Via John Aravosis. [NOTE: No one could think this video was put out by the McCain campaign. Or so I thought when I titled this post.]
AND: I must add that I find this video hilarious even though I agree with McCain about the Iraq war. And I'm heartened to see that Obama is backing away from any rigid promise to leave Iraq:
"At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about…the end of 2009," [Steve] Kroft remarked.
"Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We're not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning," Obama said.
"And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?" Kroft asked.
"No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation," Obama replied.
पोस्ट्स
९२ टिप्पण्या:
If that actually comes from the McCain camp, then I'm positive Obama will win.
I think the whole "10,000" years in Iraq is a dead give away it doesn't, in fact, come from the McCain camp.
if anything, this demonstrates the potential power of the oft-overlooked, sleeping giant in American politics: the smart-ass demographic.
Last week I said that Bill Clinton looks old. Now I'll say the McCain looks old. I knew he was short. But he's old too?
God it kills me when unforgivably wrong Iraq War supporters do their hand-wringing about the dire consequences of withdrawal.
Way to foresee the dire consequences of invasion, chumps.
Cien anos!
Chilling video, definitely not hilarious or from McCain.
Obama's policy on Iraq, re: withdrawals, is the same as Bush's--withdraw combat forces on a reasonable non-specific timetable, and combat forces only.
Saying he's against "permanent" bases is puffery. We don't have "permanent" bases in Germany either.
However, Obama wants to escalate in Afghanistan and said so in his Jan. 20 Dem. rebuttal to the State of the Union address.
Yeah Doyle we were just way too focused on the dire consequences of doing nothing.
Doyle, are you assuming that I supported the invasion before it started? There is zero evidence anywhere that I did. I simply support finishing what we began and taking responsibility for it.
No one thinks the video is from McCain!
Well here is what he took the time to ascribe with pen to paper in his response to an open letter by Deepak Chopra-
5. What do you intend to do to end the war in Iraq?
I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. I thought it was a “rash war,” that would damage our interests, trap us in a sectarian conflict, and divert us from finishing the effort against al Qaeda. Changing the definition of success to stay the course with the wrong policy is the wrong course for our troops and our national security.
The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now – not six months from now. That is why my plan would begin withdrawing our combat brigades immediately. We can draw down 1-2 combat brigades a month, getting all 20 out within 15-16 months. My plan envisions maintaining a small follow on force in Iraq or the region focused on force and facility protection and counter-terrorism. Because there is a humanitarian crisis unfolding in Iraq now – with more than 4 million Iraqis having been forced from their homes – my plan would also dramatically increase investment in refugee assistance. Lastly, in an effort to get Iraq’s political leaders to resolve the political disagreements at the heart of their civil war, I would work with the United Nations to call a constitutional convention in Iraq, using aggressive diplomacy to get the neighbors to back that convention and stop the flow of weapons and terrorists into Iraq.
deepakchopra.com
It is very detailed and delineated.
Then again maybe his answer depends on the audience.
What he says in response to Kroft seems to invite the Iraqis to let their guard down and take a blow....
That's what they might be "hearing" in Iraq-in America the democrats hear-
Yeah, absolutely I think now is precisely the time.
He's a constitutional law professor-he knows the meaning of words-
Absolute- having no restriction, exception, or qualification [an absolute requirement] [absolute freedom] merriam.
God it kills me when unforgivably wrong Iraq War supporters do their hand-wringing about the dire consequences of withdrawal.
No kidding. After all, what better way to say I told you so is to do a repeat of 1975.
I'm sure Doyle and others nostalgic for the 60s will feel that tingling feeling in thier loins at the sight of helicopters lifting off the embassy in Bagdahd.
I tend to agree with McCain on the war and I found the video hilarious as well.
If "no one thinks the video is from McCain," then why did you call it "the McCain response"?
Yet another brilliant historical analysis by fstop. Thanks for stopping by.
3 million dead in Cambodia-
And then who won the Tet Offensive?
Walter Cronkite?
Speaking of which-
doyle-
Don't worry you didn't see anything before and you won't see anything after you've got your head surrounded by the Skinner Box.
