RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?"

RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 10:16:51 AM)
quote: Personally I find ascribing those deaths to Obama to be somewhat distasteful Stella, it is the price you pay when you are commander in chief. The original quote goes back to LBJ; yet he was not President when the first troops were deployed either. It was either Eisenhower, or Kennedy; depending on your political affiliation and agenda. However that was never an issue that the protesters of the time considered. Should it be now? Doesn't make any sense, because as a private citizen if George Bush said, the troops should come home, his voice doesn't have the White House or Congress' powers behind it. quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 One of the reason you could not use nuclear weapons Mernbeth is that it would draw an immediate response from the other nuclear powers of the world. I agree with both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.However I would not agree with them if the price for initiating them was to instigate a third world war. I am NOT the President, obviously for good reason. The reference was in response to a question posed directly to me, and shouldn't become a distraction to the thread. I hope to try to keep focused on the only person and party who can end both wars with a pen-stroke. It used to be a hot topic on these threads. Why isn't it now?

Blaakmaan -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 10:22:07 AM)
A lot less than Bush did, when he was in office.

Starbuck09 -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 10:22:19 AM)
I don't know why it is not a hot topic mercnbeth. I presume because the people who agree with the war are happy that Obama is prosecuting them as best he can and those that disagree are somewhat embarrased.

Brain -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 10:23:36 AM)
I know, I know, sorry, I got distracted and I got mixed up.

cornflakegirl -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 10:25:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 One of the reason you could not use nuclear weapons Mernbeth is that it would draw an immediate response from the other nuclear poweres of the world. Yep. The only way to win is not to play.

rulemylife -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 10:28:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth That assumes those in power wouldn't have turned over the 9/11 perpetrators, or if you believe conspiracy theories, gave evidence of US self flagellation. However if they did there would have been zero deaths, either of "innocents" or US troops. Again - seems to be a better alliterative, albeit in hindsight, than the path President Bush pursued, and is being followed to the letter by the current Administration of President Obama as well as the Democratic majority Congress. Appreciating that since the color is not 'blue' you too are a 'hawk' on Afghanistan and Iraq. Hey - just don't look in any mirrors and you won't even notice the hypocrisy of that position. I don't know how many times we've had this discussion and you keep bringing it up as if it's something new. There is no hypocrisy. We were attacked by fundamentalists who were given shelter and training facilities in Afghanistan. We had every right to go after them. Instead we diverted our resources to an ideological war in Iraq, while allowing the terrorists that attacked us, and their supporters, to again gain a stronghold in Afghanistan. And again, what Obama is doing is no surprise, it is exactly what was promised. The Iraq withdrawal was pushed back slightly but is still proceeding. If you remember, and I'm getting tired of repeating this, there was no withdrawal timetable under Bush until Maliki publicly endorsed Obama's plan and Bush was forced to come up with his own. quote: Now see, you just don't have the ability to recognize sarcasm when you see it. Obviously based on all the reference he's a war monger who, with the ability to change the current status quo, instead escalates the war in Afghanistan and has no withdraw plan for Iraq. Sorry if you didn't understand. Next time I'll put it as 'pacifist' to help you out. Yes, I did miss the sarcasm, but I believe I responded to the rest above. The Iraq withdrawal is scheduled and the escalation in Afghanistan was part of his campaign platform. So what exactly is happening here that you are so surprised about?

cornflakegirl -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 10:31:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 I don't know why it is not a hot topic mercnbeth. I presume because the people who agree with the war are happy that Obama is prosecuting them as best he can and those that disagree are somewhat embarrased. Admittedly, I am new to the boards so I don't know the history. I disagreed with the war when it began, but I can't pretend to understand the ramifications of going in, messing about, and then just walking. I hope that the people who are advising Obama are considering the long term consequences for the region while moving towards withdrawing our troops.

