Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 07:39 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I suppose it all is in the eye of the beholder. To me he danced around and dodged the meat of all the questions with the only plan being to pull our forces out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan without explaining how that would work. Would our troops be to bolster the NATO forces already there--that is a NATO mission now and, if Obama understands that, he didn't mention it. Or will this be a separate US undertaking? At least we do have an American commander in charge there, but I wonder what Obama's position is on putting our forces under other than US command? These are all things I don't think he has thought through if he understands at all.


In contrast to your knowledge, Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan[/I is a joint U.S. and Afghan operation with several other nations taking part in it, too, separate from NATO's ISAF.[/quote]

Well I could certainly be wrong about that, but that isn't the way I understood it.

I believe that NATO took over Afghanistan security operations in 2006:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5408332.stm

And last month, a new US commander was appointed to be in charge over those NATO forces.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-03-voa21.cfm

As the USA is part of NATO, it doesn't make sense that there be a 'joint NATO and USA' project there, but maybe there is. I do know that the US is supplying the lion's share of the troops there already.

AMENDMENT:
Okay, doing further research, I do see that we do have a force of 14,000 troops operating independently of NATO in one province of Afghanistan. I don't see the rationale behind that, but I'm not the one in charge.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 07:45 am
Foxfyre wrote:
AMENDMENT:
Okay, doing further research, I do see that we do have a force of 14,000 troops operating independently of NATO in one province of Afghanistan. I don't see the rationale behind that, but I'm not the one in charge.


And that means re your various posts? (besides that I believed this to be common knowledge for someone interested in this topic, especially the "rationale behind it".)
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 07:48 am
Dodging answers comes with the territory-- for all politicians.

Both candidates have their weaknesses and strengths and the winner will be crowned president by how well he could spin both.

In terms of risk, I'd say Obama, on the surface, appears to be the riskier candidate and McCain the safer more reliable choice-- on the surface.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 07:49 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
AMENDMENT:
Okay, doing further research, I do see that we do have a force of 14,000 troops operating independently of NATO in one province of Afghanistan. I don't see the rationale behind that, but I'm not the one in charge.


And that means re your various posts? (besides that I believed this to be common knowledge for someone interested in this topic, especially the "rationale behind it".)


I have very very few 'various posts' related to Afghanistan. But deep apologies for admitting that I was wrong about something Walter and thank you for setting the record straight. I appreciated learning something. I fully realize that I am nowhere near as perfect as you are and obviously I am stupid for not having the common knowledge that you have. But oh well. . . .
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 07:55 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
AMENDMENT:
Okay, doing further research, I do see that we do have a force of 14,000 troops operating independently of NATO in one province of Afghanistan. I don't see the rationale behind that, but I'm not the one in charge.


And that means re your various posts? (besides that I believed this to be common knowledge for someone interested in this topic, especially the "rationale behind it".)


I have very very few 'various posts' related to Afghanistan. But deep apologies for admitting that I was wrong about something Walter and thank you for setting the record straight. I appreciated learning something. I fully realize that I am nowhere near as perfect as you are and obviously I am stupid for not having the common knowledge that you have. But oh well. . . .


What you both are saying is that the NATO FORCES in AFGAN are unable to complete the mission and require more troops. As usual, the US can not rely on other NATO Nations to increase the troop levels.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 07:56 am
woiyo wrote:

What you both are saying is that the NATO FORCES in AFGAN are unable to complete the mission and require more troops. As usual, the US can not rely on other NATO Nations to increase the troop levels.


I suggest, you read a bit this topic.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 07:59 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I have very very few 'various posts' related to Afghanistan. But deep apologies for admitting that I was wrong about something Walter and thank you for setting the record straight. I appreciated learning something. I fully realize that I am nowhere near as perfect as you are and obviously I am stupid for not having the common knowledge that you have. But oh well. . . .


I was referring to your above posts.

This has nothing to do with being perfect. It's in the news for a couple of years now. And since you, Foxfyre, read so much, I just thought ...

But I admit that "International" has not that place in the US media as elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:02 am
Obama's plan is to bankrupt this country ASAP.

The dumbmasses will never realize this as long as the big
3 press continues to ask BET type questions of Obama Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:02 am
Gala wrote:
Dodging answers comes with the territory-- for all politicians.

Both candidates have their weaknesses and strengths and the winner will be crowned president by how well he could spin both.

In terms of risk, I'd say Obama, on the surface, appears to be the riskier candidate and McCain the safer more reliable choice-- on the surface.


No doubt about it. You and I both have had major problems with McCain--I still do on several issues--and yes, he is going to present his point of view in the most attractive light as possible as is Obama going to do that. I don't fault either one of them for that. I do believe McCain is the more honest of the two about what he does know and what he does understand. I don't think he tries to fake what he knows.

What is so scary to me is that I do think Obama lacks sufficient experience and/or knowledge and/or a clear concept of what is best for the country, but his admirers/adorers (I am not longer allowed to say worshippers) don't care. It seems that any exposed weakness in Obama can be deflected by deflecting to or attacking McCain.

In my opinion, there is virtually no serious side by side comparison of what they two have been saying about much of anything or any serious consideration of the many different things that have been said about some things.

The media isn't going to force Obama to deal with the hard questions nor are they going to give McCain any help in getting his message out. The NYT underscored that in spades this past week when they refused to run McCain's editorial because it disagreed with Obama's.

And Obama isn't going to put himself in anything other than a strictly controlled environment so that he can continue to hide his weaknesses.

In short, we aren't going to be allowed to have a clue about what we are getting in a President Obama. And for me, that is scary.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:17 am
snood wrote:
It's all remarks like "BET Q&A" deserve.


