Support NeoGAF

[scorcho]

I've felt that McCain has the better grasp on the Iraq situation. Not about going in obviously, but about the situation moving forward. After all the money spent (or rather wasted) there, I can't see how we won't have a long term military presence there.

considering Iraq is a sovereign nation and Maliki has already made his preference known i think the decision is obvious.

This illustrates the double-bind that Bush, McCain, and the conservative commentariat have created for themselves with their relentless surge-o-mania. If they're wrong and the surge has failed to significantly change the fundamental realities of Iraq, then it's time to get out. If they're right and the surge is succeeding brilliantly, it's also time to get out. Moreover, if Iraqis agree with either assessment, it's definitely time to get out.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/08/iraq_mccain/

 

[Talka]

Anyone here listen to Mark Levin or Sean Hannity when they do their radio shows? It's hilarious and vomit-inducing at the same time. Mark seriously believes that the Obama family hates America. He said these words yesterday, and I couldn't believe it.

Is it just me or does the Right consistently demonstrate more anger and juvenile behavior toward the Left than the other way around? McCain is coming at Obama with celebrity and biblical accusations. He claims it's all in "fun," but it just perpetuates ignorance and ideas not relevant to electing a president.

I always think of this image, even though I realize IQ tests aren't a great measure of intelligence. They're at least a measure of some intelligence:

Bigger Version

Yeah, that chart's a hoax.

 

[VanMardigan]

considering Iraq is a sovereign nation

So is Japan. If we pull out of there without permanent military bases and a rich ass oil contract this will have been bigger bullshit than attacking in the first place.

Yeah, that chart's a hoax.

Yeah, it seemed like bullshit with the premise that Republicans are idiots and fed into the elitist tendencies in this thread.

 

[speculawyer]

sooooooo....Alaska?
Survey conducted 8/6/08-8/7/08
+/- 4.9 %
Obama - 45%
McCain - 40%
Nader - 2%
Other - 2%
Undecided - 10%

I'd seen the Pres state-wide closing, and the Senate race with Tubes is strongly polling D, but this is the first poll showing Obama actually up
http://www.pollster.com/polls/ak/08-ak-pres-ge-mvo.php

I'm not crook!

 

[Lv99 Slacker]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/

omg:lol

No words, man. No words...besides what I just typed. Awesome that he got to see TDK, though.

 

[Gaborn]

Well, Billy Dee's retired and Obama was the next best looking black guy available.

I would've preferred a Ron Paul/Walter Williams ticket.

 

[speculawyer]

So is Japan. If we pull out of there without permanent military bases and a rich ass oil contract this will have been bigger bullshit than attacking in the first place.

So we really did invade to be colonists and take cheap oil? How noble.

 

[scorcho]

my point is that it is ultimately up to Iraq to decide that, not us to dictate it as if it is a given.

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

Yeah, that chart's a hoax.

Ah, I see you're right. What a fucking world we live in.

 

[VanMardigan]

So we really did invade to be colonists and take cheap oil? How noble.

I don't give a fuck about nobility, and going in there was ridiculously stupid and probably for the reasons you state. Still, leaving there with nothing that we could use strategically or financially would be beyond dumb.

my point is that it is ultimately up to Iraq to decide that, not us to dictate it as if it is a given.

No, it really isn't up to Iraq. And McCain understands that. But don't worry, once the Pentagon breaks it down for Obama in January, his tune will change as well. We'll get MOST troops out of there, with either candidate at the helm. I don't think we'll ever get ALL troops out of there, nor should we, considering how strategic that location is.

 

[speculawyer]

I don't give a fuck about nobility, and going in there was ridiculously stupid and probably for the reasons you state. Still, leaving there with nothing that we could use strategically or financially would be beyond dumb.

Anyone still wondering why they hate us?

 

[mckmas8808]

So long as the foreign affairs and national security matters dominate the news, McCain is at an advantage. I know that this thread will never see it that way, but McCain is just flat out better than Obama on his grasp of those issues. It's too bad for him that the Russians are probably going to be pulling out completely and news will start focusing on the economy again, at least for McCain.

Bullshit! McCain is a lot worst on these issues than Obama and its very very clear. McCain wants Russia out of the G8. McCain is trying to creat conflict with Russia.

Why was Mccain right in this situation?

 

[VanMardigan]

Anyone still wondering why they hate us?

If we pull COMPLETELY out of Iraq, heck, out of every single Middle East country we have troops in, and don't so much as look in that direction for the next two decades, that region will still have negative feelings towards Americans.