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 11:29:17 AM)
quote: And again, what Obama is doing is no surprise, it is exactly what was promised. Well okay, Candidate Obama ran on the hawk platform and he's simply living up to his campaign promises of continuing the occupation of Iraq, and escalating the war in Afghanistan. Glad we've cleared that up. See, my confusion was that video of him distinguishing himself from both Hilliary Clinton and McCain indicating he was against the occupation of sovereign nations and would end the war immediately. My apologies for being confused. I need to listen more closely to the VIDEO from the campaign. quote: The Iraq withdrawal was pushed back slightly but is still proceeding. I guess the only question remaining to discuss is how many more US soldiers need to be deployed and become casualties in "slightly"? Meanwhile, I'll assume that the Nancy Pelosi referenced "good disruptors" and "angry protesters" that used to advocate the end of both the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq were paid instigators of the Democratic Party since with the change in Washington, they are no longer evident.

stella41b -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 11:36:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Personally I find ascribing those deaths to Obama to be somewhat distasteful Stella, it is the price you pay when you are commander in chief. The original quote goes back to LBJ; yet he was not President when the first troops were deployed either. It was either Eisenhower, or Kennedy; depending on your political affiliation and agenda. However that was never an issue that the protesters of the time considered. Should it be now? Yes yes I recognize the original quote. While I refuse to hold Obama responsible over Iraq just as much as I refuse to hold Bush responsible for starting the conflict (it was Thatcher way back in 1990) I am still against the military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan as I was from the start. I was just as against the kangaroo court and pantomime of a trial of Saddam Hussein and his execution and have expressed the opinion that he should have been freed. For clarification my view here is the exact same as the late Pope John Paul II that military intervention wasn't the best solution, and I felt that the best way forward was with Saddam Hussein at the negotiating table. This to me would have been the solution, but you know, too bad you can't bring people back from the dead. Now you just have to find a solution without him.

Musicmystery -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 12:39:45 PM)
quote: So the logic of this thread is that: if you are lead down a certain path and a new leader can't find a quick way back from that path, all new deaths since the new leader took over have nothing at all to do with the old leader that initiated the whole thing? No. The logic of this thread is that things seemed dull so he thought he'd stir them up. Hence the pointlessness of its "debate."

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 12:48:12 PM)
quote: The logic of this thread is that things seemed dull so he thought he'd stir them up. Hence the pointlessness of its "debate." I would never refer to the ongoing US casualties as a "dull" topic for discussion, but that's just me. As a corollary, I'd find it interesting that the focus on causalities, both the local innocents and the US soldiers is absent not only from these CM threads, but on the news services as well. Meanwhile, the casualties reported go on, and the traumatized troops return to the US. For what? Sorry if that's not a topic worthy of discourse. Although I understand that circumstances have changed the political climate since January. I'm just surprised how they've changed so dramatically and are now so accepting of the ongoing wars.

mnottertail -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 12:49:35 PM)
uh, bush had it no pictures of the flagdraped coffins obama reversed that. there were threads.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 12:55:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife And killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process, not to mention establishing the acceptability of using nuclear weapons. quote: How about millions. Colloquially, this is called the "glass parking lot" solution: use every available nuclear weapon we have, non-stop, on every middle eastern nation that exists except Israel. Anyone who protests, we look for any signs of foreign blood, and if we can, we fly them back to their ancestral homeland with the next load of bombs. Continue until there's no one left to oppose us.

Musicmystery -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 1:57:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: The logic of this thread is that things seemed dull so he thought he'd stir them up. Hence the pointlessness of its "debate." I would never refer to the ongoing US casualties as a "dull" topic for discussion, but that's just me. As a corollary, I'd find it interesting that the focus on causalities, both the local innocents and the US soldiers is absent not only from these CM threads, but on the news services as well. Meanwhile, the casualties reported go on, and the traumatized troops return to the US. For what? Sorry if that's not a topic worthy of discourse. Although I understand that circumstances have changed the political climate since January. I'm just surprised how they've changed so dramatically and are now so accepting of the ongoing wars. As none of that is what I said, I'll let the original assessment stand. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth It has been pointed out that the political threads have been a bit boring and single focused. I agree. Lets move to another topic.