Do you think Obama has had any hardball questions asked of him?

The answer is NO.

Obama has only been asked softball questions one would expect from BET.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:19 am
H2O_MAN wrote:
Obama's plan is to bankrupt this country ASAP.

The dumbmasses will never realize this as long as the big
3 press continues to ask BET type questions of Obama Rolling Eyes


Okay, H2O. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, mostly because I have been on an anti-political correctness campaign for years now, but the BET reference is over the top, inappropriate, and yes, is easily translated racist. You and I do agree on many things, but you don't help the cause by reinforcing the left's accusations that we oppose Obama because he's black or that is the reason the media supports him.

Let's stick to real issues, not made up ones that are truly offensive.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:21 am
Diest TKO wrote:
You're disgusting Kevin.



These type of comments are made by pipsqueaks - Diest, you are a pipsqueak.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:22 am
I'm an equal opportunity offender - deal with it Cool
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:24 am
Foxfyre wrote:
The NYT underscored that in spades this past week when they refused to run McCain's editorial because it disagreed with Obama's.


The New York Times has rejected an op-ed piece written by John McCain defending his Iraq war policy in response to a piece by Barack Obama published in the paper earlier.

(I'd thaught, you've been taught the difference between an editorial and an op-ed when you studied journalism, Foxfyre.)

[In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission."

"We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously," the statement said.]
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:27 am
Also, I never mentioned Obama's skin color - I'm neither racist or a bigot and I'm not pregidous.
However, based on the reactions of a few A2K members - they are in fact racist, pregidous bigots.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:30 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The NYT underscored that in spades this past week when they refused to run McCain's editorial because it disagreed with Obama's.


The New York Times has rejected an op-ed piece written by John McCain defending his Iraq war policy in response to a piece by Barack Obama published in the paper earlier.

(I'd thaught, you've been taught the difference between an editorial and an op-ed when you studied journalism, Foxfyre.)

[In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission."

"We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously," the statement said.]


Okay op-ed. (Op means opposite. Ed means editorial.) The op-ed pieces are usually opposite the editorial page in the newspaper. Forgive me Walter for using the wrong word.

Otherwise, re your apparently undying faith in the New York Times, your bullshit meter sure isn't working today is it?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 08:31 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:

What you both are saying is that the NATO FORCES in AFGAN are unable to complete the mission and require more troops. As usual, the US can not rely on other NATO Nations to increase the troop levels.


I suggest, you read a bit this topic.


What is to read about. The NATO FORCES there have not completed the mission. Is that an incorrect statement?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:01 am
woiyo wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:

What you both are saying is that the NATO FORCES in AFGAN are unable to complete the mission and require more troops. As usual, the US can not rely on other NATO Nations to increase the troop levels.


I suggest, you read a bit this topic.


What is to read about. The NATO FORCES there have not completed the mission. Is that an incorrect statement?


So Obama has said, he will enlarge the Nato troops?
I had missed that. Sorry, and thanks for the info.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:05 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:

What you both are saying is that the NATO FORCES in AFGAN are unable to complete the mission and require more troops. As usual, the US can not rely on other NATO Nations to increase the troop levels.


I suggest, you read a bit this topic.


What is to read about. The NATO FORCES there have not completed the mission. Is that an incorrect statement?


So Obama has said, he will enlarge the Nato troops?
I had missed that. Sorry, and thanks for the info.


Obama says many things without having knowledge.

My question to you was not addressed. The NATO forces currently in Afgan, have not been able to complete their mission. Is that correct?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Wed 23 Jul, 2008 09:33 am
Speaking of Obama's oratory skills, which I have never swallowed by the way, Rush had this yesterday, using clips of a press conference, almost 20% of Obamas's words were "uh, uh, um, uhh, etc."

OBAMA: -- uh, uh, uh, you know, uh, uh, uh, uhh, is...? Uh, is of -- of their work, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, we, uh, uh, I called, uh, uh, and I'm -- I'm -- Uh, with, uh, uh, as, uh, that, uh, and uh, uh, um, uh -- And we have to do this, uh, uh. As -- as well as, eh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. Well, uh. I, uh, uh, uh, um. We, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. Uh, now, uh, right now and then identify if -- if, uh, you want to, uh, uh, uhhhh. Ummmm. That's -- that's a bunch. Umm, so let me tick these off. Um, it is true that, uh, uh, uh, uhhh, uh, uh. What, uh, uhhh, uh, and, uh, uh, in I-iraq, uh, uh, are seen as, uh -- and so, uh, uh, uhhh, uh, uh, and if I was -- i-if I were in his shoes, uh, uh, uhh, and so, uh, a, uh, um, uh, from some -- someplace else, uh, theeee, uh -- and, uh, t'see, uhhh, that, uhhh --

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072208/content/01125109.guest.html

Now to be accurate, Rush clipped and pasted the montage together, but let us be honest, Obama is very bad at equivocating, and he has way more "uhs" than most anyone. He doesn't have good answers, so he gives these patented answers filled with maybes, ifs, uh, uh, what ifs, and basically not much of a straight answer on anything.

I recognized this in his book, he had a very very tough time taking a solid position, but instead he discussed all the possible positions, good points, bad points, which I already knew, but I wanted to know what his was, but after reading the book I still didn't know. I also watched many of the debates, and learned not much, but alot of "uh's" and alot of generalities. The guy is pretty good at speaking in generalities, but lousy at speaking specifically about anything.

And he is even on record for chastising reporters in Iraq for expecting specific answers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1005
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/26/2025 at 03:04:54