Plus, I'm not worried about your viewpoint on this. You'll swivel just as soon as Obama does (mid 2009 of his glorious first year as President). Whatever reason he gives will sound absolutely better than the stuff I posted. Guy sure knows how to sweet talk.

McCain is trying to creat conflict with Russia.

You haven't been paying attention to world news, have you?

 

[bob_arctor]

I don't give a fuck about nobility, and going in there was ridiculously stupid and probably for the reasons you state. Still, leaving there with nothing that we could use strategically or financially would be beyond dumb.

Can we leave there with, like, billions and billions and billions of dollars? Snark aside, I can agree with your statement generally taking into account caveats I haven't yet fully thought through. Your second statement, which I'm not quoting, intrigues me though--what will the Pentagon lay at Obama's feet? I'm assuming it has much to do with Iran.

 

[APF]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/

omg:lol

"Real, red-blooded Americans, evidently, are only supposed to like superheroes because they have nifty outfits and beat up the bad guys. To look beyond the surface or glean some larger meaning from the characters naturally implies Obama has the sort of egghead end effette approach to life that would leaad us to analyze our enemies instead of defeat them."


Poor analysis. His love of "inner turmoil" in superheroes reveals his self-indulgence and indecisiveness; of course he can identify with Spiderman, because as a journalist Peter Parker shares Obama's radical left-wing politics that will bring this country to ruin; both Spiderman and Batman are vigilantes, we can't trust Obama to defend America given his wide-eyed admiration for characters essentially indistinguishable from terrorists using violence to rearrange society; note he does not mention Superman, defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Pinko confirmed.

 

[VanMardigan]

Your second statement, which I'm not quoting, intrigues me though--what will the Pentagon lay at Obama's feet? I'm assuming it has much to do with Iran.

Beyond Iran, the entire region, and you can start stretching that out to Russia. It's just a fantastic strategic location. As is northern Japan.

The thing is that allegiances are always changing, so while Iran is the bigger threat now, that will likely change within the next decade, but Iraq is well placed regardless. Walking away is extremely short-sighted. Sure, we'd be allowed there if need be in the near future, but unless we have a permanent presence there, the climate can change just like it does with every other country. We've been allies of Iraq and Iran before we were enemies.

 

[scorcho]

since we're setting up permanent bases anywhere we want without concern for national sovereignty, why not within Russia? think of all the natural resources we'd control and how we'd open the ability to operate a second front along China's western border.

use Georgia as a pretext, overthrow Putin/Medveded, install a puppet gov't and go to work!

 

[PhoenixDark]

Barack Obama is fortunate that the conflict in South Ossetia has occurred during the Olympics, depriving it of some of it of the coverage that it otherwise might receive. He is also fortunate that Americans don't have much attention span for foreign affairs outside of matters involving Iraq and Al Qaeda.

That is not to endorse McCain's more hardline stance toward Russia, the particulars of which this blog has no standing to comment upon. I have no doubt, however, that the lingering memory of the Cold War makes an anti-Russian stance an easier sale from the standpoint of electoral politics.

But the unscripted drama in the Caucasus also serves as a thought experiment of sorts, especially as it regards Barack Obama's VP selection. Would Obama be better off if he had, say, General Wesley Clark flanking him right now?

I think absolutely so. The reason does not necessarily have to do with Clark's experience per se. Rather, it is a question of how well positioned Obama is to win arguments about foreign policy on the campaign trail. In this case, it is Obama's position, rather than McCain's, that is closest to the consensus of NATO -- as well as, ironically, the Bush Administration. But in matters of global affairs that Americans don't know very much about -- and again, pretty much everything but Iraq, Al Qaeda, and perhaps Israel qualifies there -- they are more likely to defer to the brand name opinion on foreign policy, which means John McCain's

In this case in particular, the Obama side has some good arguments to make about Georgia -- for instance, that our moral authority to condemn Russia for its actions is undermined by our own invasion of Iraq, and that our tactical position to place our footprint in the Caucasian theater is undermined by the number of troops we have committed to Iraq. But these are big picture, macro-level arguments, and ones that require the right salesperson. Someone like, say, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

To be clear, while these arguments hold to a certain extent for someone like Joe Biden, they are mainly an argument for Clark in particular. Joe Biden has a lot of credibility on foreign policy, but the aesthetics of what he could do on the stump and in interviews aren't really a match for those of a bona fide, ex-General. Biden might leave Obama better equipped to defend news cycles in which something like the South Ossetia conflict is the central topic; Clark might actually be able to win them.