Here is a link to the video that they mimic-
Obama Hollywood elite video
"Hopefully" he didn't approve that.
After we pulled out of Saigon, the dominos fell and the Communists overran the rest of the world as predicted
Well to the couple million of Vietnamese boat people, thier world certainly had been.
But at least 50,000 American hadn't died in vain.
Guess that goes with the "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty"
I wonder of Obama actually knows anything about his idol.
wait...
that was unfair-they have the supermodel Amber Valletta so it's not just Hooooolllllyyyywwwwwooood!
Nearly 55 years after the armistice was signed ending hostilities in the Korean War, the US still has 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea. If Democrats are so committed to a plan for a unilateral US troop withdrawal from Iraq, why are they not demanding that we also withdraw our troops from Korea? A bright line can be drawn between the first Gulf War, when the US repelled the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the current war, joined by President Clinton's constant air attacks against Saddam Hussein's regime in the intervening years. The US interests and the need for a continuing US presence in the Middle East would seem to be just as strong as those in Asia, which have received bipartisan support for more than a half-century.
3 million dead in Cambodia
And how is the communists taking over Vietnam responsible for Pol Pot? You might want to check your history books and check to see who finally overthrew the Khmer Rouge regime (hint: it wasn't any western power).
Nearly 55 years after the armistice was signed ending hostilities in the Korean War, the US still has 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea.
When was the last time U.S. troops went on door to door raids or U.S. planes bombed targets in South Korea, Japan, or Germany? Gee, that would be almost 55 and 63 years ago. In fact our SOFAs with all three of those countries prohibit our troops from so much as touching the hair on the head of a Korean, Japanese or German citizen. The comparison is completely bogus.
I see fstop, aka luckyoldson, continues to hang around. It seems to me that Professor Althouse asked you not to post--you are not welcome in her house, I think would be the appropriate analogy. So why to you continue to spew your mindless and uninformed drivel? Any normal, decent person, knowing their company is unwanted in someone's house, would simply leave.
Go somewhere else if you feel the need to harrass people--I'd recommend democraticunderground or dailydos; Have the human decency to get the f**k out. You are the human version of genital herpes. Just leave.
Absolutely. I assume you served? Or if you were too young, that you're currently stationed in Baghad like Mitt's kids?
You are incapable of irony aren't you?
freder-
well you got that right...
After 3 million dead what's the diff?
Right?
Ain't no big thing- what's your motto-
Die and let die?
Cambodia , Rwanda, Iraq.
Democrats only see white people dying-
Kosovo.
Freder: you are aware, I am sure, that SOFA (status of forces agreement) is not a one size fits all treaty; each agreement outlining what the troops in country can do is negotiated independently with the host country.
Freder asks about the communists taking over in Viet Nam/Cambodia. I think the people most responsible for the north's invasion and conquest of the south AND the success of the Kyhmer Rouge in Cambodia was the US Congress; and it was, of course, the NVA who deposed Pol Pot where they realized he was even more murderous than they were. Of course, thats my interpretation; Freder's I am sure will disagree.
BTW Freder: Do you post on Volokh as JFThomas? If not, you have a doppleganger.
Fstop: you don't get it do you. Professor Althouse can go thru and eliminate all your posts--Onc more time, boy: a decent person, having been asked to leave, would do that. You are clearly have no sense of propriety, honor nor dignity.
What would be the ramifications from pulling out of Iraq too quickly? Obama obviously doesn't say, and doesn't leave us with an answer to the question of whether he doesn't care, or just doesn't know enough to make a prediction.
madawaskan's quote is troubling. Obama wants to draw down combat brigades, but leave force and facility's protection forces there, without apparently any support troops. He also is basing part of this on at least a six month, maybe year, old status of the refugee situation. Contrary to that assertion, the situation has reversed with a net return of Iraqis, esp. over the last six months, and that is turning into a flood.
