Obama '08?

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

The only factor that single-handedly accounts for the larger partisan gap is the higher criticism from members of the opposition party. From that, it seems you could argue Republican are more partisan than Democrats.

Did you sleep through the previous 8 years of the Bush administration? That's the only reason I can think of that would make you suggest such a thing.

1 Reply

@revel,

revel wrote:

Well , gee George do you think it might because Iraq had nothing to do Al Qaeda and 9/11 and Afghanistan did because the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

Pff, details...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

revel wrote:

Well , gee George do you think it might because Iraq had nothing to do Al Qaeda and 9/11 and Afghanistan did because the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

Pff, details...

Cycloptichorn

From a strategic perspective, quite insignificant details as well. However, if that is all that is required to quiet your mind, then you can enjoy the peace that results.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I guess you didn't notice. We were attacked from Afghanistan. We were not attacked from Iraq.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

old europe wrote:

The only factor that single-handedly accounts for the larger partisan gap is the higher criticism from members of the opposition party. From that, it seems you could argue Republican are more partisan than Democrats.

Did you sleep through the previous 8 years of the Bush administration? That's the only reason I can think of that would make you suggest such a thing.

No, but I did take a look at the poll numbers which were the basis for the contention that the partisan gap in job approval ratings was higher for Obama than for Bush, and I made a comment that I clearly based on those numbers.

Also, I don't really see a connection between job approval ratings for Bush in 2001 and the previous 8 years of the Bush administration.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

revel wrote:

Well , gee George do you think it might because Iraq had nothing to do Al Qaeda and 9/11 and Afghanistan did because the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

Pff, details...

Cycloptichorn

From a strategic perspective, quite insignificant details as well. However, if that is all that is required to quiet your mind, then you can enjoy the peace that results.

Actually, you are quite wrong. Strategically, they couldn't be more different. Only the tactics are similar.

We had nothing to gain in Iraq other than the satisfaction the warmongering crowd got out of socking it to one of their old enemies. That's why Rumsfeld and others in the admin couldn't wait to attack Iraq. It had nothing to do with American safety or any of that claptrap.

Afghanistan, at least we had a purpose-driven mission there: to capture those who harmed us and depose the government who supported them. A clear moral imperative. Now, the trouble is wrapping it up...

I suppose it becomes easy to justify anything when you don't give a damn as to the morality of your choices or the reasons you made them. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Actually, you are quite wrong. Strategically, they couldn't be more different. Only the tactics are similar.

We had nothing to gain in Iraq other than the satisfaction the warmongering crowd got out of socking it to one of their old enemies. That's why Rumsfeld and others in the admin couldn't wait to attack Iraq. It had nothing to do with American safety or any of that claptrap.

Afghanistan, at least we had a purpose-driven mission there: to capture those who harmed us and depose the government who supported them. A clear moral imperative. Now, the trouble is wrapping it up...

I suppose it becomes easy to justify anything when you don't give a damn as to the morality of your choices or the reasons you made them. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

I think you are in way over your head here, but OK with me. Capturing Ben Laden is not the objective of the current effort in Afghanistan: it is nation building.

2 Replies

Nation building? Well, that would be making a silk purse out of a sow's
ear.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

The trouble with the "peace-niks" George is that they would run a mile from suggesting what it takes to get to peace. Their basic pychological state is warlike but they assert they are not responsible for the war. They let others carry that can. Keeps their hands clean you see.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I think you are in way over your head here, but OK with me. Capturing Ben Laden is not the objective of the current effort in Afghanistan: it is nation building.

I completely agree. Perhaps, however, if we had focused on capturing Bin Laden, instead of switching over to Iraq instead, we would have done so and could have left long ago. Instead, thanks to the Bush admin's incompetence, we did not capture Bin Laden and we did not defeat the Taliban in any meaningful way.

Our current mission in Afghanistan? To get out in a reasonable fashion. We're looking for an endgame and there isn't an obvious one. I predict we will simply leave after a few frustrating years.

I maintain that our strategic goals in Iraq and Afghanistan were not the same, the principles the conflicts are based upon were and are not the same, and there is a definite difference between the two.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

A reasonable prediction. However, it most certainly does not square with either the President's announced strategy or the specific actions he has taken since becoming President. On the contrary, he is adding to our investment there and so far at least getting nothing in the way of the requested help from our allies. That was the point I was making.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

A reasonable prediction. However, it most certainly does not square with either the President's announced strategy or the specific actions he has taken since becoming President. On the contrary, he is adding to our investment there and so far at least getting nothing in the way of the requested help from our allies. That was the point I was making.