He also cites the the reference we talked about yesterday

Gen. Wes Clark's slogan -- "Securing America's Future" -- is the theme for the night Barack Obama's running mate is scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

Clark's political action committee is called WESPAC -- Securing America's Future.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7450

UPDATE x2: For the record, if I had to rank Obama's potential VP choices -- culling from the quasi-official short list plus a couple of other names that are trading well on Intrade -- my choices would probably look something like this:

1. Clark
2. Schweitzer
3. Sebelius
4. Bayh
5. Clinton
6. Biden
7. Kaine
8. Reed
9. Nunn
10. Hagel
11. Dodd

This is opinion, not analysis.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Great site btw; very informative. You can learn something new every week!

 

[bob_arctor]

Beyond Iran, the entire region, and you can start stretching that out to Russia. It's just a fantastic strategic location. As is northern Japan.

The thing is that allegiances are always changing, so while Iran is the bigger threat now, that will likely change within the next decade, but Iraq is well placed regardless. Walking away is extremely short-sighted. Sure, we'd be allowed there if need be in the near future, but unless we have a permanent presence there, the climate can change just like it does with every other country. We've been allies of Iraq and Iran before we were enemies.

Strategic in terms of what? Oil? Suppressing extremism/terrorists? Installing another 50 gajillion Mickey D's? Please, spell this out for me because all I'm picturing right now is that t-shirt Homer wore when they all went to Australia.

 

[VanMardigan]

since we're setting up permanent bases anywhere we want without concern for national sovereignty, why not within Russia? think of all the natural resources we'd control and the open the ability to operate a second front along China's western border.

use Georgia as a pretext, overthrow Putin/Medveded, install a puppet gov't and go to work!

joke post, or you really don't see the difference in our ability to create a permanent base within either Russia or Iraq. Which is it?

Second, you're closer to the mark than you realize in terms of Georgia. But in the same way that Russia was quick to claim South Ossetian residents as Russian citizens and then rush in to "rescue them" as a front to war, the US has closely tied itself to an otherwise unimportant little country (Georgia). So that if Russia advanced any further in the conflict, the "oh noes, sovereign nation" card could be played as a justification for American military conflict.

Yeah, it's all backhanded and disingenuous, but welcome to world politics. Obama is excellent at picking up these nuances, so he'll be fine once he is actually elected and starts seeing Iraq for what it truly means to us now (beyond being an embarrassment for the Bush administration).

Strategic in terms of what? Oil? Suppressing extremism/terrorists? Installing another 50 gajillion Mickey D's? Please, spell this out for me because all I'm picturing now is that t-shirt Homer wore when they all went to Australia.

Militarily, and by extension, the influence that it implies.

 

[Cheebs]

Looks like the speaking at the convention will be:

Monday:
John Hickenlooper (Mayor of Denver)
Claire McCaskill
Nancy Pelosi
Teddy Kennedy (pre-taped video)
Maya Soetro-Ng (Barack Obama's sister)
Craig Robinson (Michelle Obama's brother)
Headline Speaker: Michelle Obama

Tuesday:
Chelsea Clinton
Headline Speaker: Hillary Clinton

Wednesday:
Harry Reid
Bill Clinton
Headline Speaker: Un-Named VP

Thrusday:
Bill Ritter
Headline Speaker: Barack Obama


Headline Speakers will all be at 10 PM EST and air on NBC, CBS, and ABC as well as cable news. The rest prior to 10 PM will be on cable news in the evening prior to it only.

 

[bob_arctor]

Militarily, and by extension, the influence that it implies.

Ultimately, you're telling me that yes, there will be more wars. Gotcha. More power to us then and Godspeed. And what is the point of all this military influence? To cut off a possibly resurgent Russia? Basically, who's plays Joker to our Batman?

 

[Y2Kev]

Has anyone read Taibi's article in RS about campaign lobbying? Anyone have a take on it? I know Taibi can be a little, uh, overaggressive sometimes.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

When is the Democratic National Convention again? Next week or the week after?

 

[VanMardigan]

Ultimately, you're telling me that yes, there will be more wars. Gotcha.

??

You doubt this?