rulemylife -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 3:44:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Well okay, Candidate Obama ran on the hawk platform and he's simply living up to his campaign promises of continuing the occupation of Iraq, and escalating the war in Afghanistan. Glad we've cleared that up. See, my confusion was that video of him distinguishing himself from both Hilliary Clinton and McCain indicating he was against the occupation of sovereign nations and would end the war immediately. My apologies for being confused. I need to listen more closely to the VIDEO from the campaign. You definitely do need to listen more closely. Even to your own links. That's not what I said and that's not what he said in your own link. Where in your own link did he say, or even imply, anything about "the occupation of sovereign nations"? I watched it twice and saw nothing even to suggest what you are claiming. While you're at it, show me exactly where he said the war would end "immediately". What I heard him say was he wanted to be "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in". I also heard him say "I want to make sure our troops are protected and safe as we are withdrawing them". He went on to say we also have to be careful to avoid an Iraqi collapse and do what we need to maintain the stability of the country as we withdraw. We are still withdrawing, the timetable was changed due to the reasons he cited in your own source, on advice of the military commanders. From July '08: PolitiFact \| Obama ballyhoos Afghan stance But Obama also talked about the need for the United States to turn its attention to Afghanistan. (See our related statement here.) "Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need — and deserve," Obama said. "As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban." In the months that followed, Obama repeatedly emphasized his assertion that the United States "had taken our eye off the ball" by invading Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghanistan. quote: I guess the only question remaining to discuss is how many more US soldiers need to be deployed and become casualties in "slightly"? Being that you've stated yourself as an Independent I still have to wonder where your outrage was when 4,000+ troops were killed in a senseless war started by Bush. But now you want to say Obama is causing casualties by not withdrawing quick enough from a war he did not start? quote: Meanwhile, I'll assume that the Nancy Pelosi referenced "good disruptors" and "angry protesters" that used to advocate the end of both the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq were paid instigators of the Democratic Party since with the change in Washington, they are no longer evident. Again, even your own link has Pelosi clearly referring to Iraq, not Afghanistan. As far as protesters, we have a withdrawal plan in effect that would seem to satisfy what was being protested.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 4:38:13 PM)
quote: However, unlike Obama, I didn't run for President on the pacifist, USA is bad to intervene, "I'm Sorry!", I'll withdraw immediately platform. ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Merc, while I usually disagree with you, most of the time I respect your use of facts to support your position. In this case, however, I feel you missed the mark. Obama indeed ran on a platform of withdrawing from Iraq, but he also openly said that he believed in the escalation of the theater in Afghanistan. While I am not happy with the delay in the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, I think it completely unfair to ignore the fact that, in Afghanistan, Obama is doing just what he said he'd do. I'm disappointed in you for this one, Merc. We have enough people arguing half truths and nonsense (government death panels anyone?). I much prefer when you keep to the facts of a matter.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 4:46:32 PM)
quote: And if bin Landen wasn't the perpetrator and/or planner, no matter. The action would have sufficed to insure we wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan today and not one soldier or the family of soldiers, would have had to suffer as they have since 9/11. ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: So your basic strategy seems to be: Kill a whole lot of people whether they had anything to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11 in order to show the world that if we are attacked, we will do what the world has avoided doing since the end of WWII, employing the nuclear option. This would have made the world frightened of us to the point where they would have done anything we said. Just what video games have you been playing?

Ialdabaoth -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 5:02:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales So your basic strategy seems to be: Kill a whole lot of people whether they had anything to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11 in order to show the world that if we are attacked, we will do what the world has avoided doing since the end of WWII, employing the nuclear option. This would have made the world frightened of us to the point where they would have done anything we said. Just what video games have you been playing? Actually, from a pure realpolitik perspective, this can work. We'd need to seriously ramp up our military, and tamp down everything else to the point that we looked kinda like North Korea, but we could spend the next 20-30 years wiping every other culture off the face of the Earth and get away with it.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 7:03:48 PM)
quote: Actually, from a pure realpolitik perspective, this can work. We'd need to seriously ramp up our military, and tamp down everything else to the point that we looked kinda like North Korea, but we could spend the next 20-30 years wiping every other culture off the face of the Earth and get away with it. [ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth I suppose this may be true....but it does bring up point I often have when someone says "we could" or even better "because I have the right to"...and that is the concept that we can and have the right to shove crab apples up our asses and sing "hallaluja" at the tops of our lungs. It does mean it's a good thing to do. Again, apply as necessary.

Rhodes85 -> RE: "Hey, Obama, What do you say - How many kids have you killed today?" (8/14/2009 7:32:30 PM)
Starbuck is right. Methinks Russia would not appreciate dropping nuclear weapons on a country on its borders. That could cause an unpleasant situation To be fair I would attribute Iraq and Afghanistan more to Bush than Obama. I dislike both but I can't blame Obama for something that was done half a decade before he came to office. He can't just pull out, even if he wanted to. the military situation isn't that simple. and even if it were, do that and there would be civil war and another saddam-like dictator in power 6 months later. It would get thousands more killed, achieve nothing and make the US even more hated by the world.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875