral; high ground is lost you have no choice but to meet as equal scumbags in negotiations .:shrug:
If you look at the actual video of McCain speaking about Hamas, he doesn't say anything that suggests talks without preconditions- he said their relationship would be based on Hamas' actions. Not really the gotcha that Obama tried to paint it as. :shrug:
I was talking about McCain. It would be nice if more Orgahs could snap out of the sniper mode occasionally and discuss candidates instead of sound bites and point scores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Uhhh, so was I. Did you notice him? He was featured pretty prominently in the video I posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The Huffintonpost link you posted didn't say anything about McCain advocating talks without pre-conditions and the full video further illustrated that. If pointing that out is considered sniping by you, you'd better get used to alot more.
Well thats a bit of a bugger since he said the relationship would be based on Hamas actions not the United States actions ...but then some muppets decided to back Dahlan in the failed attempt to get rid of the government so now Hamas actions are based on the united states actions ...which means perpetual cycle of crap again and McCain needs to make a new statement to clarify his old message .Quote:
he said their relationship would be based on Hamas' actions
Unless of course he meant that the relationship would be based on if their coup attempt failed or not and in the case of a loss how they could approach Hamas as someone with any credibility about being interested in a settlement
For me the baseline is political skill. Is McCain the Serious Foreign Policy candidate he is made out to be, or is he the Original Cave Man who believes in some of his own silly statements about, for instance, Iraq.
McCain is the candidate who reportedly told a group of wealthy Republican fundraisers last year:“One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, ‘Stop the bull****’.”Is this the real McCain or not? That's what ya wanna know, man. Who gives a hoot about Obama-gotcha's or anyone else's gotcha's?
Unfortunately, the 'gotchas' have an impact on who's elected. After all, if masses of voters were like the backroom, we'd be left with Thompson and Romney and Richardson and maybe Leiberman? And of course Ron Paul.
CR
But this is the Backroom. And I am disappointed if we can't see sound-bites and gotcha's for what they are: ploys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Like I said before, bloopers are bloopers and all candidates will commit them. George Bush Sr. once said on nation-wide television that he'd had 'sex' with Ronald Reagan (what he meant to say was 'setbacks'). Is anyone holding that against him?
All candidates make all sorts of promises as well, which should really be taken as statements of principle, not as contractual obligations. Ronald Reagan came to power promising that he would cut back government, but government continued to grow steadily in his eight years in office. George Bush Sr. said 'Read my lips, no more taxes' and he soon had to raise taxes anyway because of the Gramm-Rudman Balanced Budget Act of 1985 which he himself had supported.
Now where is the battle of ideas? What I want to know is if the candidates have a vision of foreign policy and the character to pursue it. I don't know that Clinton has either of those. Obama has a rosy vision, probably too rosy. McCain appeared to me to have a more realistic appraisal of foreign relations, but what he says about Iraq lately makes no sense at all. Ten bloopers in a row -that's a pattern, man. Like I said above, one more of the kind he committed yesterday (about Reagan and Iran) and I'll have to believe that he is truly out of his depth. That worries me.
What about a President of one of the South American countries refusing to meet with your President because they are training, arming and funding terrorist groups in their countries?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Who said anything about a moral high ground?? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Oh sorry Panzer , my mistake ...so now what exactly would be an accurate descrition of not doing business with someone because they say and do nasty stuff ?Quote:
Who said anything about a moral high ground??
If you can come up with a better phrase than those 3 words I used that is applicable you might have a point .
As I said, a presidential meeting is far different than lower level negotiations. You should know, politics has nothing to do with morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Ah I see , so that means all the reasons given about why it is wrong to meet people , like for example they are terrorist supporting genocidal maniacs are clearly nothing to do with morals about dealing with terrorist supporting genocidal maniacs and all the attacks on certain candidates over the topic are a complete non-issue or as it is more commonly known...bollox:yes:
Hmmm...perhaps its a financial issue , that might be it , people shouldn't talk to terrorist supporting genocidal maniacs because bombing invasion regime change and rebuilding are far cheaper than talking so it is fiscally prudent for conservatives not to talk .:idea2:
The relation between morality and politics is complex ever since Christianity imposed the notion that rulers should respect ethics.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
The resulting dilemma brought about, among other things, Machiavelli's famous book where he stated that in order to be effective, rulers should preferably be seen to do the right thing, even if they don't actually do the right thing.