Only the dead have seen the end of war. :lol

 

[scorcho]

joke post, or you really don't see the difference in our ability to create a permanent base within either Russia or Iraq. Which is it?

first, i don't subscribe to zero sum games where America has no ideals except for some macabre allegiance to offensive realism. the hubris in believing that the US can do whatever it wants whenever has been a sore on our foreign policy for decades, most recently seen in Iraq.

i never said bases in Iraq wouldn't serve us well (although disregarding any blowback because 'they hate is anyway' is mighty circumspect), but that it is dependent on the Iraqi government to either request or allow it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

sooooooo....Alaska?
Survey conducted 8/6/08-8/7/08
+/- 4.9 %
Obama - 45%
McCain - 40%
Nader - 2%
Other - 2%
Undecided - 10%

That was enough of a swing that Pollster now has Alaska as a toss up, switched from "Strong Republican".

http://www.pollster.com/

That map has to terrify McCain right now.

(Also: open-ended Gallup national poll has Obama up 7.)

 

[PhoenixDark]

Looks like the speaking at the convention will be:

Monday:
John Hickenlooper (Mayor of Denver)
Claire McCaskill
Nancy Pelosi
Teddy Kennedy (pre-taped video)
Maya Soetro-Ng (Barack Obama's sister)
Craig Robinson (Michelle Obama's brother)
Headline Speaker: Michelle Obama

Tuesday:
Chelsea Clinton
Headline Speaker: Hillary Clinton

Wednesday:
Harry Reid
Bill Clinton
Headline Speaker: Un-Named VP

Thrusday:
Bill Ritter
Headline Speaker: Barack Obama


Headline Speakers will all be at 10 PM EST and air on NBC, CBS, and ABC as well as cable news. The rest prior to 10 PM will be on cable news in the evening prior to it only.

Also

Contrary to some early reporting, Hillary Clinton's Tuesday night speech at the Democratic National Convention won't be the event's "keynote speech," a defining convention role occupied in 2004 by Sen. Barack Obama.

The Convention Committee never actually put that out, but it's been fairly widely reported (and, in a few cases, corrected).

Clinton "is one of four prime-time headline speakers. We will have a separate keynote speaker," said Jenny Backus, a consultant to the convention. "Stay tuned."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

 

[VanMardigan]

first, i don't subscribe to zero sum games where America has no ideals except for some macabre allegiance to offensive realism. the hubris in believing that the US can do whatever it wants whenever has been a sore on our foreign policy for decades, most recently seen in Iraq.

i never said bases in Iraq wouldn't serve us well (although disregarding any blowback because 'they hate is anyway' is mighty circumspect), but that it is dependent on the Iraqi government to either request or allow it.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that completely dodged the question of how your analogy was valid. But yeah, you continue to ignore the fact that we are already there when you talk of the US doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants. We already invaded the damn sovereign nation you speak of and had its leader hanged. At this point, the situation is severely tilted in favor of keeping a presence there.

 

[bob_arctor]

??

You doubt this?

Only the dead have seen the end of war. :lol

I don't doubt it necessarily but I also don't quite accept it as pre-ordained. But again, why exactly would we do these things? Who is our competition? Who is the driving force compelling such deeds? China? Just from your posts here I see a world where there is a scramble for land, influence and power, consequences be damned, and I just don't see the why behind it.

 

[scorcho]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that completely dodged the question of how your analogy was valid. But yeah, you continue to ignore the fact that we are already there when you talk of the US doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants. We already invaded the damn sovereign nation you speak of and had its leader hanged. At this point, the situation is severely tilted in favor of keeping a presence there.

how is my analogy valid? if a country doesn't want us to install a base within its sovereign borders then we have to abide. to say it doesn't matter is akin to playing foreign policy like a board game. let's put it in Russia, or within China! who cares if they say no, we just can. i was hoping to be subtle in my initial post, but i guess that didn't work. my fault.

and yes, we came, toppled and conquered. it worked out well. let's now do it again if they refuse our requests and create an actual puppet government like in South Vietnam. it worked great there.

I don't doubt it necessarily but I also don't quite accept it as pre-ordained. But again, why exactly would we do these things? Who is our competition? Who is the driving force compelling such deeds? China? Just from your posts here I see a world where there is a scramble for land, influence and power, consequences be damned, and I just don't see the why behind it.

from what i gather of Van's view, US grand strategy should revolve around gaining power in a zero sum game of awesome against evil. the means matter zero to this end.

 

[VanMardigan]

Just from your posts here I see a world where there is a scramble for land, influence and power, consequences be damned, and I just don't see the why behind it.