The difference between Bush and Obama here is that the former is drawing down, as conditions allow us to, and there is little reason to believe that they won't continue in this direction. After all, during the Surge, many, if not most, of the combat operations, while typically joint, were led by the Iraqi military, which has made major strides in capabilities over the last couple of years. Of course, their biggest lack right now is in logistics and backup, such as artillery, helicopters, and aircraft, and these apparently would be withdrawn under Obama before all our combat troops are.
NVA who deposed Pol Pot where they realized he was even more murderous than they were.
The North Vietnamese were certainly no worse than many governments in southeast asia, certainly better than some of our allies in the region (Suharto in Indonesia probably killed over a million, but they were mostly commies so they don't matter; Marcos was not a very nice man either). The Khmer Rouge were backed by the Chinese, not the Russians (like the NVA). In fact the Vietnamese fought a couple wars against the Chinese. True, the war spread from Vietnam to Cambodia because of the general instability in the region but to imply that we were going to be able to stop every terrible thing happening in southeast Asia is just ridiculous.
Cambodia , Rwanda, Iraq.
Democrats only see white people dying-
Yeah Right, the Republicans were demanding we send troops to end the slaughter in Cambodia, Rwanda and Iraq--when the genocide was actually happening there. Just like they are in the forefront of demanding troops for Darfur now.
Bruce Hayden: My guess is at this point BHO is posturing re Iraq. I can only hope, that should he become president, he will smart enough to look at the realities on the ground. I am enough of an optimist to think the realities of being commander in chief will ultimately trump campaign rhetoric--(hope I am not wrong!)
Let me get you the supporting evidence for the reversal of the refugee tide-
[A] new report [from relief workers] said the decrease in violence that followed the buildup of American troops over the past year had been a major factor in the return of refugees. 'In Iraq, the security situation improved as a result of law enforcement,' it said. 'Consequently, a significant number of Externally Displaced families returned to Iraq starting mid September.
Washington Post
46,000 Iraqis Have Left Syria
Returns Reflect Security Gains, Aid Workers Say
The Washington Post article was written on January 5th.
Obama's letter was published on February 6th.
freder-
Rwanda-where Clinton would not even allow the word genocide to be applied.
And in Darfur-we spent millions to airlift Seth Meppiah's African Union troops in by US C-130's and the Ausssies sent in forward ground controllers.
That's on top of the OPS TEMPO that is Afghanistan and Iraq.
What was the comparitive ops tempo during Rwanda?
And remember-again-
Clinton would not even allow the language of genocide to be applied.
Bush has no qualms about calling Darfur genocide.
And ya I have called Obama's office about the UN and Darfur-
What the hell have you done?
Weasel: Absolutely. I assume you served?
Yes. Marine Corps.
And when was your hunger strike, little man? If you really think this war is so wrong, where is your conviction? If you're not willing to risk your life with something like a hunger strike on the steps of congress, then you've got no business playing the chickenhawk card. Hypocrite.
And of course, you have no convictions or principles you're willing to sacrifice anything for. The only reason you're against the war is to score cheap political points.
But sure, lets withdraw from Iraq before the job is done so that we have to go back and do it all over again in 10 years. Briliant.
UN Observer said..."If "no one thinks the video is from McCain," then why did you call it "the McCain response"?"
Because I assume my readers are reasonably intelligent and have a sense of humor?
Fen-
Well worse so our kids have to go do it, and die by bigger numbers.
That's been the peace time dividend!
Draw down the troops, the training, the expenitures, the armament so that when there are wars-which the point of this video is that they are illustrating the difference entre Obama and McCain-McCain tells you the reality-there are going to be more wars-
we are underprepared and we end up with thousands of guys dying needlessly because we always believe in the War to End All Wars.
WW I
WW II
the theory of mutually assured destruction during the Cold War.
And guess what?
Here this very video illustrates the reversion back to that.
The Dream quality of and value of -
that we don't have to prepare for war.
And it costs us needlessly the lives of thousands of young men repeatedly.
And it costs millions that die while we try to get our shit together.
WW II.
Tom Lantos the one guy on the Democratic side that fought for Rwanda and Darfur-
Tom Lantos is dead.