Okay, I agree with that. For a long time I've been hoping that our presence in Afghanistan has remained light enough so we could leave in a hurry once our time there was done. Adding more troops doesn't help that much.

I wonder if we can utilize Operation Bribe, part two? It would be cheaper in the long run and has the potential to maybe get a generation of their kids grown up without too much war.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Probably not. The Saudis paid us for the assistance to their co religionist Sunni Sheiks. It turned out this action and the arming of Sunni militias under loose U.S. command was a very effective policy in (1) calming Sunni fears of retaliation from the Shia militias and a Shia dominated government; (2) cutting off the main source of recruits for al quaeda operatives there; and (3) drawing the Sunnis into the government which they had previously shunned. In my book a very effective and wise policy that deserves much more than the cynical reference you made to it.

President Obama has also had to confront the dilemma of fighting a war against non-state terrorists: he is now using precisely the same arguments the Bush Administration used with respect to Guantanamo now to justify keeping detainees in our prison at Bagrham airbase in Afghanistan. The adoring media are so far giving Obama a free pass on this - something they didn't do for his predecessor. Finally his gestures of friendship and willing dialogue with our prominent critics, both in Europe and the Americas haven't yet gotten him anything in the way of better or more favorable behavior. Ultimately he will have to face all these contradictions himself -- they are of his own making.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob, You are again expecting Obama to be a miracle worker. He's been in office for only three months, but the impression he has made around the world makes him more popular with not only the governments but many of its people. Let's give him some breathing room to develop an improved international relationship with our allies and enemies.

At least he's doing his best to improve relations that Bush destroyed during his eight years in office. You won't hear from Obama "if you're not with us, you're against us." That in of itself is a major improvement.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I guess you didn't notice. We were attacked from Afghanistan. We were not attacked from Iraq.

Actually, we were attacked by people living in this country, and many of the people were Saudis, were they not? Also, how can Afghanistan be at fault if this is a crime problem, being conducted by criminals, not as an act of war. That is what you and other liberals want to treat this problem as, and try the people in civilian courts, isn't that right? If that is the case, how can any country be at fault?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, You seem to forget not only the fact that Bush started the war in Afghanistan, but the Taliban lived there when they attacked the US.

The Saudis let the US use their country during the first Gulf War, and Bush not only danced with the Saudi king, but kissed him on the cheek.

So, what's your point?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Un huh. He seems more popular, all right. Certainly, he's not offending anyone, but is popularity the goal?

1 Reply

@roger,

No, but you don't offend people on your first meet no matter who they are. Maybe that's the Bush way, but we now have a president who understands good international politics.

BTW, nobody is perfect, so don't expect perfection or miracles from Obama.

You conservatives/republicans have a habit of calling Obama messiah which shows total ignorance. He's our president.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

georgeob, You are again expecting Obama to be a miracle worker. He's been in office for only three months, but the impression he has made around the world makes him more popular with not only the governments but many of its people. Let's give him some breathing room to develop an improved international relationship with our allies and enemies.

At least he's doing his best to improve relations that Bush destroyed during his eight years in office. You won't hear from Obama "if you're not with us, you're against us." That in of itself is a major improvement.

No, I am only expecting some consistency between his rhetoric and his actions.

Unfortunately he has already contradicted himself with respect to Guantanamo, now using precisely the same arguments the Bush administration used, and which he dismissed, to argue for keeping detainees in the prison at Baghram airbase in Afghanistan. In the same way his arguments for the importance of nation-building in Afghanistan and the actions he has already taken to achieve his goals are darkly reminiscent of the arguments Bush used to get us into Iraq -- a very odd parallel for one who so bitterly criticized the Iraq adventure.

In a way I am encouraged by this - selective hypocrisy is an essential virtue in a political leader. However, in these cases the shift from the earlier rhetoric has been swift, sudden and on the very central issues of his campaign. Curious.

His courtship of the European leaders, no matter how appealing it might have been on a popular basis hasn't achieved ANY changes in their positions or unwillingness to help either in Afghanistan or his proposals for coordinated economic stimulus actions -- nada. His gestures to Chavez and Raul Castro aren't likely to do any better. Nations act in the perceived self interest of their leaders - flattery and nice words don't alter that at all. It is usually better to be feared than loved.

I agree that the change in tone is likely to improve the quality of the dialogue. However, it won't alter the fact that their self-interests are different from ours.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Isn't anyone allowed to change their minds after learning more about different issues? How many presidential candidates made promises that were later broken? Let us count the ways.

Have you never changed your mind about any issue that you later learned was the intelligent way to go?

Maybe you're perfect, and can determine ahead of time what the correct decisions are. I've changed my mind on many things in life.

I've tried to learn from my mistakes, and I've made many of those.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know