Me neither. If it's the WHY you seek (in terms of the causes for conflict around the world), I can't give you that. It's been that way for just about all of recorded history, though. I suspect it has something to do with human nature, but this definitely isn't the thread for that. :lol

how is my analogy valid?

Because you compared installing permanent bases in Russia to doing the same in Iraq. All things being equal, you'd have a point. But the current state of things invalidate that comparison.

from what i gather of Van's view, US grand strategy should revolve around nothing other to gain power in a zero sum game of awesome against evil. the means matter zero to this end.

I hate that my posts explaining my views on what will happen with Iraq are mixed with what I personally believe, but what the hell. The Georgia conflict has really exposed a lot of behind-the-scenes shuffling by all the superpowers

 

[scorcho]

Because you compared installing permanent bases in Russia to doing the same in Iraq. All things being equal, you'd have a point. But the current state of things invalidate that comparison.

dude. your proposition of a long-term presence in Iraq is invalidated if the government doesn't want us there!

 

[speculawyer]

??
You doubt this?
Only the dead have seen the end of war. :lol

There will always be war since there are always dicks in the world.

But we can have a lot less wars by putting people who are not war-mongering dicks into power. It is really pretty simple.

 

[NLB2]

There will always be war since there are always dicks in the world.

But we can have a lot less wars by putting people who are not war-mongering dicks into power. It is really pretty simple.

War and politics are reciprocal in nature. There would only be less war if everyone put non-war mongering dicks into power.

 

[speculawyer]

Militarily, and by extension, the influence that it implies.

And all the budget deficits it causes.

 

[bob_arctor]

Me neither. If it's the WHY you seek (in terms of the causes for conflict around the world), I can't give you that. It's been that way for just about all of recorded history, though. I suspect it has something to do with human nature, but this definitely isn't the thread for that. :lol

So the whims of the men holding the levers of power aren't all that different from a successful woman who just can't stop buying shoes of any and all kinds. Scary.

from what i gather of Van's view, US grand strategy should revolve around gaining power in a zero sum game of awesome against evil. the means matter zero to this end.

Uh-uh. He hasn't mentioned any evil at all. There is no driving force beyond our own nature and inevitability towards conflict. And by "our" I mean not only the U.S. but other world powers as well. That we've become the majority winners of this game means nothing since these things are alway in flux and there is no theoretical finish line to reach.

Hell, it almost makes me wish the world were flat.

 

[scorcho]

I hate that my posts explaining my views on what will happen with Iraq are mixed with what I personally believe, but what the hell. The Georgia conflict has really exposed a lot of behind-the-scenes shuffling by all the superpowers

there's been ample discussion of this in the Georgia thread. so far the summary is -

• Putin and handlers stuck in Cold War mindset.
• Russia supports separatist movements in South Ossetia and Abhkazia in reaction to US/Western support of Kosovo.
• US wants to set up a missile shield in former Soviet bloc region, ostensibly to prevent an attack from Iran.
• US funnels money, training and weapons into Ukraine and Georgia while promising them NATO admission.
• UN supports Russian peacekeeping forces to patrol the separatist regions.
• Georgia offers troops to Iraq expecting a quid pro quo, both in NATO membership and US military support
• Georgia takes Russian bait and attempts to push them out of South Ossetia in a surprise offensive believing US will bail them out.
• Russia takes advantage of the situation and proceeds to batter it around. makes a point to Georgia, Ukraine and the West as to respecting its sphere of influence.

none of this was a secret, and the situation was a powder keg waiting to explode. according to some reports the Bush admin tried to tamp down Saakashvili provocations, but i'm guessing that didn't work.

Uh-uh. He hasn't mentioned any evil at all.

if not evil then power for what purpose. to demarcate the world even between shifting allies and enemies is essentially the same as pitting it between good and evil. the only difference is that we're permanently good and as such the only ones who matter.

 

[ZealousD]

note he does not mention Superman, defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Superman is an illegal alien though.

 

[maynerd]

Superman is an illegal alien though.

No kidding working at the daily planet, taking a job away from a legal american.

 

[bob_arctor]

if not evil then power for what purpose. to demarcate the world even between shifting allies and enemies is essentially the same as pitting it between good and evil. the only difference is that we're permanently good and as such the only ones who matter.

Well, yes, exactly my point. Now, please, out of my brain already. It's sullied with thoughts of strangling one Melky Cabrera.

 

[scorcho]

Giambi's porno 'stache, much like the Yanks, has become supine.

 

[mckmas8808]

Militarily, and by extension, the influence that it implies.

You're everything that's wrong with America. No wonder the terrorist groups keep getting larger and larger.

 

[APF]

Superman is an illegal alien though.

Good point; while Obama loves the diabolical America-haters of his own race, he shuns Patriotic members of other races--who, though they are not citizens and therefore should be deported and try to become naturalized through legal channels, nonetheless embrace American exceptionalism. smh.

 

[speculawyer]

VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
(Today, 02:13 PM)
Reply | Quote

Jeez . . . I'd hate to know his views before he calmed down. :lol

 

[VanMardigan]

You're everything that's wrong with America. No wonder the terrorist groups keep getting larger and larger.

:lol

Of course I am. I'd love to hear your plan on getting rid of terrorists, though.

And all the budget deficits it causes.

Having a permanent military base there, which is what I presume is going to happen, doesn't factor into the equation. It's not on the same level as the current situation in Iraq.

But we can have a lot less wars by putting people who are not war-mongering dicks into power. It is really pretty simple.

While I agree with your principle and hate Cheney/Rumsfeld because I believe that's what they are, that's not the same discussion I'm having. In fact, you could argue that a permanent American base would do more to actually stabilize the region. Think about it, that would make Iraq one less country that can be attacked in the Middle East without repercussion.

And in the case of Georgia, you can bet your bottom dollar Russia would've continued to escalate the conflict and seize the Georgian capital if they felt that the U.S., among others, would sit idly by. Which, by the way, may just have happened, but just that uncertainty was enough to at least temporarily cool down the Russians.

And my statement about the strategic importance of Iraq is more about the potential defensive/responsive boost it would give us, not simply as a platform to attack neighboring countries. That hasn't happened with our other military bases that offer strategic benefits for us. So there's at least precedent that permanent military bases aren't inherently evil.

Of course, to your point, I understand that said military base in the hands of a "warmongering dick" is still a dangerous proposition, but as you can see from the current administration, it's not a necessity if they are hell bent on going to war anyway.

Jeez . . . I'd hate to know his views before he calmed down

If you'd posted in the old HD DVD/Blu Ray thread, you'd know.

 

[mckmas8808]

:lol

Of course I am. I'd love to hear your plan on getting rid of terrorists, though.



Having a permanent military base there, which is what I presume is going to happen, doesn't factor into the equation. It's not on the same level as the current situation in Iraq.



While I agree with your principle and hate Cheney/Rumsfeld because I believe that's what they are, that's not the same discussion I'm having. In fact, you could argue that a permanent American base would do more to actually stabilize the region. Think about it, that would make Iraq one less country that can be attacked in the Middle East without repercussion.

And in the case of Georgia, you can bet your bottom dollar Russia would've continued to escalate the conflict and seize the Georgian capital if they felt that the U.S., among others, would sit idly by. Which, by the way, may just have happened, but just that uncertainty was enough to at least temporarily cool down the Russians.

And my statement about the strategic importance of Iraq is more about the potential defensive/responsive boost it would give us, not simply as a platform to attack neighboring countries. That hasn't happened with our other military bases that offer strategic benefits for us. So there's at least precedent that permanent military bases aren't inherently evil.

Of course, to your point, I understand that said military base in the hands of a "warmongering dick" is still a dangerous proposition, but as you can see from the current administration, it's not a necessity if they are hell bent on going to war anyway.



If you'd posted in the old HD DVD/Blu Ray thread, you'd know.

dude, your whole post is invalidated by the fact that Iraq doesn't want us there forever. They will have a vote on this at the end of this month btw.

If they vote for a pure time-table then don't you think going against their will is the opposite of democracy?

 

[Dan]

No kidding working at the daily planet, taking a job away from a legal american.

And marrying someone's precious white daughter!

 

[avatar299]

There will always be war since there are always dicks in the world.

But we can have a lot less wars by putting people who are not war-mongering dicks into power. It is really pretty simple.

Like John F Kennedy!

 

[GhaleonEB]

Apparantly Obama really is going to announce the veep to supporters first, online.

People keep asking me if we’re really going to announce Barack’s VP directly to our supporters.

The answer is yes.

Let me be very clear. You are the ones who built this campaign, and Barack wants you to be the first to know who will join him in leading our movement for change.

So, if you haven’t signed up to receive an email or a text message, sign up now. Or you can text VP to 62262 from your mobile phone.

Make sure to forward this message to your friends and let them know about this special opportunity.

Thanks,

David

http://thepage.time.com/plouffe-e-mail-to-supporters/