R.I.P.
Roger and Bruce,
I think Obama is tacking back toward the center, but wants to cut and run.
He and his followers (a chosen word) should consider the words of Saint JFK:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge -- and more.
Of all of the mindless argument put forward by detractors of the Iraq war, the "chickenhawk" argument has to be the most inane. It will be interesting see what happens following the General Election in November. If its McCain, the chickenhawk argument is rendered irrelevant. If its HRC or HBO, then they will risk being painted be the chickenhawk thing should they realize they do have to leave troops and probably bases in Iraq. Time will tell.
Didn't ask you
You don't get it. You're not allowed to ask why someone who supports the war isn't risking their life to fight it UNLESS you are also risking your life to stop it. Launch a hunger strike or remain a hypocritical coward.
since you implicitly admit the chickenhawk argument is valid
You smoking some of Obama's crack now?
Right. The only reason I'm against the war is so that I can come over here and annoy you.
No, if you start to annoy me I'll get a flea collar. The only reason you're against the war is because of partisan spite.
Wow -- that's also full of shit
that it struck a nerve.
I love trolling trolls. Their tears are delicious.
The only reason you're against the war is because of partisan spite.
What other reason could there possibly be? Crack yerself a Bud, Fen, you've got it all figured out.
Fen, I'm deleting all of fstops posts, so don't waste your time on him.
Freder Frederson said...
When was the last time U.S. troops went on door to door raids or U.S. planes bombed targets in South Korea, Japan, or Germany?
Over the interveneing years, since the end of the Korean war, soldiers have received Purple Hearts while serving on the Korean border. It seems that the NKs like to shoot every now and then. If you do not know, one gets a Purple Heart for being wounded by hostile fire.
Over the interveneing years, since the end of the Korean war, soldiers have received Purple Hearts while serving on the Korean border.
That wasn't the question. North Korea is a sovereign country. Its soldiers occasionally take a shot at one of ours along the DMZ. Our troops are not in South Korea, Germany or Japan to ensure the stability of the governments of those countries. They are there to help protect against external threats.
In the case of Germany there is no good reason for being there any more--hasn't been for at least 18 years. I figured that our when I worked for the Army over there from '95--'97.
IMO, our troop presence in Europe ceased being important 1n the early 1990s. Agree with Freder that they are no longer needed in Europe; and probably could be removed from Korea as well. One thing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated was our ability to project army divisions, both light and heavy, into remote areas.
In the case of Germany there is no good reason for being there any more--hasn't been for at least 18 years. I figured that our when I worked for the Army over there from '95--'97.
Which probably makes you slightly more qualified than Obama with regard to foreign and military affairs.
The abject failure of NATO in Afghanistan suggests to me that the sooner we get out of Europe, the quicker NATO will have to either decide to function or fold. There is no truth to the rumor that NATO stands for Needs Americans To Operate.
Good point Roger.
While I hope that Senator Obama does put some wiggle room in his stated plans to abandon the Iraq situation to the Iranians, I wish he would remember calling for decriminilization of marijuana that he used to run for the Senate.
Trey
While I hope that Senator Obama does put some wiggle room in his stated plans to abandon the Iraq situation to the Iranians
And how does that differ from the current policy. We (i.e., the Brits) have already handed the southern provinces over to Iranian dominated Sharia law based Shiite parties. The central government in Bagdhad is Shiite dominated and continues its purge of Sunnis with its new de-baathification law which isn't that at all. The Sunnis will sit and stew in Anbar and who knows what happens to the Kurds--either the Shiites or the Turks will tire of their shenanigans and launch another genocide.
I was in DC when Tom Lantos drove over a teenager's foot while leaving a parking lot, and kept on going. So, maybe not as humanitarian as he could have been.
What was fstop's transgression, anyways? I missed it.
What was fstop's transgression, anyways? I missed it.
The ultimate sin on this blog. He called Ann the "c" word.
Yes, if I recall correctly, he called her a conservative.
I push Ann's buttons, but I know better than that.
What was fstop's transgression, anyways?
Being tedious.
FLS: Freder does not recall correctly. Fstop got red carded for flagrant trolling--ie, sole purpose on blog to annoy and distract, rather than contribute any substance of any kind.
[yawn]
/via Captain's Quarters
"First, the 100 years comment by McCain did not envision us in a 100 Years War in Iraq. The answer came in response to a question about the need for an extended American presence in the Persian Gulf. McCain compared the situation to American bases in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, all of which have existed for over half a century. McCain envisioned a similar arrangement with Iraq as part of a strategic positioning of US forces -- not as an ongoing war."
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016943.php
So Obama distorted what McCain said, took it out of context for a cheap shot. I thought he was supposed to be different?
Hah. And now he has me defending McCain. Nice work Obama.
Sorry Freder, I was unclear. I meant that I hope that Senator Obama is willing to think his stance on the war as I believe that bringing the troops back at any cost could be astoundingly expensive to our national interests.
Trey
Fstop got red carded for flagrant trolling--ie, sole purpose on blog to annoy and distract, rather than contribute any substance of any kind.
I will read maxine's contributions in a new light now.
I meant that I hope that Senator Obama is willing to think his stance on the war as I believe that bringing the troops back at any cost could be astoundingly expensive to our national interests.
You weren't unclear at all. Maybe I was unclear. It is apparent that the current policy (in fact the policy from the very beginning of the war) is to put Iraq squarely into the sphere of influence of Iran.
Of course I am being facetious by calling it a policy. It is merely the inevitable result of Bush's complete incompetence in handling the situation in Iraq from the day he hitched his star to the fabulist Chalabi.
At least with Obama's policy the inevitable will result without the steady drip, drip, drip of American blood and treasure.
I will read maxine's contributions in a new light now.
And yet Ann continues to tolerate Cedarford.
And yet Ann continues to tolerate Cedarford.
Well Freder, whatever his faults, Cedar isn't a troll. Tedious perhaps but not a troll.
Cedarford is obviously not a troll. The word "troll" has meaning, and I can't believe you don't know what it is by now, Freder.
I would work with the United Nations to call a constitutional convention in Iraq, using aggressive diplomacy to get the neighbors to back that convention
Uh. Doesn't Iraq already have a Constitution and a functioning government?
And what exactly is aggressive diplomacy? When we are angry send two copies and if we are really angry send three?
I will be voting for McCain, and I'm a very liberal democrat. It's the only way to make sure Ann's kid or kids are drafted and sent to war, and by their wonderful mother no less. Beautiful.
Fen - Hah. And now he has me defending McCain. Nice work Obama.
You're going to hear about nothing but Obama vs. Clinton for the next six months, Fen. Sometime after Summer vacation the media will start to cover McCain again and you'll say, "Who's the McCain guy? He's kind of refreshing. I could even vote for him."
Cedarford's more like a Trowel. Lays it on thick, he does.
Freder - In the case of Germany there is no good reason for being there any more--hasn't been for at least 18 years. I figured that our when I worked for the Army over there from '95--'97
Alas, your time working with the Army failed to infuse you with any common sense, as well as failing on the Patriotism Department, Mr Enemy Rights!
Germany is a central hub for US global logistics and with Russia becoming revanchist, an excellent synergy between the world's two largest high tech economies engaging in military cooperation and common defense. NATO will continue.
***************
Agree with Roger that the people most responsible (besides the actual trigger-pullers) for the death of S Vietnam and the Cambodian genocide was the US Congress.
We know that because the memoirs of the N Vietnamese leadership say that Nixon had beaten them. They had lost militarily. And were rescued on the West's own homefront by Leftist Jews with Soviet sympathies in the Media, radical protestors that transformed opinion. Which culminated in the miracle of the Congressional votes to cut off aid to Vietnam and Cambodia, abandoning them to the communists.
The Vietnamese memoir writers were amazed at that. That there was true wisdom in the Soviet claims that their sypathizers in the West media, long family ties to communism and progressivism in the media and intelligensia would let the Vietnamese win on the 2nd Front.
"Yet it came true. After giving us the resolve not to admit defeat in 1971 and keep the POWs and negotiations ongoing almost 3 more years, the peace accords showed weakness. But we tried attack and were slaughtered again by US Airpower and well-supplied S. Vietnamese. Then with Nixon's fall, all obstacles to our victory were cleared away by the American Democrats, who seized power. We went in in 1975 very nervous that it was a trap, that it was clever Americans pretending weakness - but a few days into the invasion it was clear that the Americans had truly abandoned Ky and the others. We won in under a month. It was a delerious victory. Ultimately our will beat the US resolve - which was progressively weakened by our allies in the West..
I imagine similar memoirs being written by AQ and Islamists if we cut and run a second time in two generations.
integrity said...
I will be voting for McCain, and I'm a very liberal democrat. It's the only way to make sure Ann's kid or kids are drafted and sent to war, and by their wonderful mother no less. Beautiful.
I wouldn't go that far myself, but I like the way you think.
It's the only way to make sure Ann's kid or kids are drafted and sent to war
We don't have a draft, never will. We found that forcing shitbirds like yourself to serve is more trouble than its worth.
Freder Frederson said...
That wasn't the question. North Korea is a sovereign country. Its soldiers occasionally take a shot at one of ours along the DMZ. Our troops are not in South Korea, Germany or Japan to ensure the stability of the governments of those countries. They are there to help protect against external threats.
So, it is alright for a sovereign country to allow its troops to shoot at and try to kill our troops-who are in South Korea, a sovereign country, TO KEEP THE NORTH KOREANS FROM INVADING THE SOUTH AGAIN?
Next, you will be saying the North Koreans are heroes for trying to kill our soldiers who do not attack or provoke them. The only external threat to South Korea is North Korea.
Fen said...
[yawn]
So Obama distorted what McCain said, took it out of context for a cheap shot. I thought he was supposed to be different?
{yawn}
Congratulations on your nice rhetorical trick. You accuse Obama of distorting what McCain said by distoring what Obama said. In the quote provided at Captain's Quarters, Obama talks about a 60-year or a 100-year occupation. He never used the word "war". Now there may be an argument that the word "occupation" distorts McCain's position but that is not what the Captain (or you) said. You just played fast and loose with what Obama said to make it seem like Obama was playing fast and loose with what McCain said (which he may have been but if you are going to accuse someone of distorting someone's words you don't want to distort their words to make the point). And if Obama did say McCain wanted a 100 year war in some other place, it would have been nice of the Captain to link to that.
All that aside, I would be curious to hear what you would say if Obama or Hilary Clinton committed to continuing a presence in Iraq as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.
So apparently, Frederson, it's okay for US forces in Korea to "play soldier", acting as a tripwire for the outbreak of a war that could result in massive casualties, but not "be soldiers" in Iraq, in a war that appears to be winding down successfully after far fewer casualties--whose roots trace back to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, just as the continuing presence of US forces in Korea after a half-century can be traced back to the North's invasion of the South? Is that your position? If calm reigns on the Korean peninsula, why isn't it the proper time for our troops to return home? Or are you comfortable with the idea that if US forces should remain stationed in Korea on war alert for 50 years, then why not do the same in other parts of the world where US interests are concerned? As they say in the college blue book exams, please compare and contrast.
Though at times he may be droll, Cedarford is no troll.
C-fudd,
What's your problem with the Khmer Rouge? Don't they have "heart and courage" like your buddies who send out retarded women as suicide bombers? That's what you believe so own up, dude, don't be a weasel.
"I'm a combat veteran and a conservative Republican." Yeah, right, there are lots of honorable veterans who get their kicks sucking off suicide bombers and Islamofascists. No reason to believe anything he says, folks, C-fudd is a proven and compulsive liar.
"thephantomspitter said...
integrity said...
"I will be voting for McCain, and I'm a very liberal democrat. It's the only way to make sure Ann's kid or kids are drafted and sent to war, and by their wonderful mother no less. Beautiful.
I wouldn't go that far myself, but I like the way you think.""