In Machiavelli's time there were no general elections, no parties and no free media. In a democracy, the appearance of ethical behaviour in a ruler has become far more important as a criterium for effectiveness. Even so, a mature electorate acknowledges the elected leader's right to deceive and intimidate as long as these means serve a higher, legitimate purpose that does meet ethical criteria.
The concept of just war is a good example of this.
So there is a hierarchy to be respected when we discuss morality and politics. We can't condemn all negotiations with terrorists or dictatorial regimes on principle. We can only condemn them in the light of their stated or observed purpose.
Not exactly. Meeting unconditionally with the president of Iran a) legitimizes a regime we are trying to isolate and b) is extremely disrespectful to the soldiers who are dying at the hands of that regime - all for no gain. What does Barack Obama think he can personally say or do to sway Iran? Emulating JFK's persona is one thing, but he should also remember his failures, such as Vienna.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Hold on there Panzer , "legitimizing the regime" ??????
Are you trying to say the government of Iran is not the government of Iran ?
Thats a bit of a bugger since even though unlike other countries America and Egypt still have severed diplomatic relations with Iran both have appointed Switzerland as the protective power recognising the Iranian government as the legitimate government .
Oh I don't know , perhaps he can talk about the Iranian offer of co-operation in stabilising Iraq which was tied in the the offer of co-operation on terrorism and the alledged WMD program....you know the offer Bush said bollox to when he decided to go it alone and lead your country into a big bloody mess .Quote:
What does Barack Obama think he can personally say or do to sway Iran?
Then again you might have a point since the offer came from when the moderates held more sway and were putting up a case that talking was a good option...of course the rejection gave the hardliners a boost as they were able to show that America didn't want to talk at all , which leaves you with the current mess with hardline idiots on both sides saying they cannot talk .
And as for being disrespectful to the soldiers who are dying for nothing ?????bloody hell its disrespectful to not use every available avenue to sort the mess out and since your military is very nearly broken and you have no chance of getting any sort of coilition together then military street is firmly closed to traffic and dialouge drive is the only route open , and if you want to put up a pile of roadworks and diversions along that route then all you are doing is slowing the whole thing down and leaving your soldiers to keep dying in the quagmire for bugger all .
Another Obama Gaffe!
Is this man really qualified to be president?Quote:
Mr. Obama appears so eager to return to Iowa that in an appearance Friday night in Sioux Falls, S.D., he mistakenly greeted the crowd that had come to see him as if they were from Sioux City, which is farther south, in Iowa.
I would think some sort of arguement could be made that the current regime is not the legitimate government of Iran, but thats not what I am saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
A presidential meeting carries with it a degree of equity that goes against our efforts to isolate Iran. Whether we do have the high ground or not, its important to appear on a higher level - to be above the bombastic Hitler-types. Ahmadinejad would love a photo op with a US president - the Great Satan brought graveling to his knees. An American president forced to exchange niceties with an avowed Holocaust denier committed to the destruction of one of our most loyal allies.
Thats a little naive, don't you think? Ahmadinejad's attitudes are different, as you know.Quote:
Oh I don't know , perhaps he can talk about the Iranian offer of co-operation in stabilising Iraq which was tied in the the offer of co-operation on terrorism and the alledged WMD program....you know the offer Bush said bollox to when he decided to go it alone and lead your country into a big bloody mess .
So we return to the original question.Quote:
Then again you might have a point since the offer came from when the moderates held more sway and were putting up a case that talking was a good option...
Rehashing past mistakes does not answer the question. Besides the excellence that is Persian food, what does Mr. Obama feel he can do to change Iran's position that cannot be done through surrogates?Quote:
of course the rejection gave the hardliners a boost as they were able to show that America didn't want to talk at all , which leaves you with the current mess with hardline idiots on both sides saying they cannot talk .
Your assessment of our military situation is debatable, but thats beside the point. Neither you nor Mr. Obama have shown that meeting with Ahmadinejad is an "avenue" for success. On the other hand, unconditional meetings of the past have been less than successful.Quote:
And as for being disrespectful to the soldiers who are dying for nothing ?????bloody hell its disrespectful to not use every available avenue to sort the mess out and since your military is very nearly broken and you have no chance of getting any sort of coilition together then military street is firmly closed to traffic and dialouge drive is the only route open , and if you want to put up a pile of roadworks and diversions along that route then all you are doing is slowing the whole thing down and leaving your soldiers to keep dying in the quagmire for bugger all .
Look, last time I looked you guys elected someone who said '"If a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his tail on the ground.' Since then, every man and his dog qualifies. The only question is who is the lesser idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro