airdvr 210 #1 April 12, 2010 With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office. -April 24, 2006Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #2 April 12, 2010 My guess is..... It's Bush's faultYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #3 April 12, 2010 Oh, and Hillary is fear-mongering about terrorists with nuclear weapons. Bush's "weapons of mass destruction" claims were widely mocked by the media. But now Obama's gal is doing it, and the media is strangely silent... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #4 April 12, 2010 >But now Obama's gal is doing it, and the media is strangely silent... If he invades the Ukraine based on those claims I'll be the first to condemn that action. Until then, most people will see a little bit of a difference between the usual fearmongering and a war that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians (and thousands of US troops.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #5 April 12, 2010 Quote>But now Obama's gal is doing it, and the media is strangely silent... If he invades the Ukraine based on those claims I'll be the first to condemn that action. Until then, most people will see a little bit of a difference between the usual fearmongering and a war that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians (and thousands of US troops.) A war that Obama has promised to get us out of and hasn't yet. Until then, I will value his promises as the air he speaks into. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #6 April 12, 2010 QuoteQuote>But now Obama's gal is doing it, and the media is strangely silent... If he invades the Ukraine based on those claims I'll be the first to condemn that action. Until then, most people will see a little bit of a difference between the usual fearmongering and a war that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians (and thousands of US troops.) A war that Obama has promised to get us out of and hasn't yet. Until then, I will value his promises as the air he speaks into. Dont let reality smack you around so much...it makes for bad assumptions.. http://www.icasualties.org/ Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities By Year Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 <=====right!!!! 2004 849 22 35 906 <=====right!!!! 2005 846 23 28 897 <=====right!!!! 2006 822 29 21 872 <=====right!!!! 2007 904 47 10 961 <=====right!!!! 2008 314 4 4 322 <=====right!!!! 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 20 0 0 20 Total 4390 179 139 4708 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 April 12, 2010 Nice casualty list by year. Now all you have to do is somehow show that Obama's policies have somehow been responsible for that reduction, and that the job there will still get done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 April 12, 2010 QuoteNice casualty list by year. Now all you have to do is somehow show that Obama's policies have somehow been responsible for that reduction, and that the job there will still get done. I am so sorry I can't find a FAUX news link for you.. Perhaps the White house itself will do. NOT FAUX NEWS As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we’ve made and protect our troops. Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months. Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq. We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government. There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #9 April 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote>But now Obama's gal is doing it, and the media is strangely silent... If he invades the Ukraine based on those claims I'll be the first to condemn that action. Until then, most people will see a little bit of a difference between the usual fearmongering and a war that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians (and thousands of US troops.) A war that Obama has promised to get us out of and hasn't yet. Until then, I will value his promises as the air he speaks into. Dont let reality smack you around so much...it makes for bad assumptions.. http://www.icasualties.org/ Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities By Year Year US UK Other Total 2003 486 53 41 580 <=====right!!!! 2004 849 22 35 906 <=====right!!!! 2005 846 23 28 897 <=====right!!!! 2006 822 29 21 872 <=====right!!!! 2007 904 47 10 961 <=====right!!!! 2008 314 4 4 322 <=====right!!!! 2009 149 1 0 150 2010 20 0 0 20 Total 4390 179 139 4708 My point was that we're still there. I much prefer to see numbers at zero rather than >0, even if the lower numbers are somehow an improvement over previous years. I don't think it's unreasonable to have expected our President to make good on this campaign promise. So until this war is done (hopefully during his term), his word doesn't mean a whole lot in regard to the war, at least in my book. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #10 April 12, 2010 Quote Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. The problem with that statement is that the administration will define what's considered a "combat mission" after their "deadline" has lapsed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #11 April 12, 2010 QuoteQuote Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. The problem with that statement is that the administration will define what's considered a "combat mission" after their "deadline" has lapsed. Compare and contrast: http://thesportsunion.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bush-mission-accomplished.jpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #12 April 12, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. The problem with that statement is that the administration will define what's considered a "combat mission" after their "deadline" has lapsed. Compare and contrast: http://thesportsunion.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bush-mission-accomplished.jpg Unfortunately there isn't much to compare. I was tempted to mention that quote in my reply, as it seems synonymous with the current exit strategy. As with most things politicians say, I'll believe it when I see it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #13 April 13, 2010 QuoteQuote Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. The problem with that statement is that the administration will define what's considered a "combat mission" after their "deadline" has lapsed. Actually, "combat missions" have pretty much already stopped. The only people still out there kicking doors in the dead of the night are the SF folks. And they're doing it alongside Iraqi Security Forces. The rest of us are advising, assisting, and training the Iraqis or escorting State Department folks to meetings. And I can assure you that they are very much trying to get down under 50,000 troops (and no "combat" brigades) in country by the deadline. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #14 April 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. The problem with that statement is that the administration will define what's considered a "combat mission" after their "deadline" has lapsed. Actually, "combat missions" have pretty much already stopped. The only people still out there kicking doors in the dead of the night are the SF folks. And they're doing it alongside Iraqi Security Forces. The rest of us are advising, assisting, and training the Iraqis or escorting State Department folks to meetings. And I can assure you that they are very much trying to get down under 50,000 troops (and no "combat" brigades) in country by the deadline. Are you bringing FACTS into the debate? For shame!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #15 April 13, 2010 QuoteIf he invades the Ukraine based on those claims I'll be the first to condemn that action. What about this one?U.S. military playing expanded role in Pakistan http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63B5ZF20100412?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=trueAre you okay with new foreign military intervention? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #16 April 13, 2010 Quote Are you okay with new foreign intervention? Obama will probably will another Nobel Peace Prize if he was to open up a new front in the war. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #17 April 13, 2010 >What about this one? Helping train our allies? I'm so-so on that. We should support our allies, but let them train their own military. (Or pay us to do it if they like.) Killing thousands of civilians? Would definitely not be OK with that. So again, if we invade Pakistan and kill thousands, I'd be opposed to that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