And here I thought that remark was tasteless, classless, and crass. I would urge you both to study and take to heart fen's thoughtful reply.
No, of course no one thinks it's from the McCain campaign. The phrase "good luck with that" would be enough of a tipoff, if the expressions of shock and wonderment on the parts of the singers didn't do it for you.
Jims: Congratulations on your nice rhetorical trick. You accuse Obama of distorting what McCain said by distoring what Obama said. In the quote provided at Captain's Quarters, Obama talks about a 60-year or a 100-year occupation. He never used the word "war".
Uhm, I'm talking about Obama's video that Ann provided. I didn't see/read whatever Obama quotes were at CQs. Did you watch the video? Are you seriously suggesting Team Obama isn't distorting what McCain actually said?
Ummm, Obama's video that Ann provided? You don't think that Obama or his campaign had anything to do with that video do you? Or does Team Obama include everyone who might be against McCain?
And Fen steps in it again. Brilliant.
So, it is alright for a sovereign country to allow its troops to shoot at and try to kill our troops-who are in South Korea, a sovereign country, TO KEEP THE NORTH KOREANS FROM INVADING THE SOUTH AGAIN?
You have quite a reading comprehension problem to derive this from what I wrote.
Cedarford is obviously not a troll. The word "troll" has meaning, and I can't believe you don't know what it is by now, Freder.
Yes Ann, your definition of troll is someone who disagrees with you, criticizes you or is rude to you or your sycophants (rudeness is only allowed on this blog when it is directed at people who disagree with you).
Since you are not Jewish, any other minority, and do not currently reside in Europe (although I am sure your year in New York makes you suspect in Cedarford's eyes), Cedarford does not fit your definition of a troll. Never mind that his posts inevitably turn into irrelevant anti-semitic, completely ridiculous rants.
My God, the crimes the Jews are responsible for. Now they lost the Vietnam war.
Oh, and btw Cedarford, you are again wrong, wrong, wrong. While Ramstein is indeed an important airbase, there is really no need for maintaining two Army divisions in Germany--which is what my comments were directed at. It was the wingnuts who followed up with nonsensical comments about abandoning NATO.
Yes Ann, your definition of troll is someone who disagrees with you, criticizes you or is rude to you or your sycophants
Well then I'd think you would have been asked to leave and take your ball with you Freder. But you haven't which means there is a difference between a troll (ie Lucky/fstop) and yourself. Considering that there are numerous people who continue to post on here who Ann has not banned pretty much proves your theory wrong.
It was the wingnuts who followed up with nonsensical comments about abandoning NATO.
Well if European bases for our military aren't necessary then perhaps you can explain why we need NATO? Euro members can pretty much provide mutual support to each other with little logistical effort. Rather more difficult and time consuming to transport combat ready brigades across the pond versus having them there don't you think?
Well then I'd think you would have been asked to leave and take your ball with you Freder.
Ann tolerates trolls, just as long as they don't call her a conservative or a dipsomaniac.
She, and others, have called me a troll many times. Simon is so convinced I am a troll he won't even respond to my posts any more. Which makes insulting him all that much easier.
Well if European bases for our military aren't necessary then perhaps you can explain why we need NATO?
NATO is an insurance policy to cover something that might never happen at this point. It's like having collision on a ten-year-old car -- does that really make financial sense?
The origin of NATO: (1) One lone kook with a pistol kills the Austrian Archduke. France goes to war with Germany, England gets sucked in, the US goes to help. (2) One lunatic veteran of the first group announces his desire to take over Eastern Europe. France and England say OK. Encouraged by this rollover, lunatic invades countries in all directions, takes over France. Attacks England. US Anglophiles sound the alarm; the US goes to help.
Tired of being called in at the last minute when things are already out of hand, US decides to put some troops in Europe to nip future wars in the bud. Basically we built a new fire station in an arson-plagued neighborhood for better response times. By now the enemy of France and England is not Germany, but the Soviet Union.
Soviet Union ceases to be; Russia doesn't seem so bad. Do we still need NATO?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा