| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The_Carpathia
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: Re: Reject All Incumbents....not a bad idea |
 |
|
On Jul 16, 8:25 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 6:10 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, when the Democrats fillibustered for the first 4 years of Bush's
Presidency, they were wrong?
They didn't do it enough. That is why we are stuck with a war that we
should never have gotten into.
In fact, they voted FOR the war,
Not especially relevant. Bushwhack lied to them just like he lied to
us, and they couldn't have stopped the war by voting against it,
anyway. Meanwhile, most of the votes were to provide funding to the
troops, not to continue the war. Plenty of people are opposed to the
war, but don't begrudge funding the troops who are stuck being used as
cannon fodder for Bush's ideology.
and they just promoted the commander that ran it to a higher post.
Totally irrelevant. Nobody has claimed Petraeus is incompetent.
Bushwhack is incompetent, and an ideologue to boot. Just like you.
|
If McCain and Obama are both going to "listen to the commanders" and
both will use Petraeus to fight the war, it doesn't matter who is
elected in regards to the war. I'd say that is very relevant.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: Reject All Incumbents....not a bad idea |
|
|
The_Carpathia <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 6:10 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, when the Democrats fillibustered for the first 4 years of Bush's
Presidency, they were wrong?
They didn't do it enough. That is why we are stuck with a war that we
should never have gotten into.
In fact, they voted FOR the war,
|
Not especially relevant. Bushwhack lied to them just like he lied to
us, and they couldn't have stopped the war by voting against it,
anyway. Meanwhile, most of the votes were to provide funding to the
troops, not to continue the war. Plenty of people are opposed to the
war, but don't begrudge funding the troops who are stuck being used as
cannon fodder for Bush's ideology.
| Quote: |
and they just promoted the commander that ran it to a higher post.
|
Totally irrelevant. Nobody has claimed Petraeus is incompetent.
Bushwhack is incompetent, and an ideologue to boot. Just like you.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Larry Hewitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: Reject All Incumbents....not a bad idea |
|
|
"The_Carpathia" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb34813a-4675-4c0a-96fc-4a2d4acb720c@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 8:25 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 6:10 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, when the Democrats fillibustered for the first 4 years of Bush's
Presidency, they were wrong?
They didn't do it enough. That is why we are stuck with a war that we
should never have gotten into.
In fact, they voted FOR the war,
Not especially relevant. Bushwhack lied to them just like he lied to
us, and they couldn't have stopped the war by voting against it,
anyway. Meanwhile, most of the votes were to provide funding to the
troops, not to continue the war. Plenty of people are opposed to the
war, but don't begrudge funding the troops who are stuck being used as
cannon fodder for Bush's ideology.
and they just promoted the commander that ran it to a higher post.
Totally irrelevant. Nobody has claimed Petraeus is incompetent.
Bushwhack is incompetent, and an ideologue to boot. Just like you.
|
If McCain and Obama are both going to "listen to the commanders" and
both will use Petraeus to fight the war, it doesn't matter who is
elected in regards to the war. I'd say that is very relevant.
---Petraeus is on the record saying that the waar will not end until there
is a political solution.
Petraeus _is not_ on the record calling for "100 years" of occupation, as
McCain claims he is ready t support.
Larry
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: Reject All Incumbents....not a bad idea |
|
|
The_Carpathia <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
and they just promoted the commander that ran it to a higher post.
Totally irrelevant. Nobody has claimed Petraeus is incompetent.
Bushwhack is incompetent, and an ideologue to boot. Just like you.
If McCain and Obama are both going to "listen to the commanders" and
both will use Petraeus to fight the war, it doesn't matter who is
elected in regards to the war.
|
Wrong. The commanders only tell them what is militarily important.
The commander in chief factors in other things, like the cost of the
war in lives and national wealth and prestige, and whether there is
any goal worth these expenses.
Since the war issue is NOT the quality of the job our military is
doing, but the sheer incompetence of the civilian command, and the
lack of any worthwhile goal, it certainly does matter who is elected.
| Quote: |
I'd say that is very relevant.
|
Nope.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
The_Carpathia
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject: Re: Reject All Incumbents....not a bad idea |
|
|
On Jul 16, 12:34 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
and they just promoted the commander that ran it to a higher post.
Totally irrelevant. Nobody has claimed Petraeus is incompetent.
Bushwhack is incompetent, and an ideologue to boot. Just like you.
If McCain and Obama are both going to "listen to the commanders" and
both will use Petraeus to fight the war, it doesn't matter who is
elected in regards to the war.
Wrong. The commanders only tell them what is militarily important.
The commander in chief factors in other things, like the cost of the
war in lives and national wealth and prestige, and whether there is
any goal worth these expenses.
|
Ahh - so, Bush is to get the credits for the troop surge and not
Petraeus, right? When the Democrats praised Petraeus for recent
"success" they were praising Bush for those successes..right? You
cannot have it both ways. Either Petraeus is responsible for the war
with the Democrats promoting him for it, or Bush gets the credit for
Petraeus' success. If Petraeus gets the credit, he gets the blame.
The question is how much control Petraeus has over the events of the
war, not whether we should be there now (since that issue is
irrelevant, as McCain and Obama BOTH voted for the war and Bush isn't
up for re-election). If Petraeus has control over the troops enough
to be praised for military successes, his control is only enhanced (NO
MATTER WHO WINS THE ELECTION), since he was just promoted by Democrats
to a higher post over the region.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: Re: Reject All Incumbents....not a bad idea |
|
|
On Jul 17, 12:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 16, 12:34 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
and they just promoted the commander that ran it to a higher post.
Totally irrelevant. Nobody has claimed Petraeus is incompetent.
Bushwhack is incompetent, and an ideologue to boot. Just like you.
If McCain and Obama are both going to "listen to the commanders" and
both will use Petraeus to fight the war, it doesn't matter who is
elected in regards to the war.
Wrong. The commanders only tell them what is militarily important.
The commander in chief factors in other things, like the cost of the
war in lives and national wealth and prestige, and whether there is
any goal worth these expenses.
Ahh - so, Bush is to get the credits for the troop surge and not
Petraeus, right?
What credit? It has accomplished nothing except to allow us to spend
another $100+ billion dollars to no useful end.
Petraeus gets the credit for properly implementing it to save as many
valuable soldiers from Bushwhack's sacrifice (i.e. murder) of them as
possible.
|
Are you even listening to yourself? You just defeated your own side's
argument. If Petraeus is properly implementing it, and both
candidates are on record as saying they will follow commanders'
advice. What is the difference in the candidates? Despite your
side's love to attack Bush, he isn't running. Shoot....at this point,
BUSH is even following Petraeus' plans, so Bush's strategy would be no
different than Obama's, as if that mattered.
| Quote: |
When the Democrats praised Petraeus for recent
"success" they were praising Bush for those successes..right?
Nope, and you have the right of it by putting "success" in horror
quotes. Militarily it was a success, and Petraeus gets the credit for
that *military* effort. As national policy, it was mass murder,
further destruction of our military, and a waste of this country's
limited financial resources. Those things are Bush's fault; the
military part was Petraeus's success.
|
And...BOTH McCain and Obama would be using this man to direct the
continued war...Bush isn't running. So, what's the difference?
| Quote: |
You cannot have it both ways.
You see a false dichotomy.
Either Petraeus is responsible for the war
He is responsible for the *military conduct* of the war and nothing
else. He cannot be faulted on that.
|
And will be for both candidates.
| Quote: |
with the Democrats promoting him for it, or Bush gets the credit for
Petraeus' success.
Bush can have credit for appointing Petraeus to make the most of his
disastrous policies. But the policies are still a total waste. Every
soldier that has died or been wounded in Iraq in the last few years
has sacrificed in vain, because successful surge or not, we cannot
win.
|
Yet, Obama, himself, says the troops will stay there for at LEAST 18
months...under the SAME commander as McCain would have.
| Quote: |
If Petraeus gets the credit, he gets the blame.
He gets military credit. Bush gets policy blame.
|
Bush isn't running for office.
| Quote: |
The question is how much control Petraeus has over the events of the
war,
Not much.
If Petraeus has control over the troops enough
to be praised for military successes, his control is only enhanced (NO
MATTER WHO WINS THE ELECTION), since he was just promoted by Democrats
to a higher post over the region.
He has no "control", because he is still subject to the orders of the
commander in chief. And those orders will differ depending on who is
elected.
|
Again, if Petraeus has no control over fighting the war, he shouldn't
have been promoted for his successes in the troop surge, and Bush
would get the credit for that. However, if he does have control over
the fighting of the war, BOTH candidates would have the same result,
since both plan on following his advice. Since Bush isn't running for
office, and both candidates will let Petraeus fight the war, there is
no difference who wins the election in regards to Iraq.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:13 pm Post subject: Re: Reject All Incumbents....not a bad idea |
|
|
The_Carpathia <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 12:34 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
and they just promoted the commander that ran it to a higher post.
Totally irrelevant. Nobody has claimed Petraeus is incompetent.
Bushwhack is incompetent, and an ideologue to boot. Just like you.
If McCain and Obama are both going to "listen to the commanders" and
both will use Petraeus to fight the war, it doesn't matter who is
elected in regards to the war.
Wrong. The commanders only tell them what is militarily important.
The commander in chief factors in other things, like the cost of the
war in lives and national wealth and prestige, and whether there is
any goal worth these expenses.
Ahh - so, Bush is to get the credits for the troop surge and not
Petraeus, right?
|
What credit? It has accomplished nothing except to allow us to spend
another $100+ billion dollars to no useful end.
Petraeus gets the credit for properly implementing it to save as many
valuable soldiers from Bushwhack's sacrifice (i.e. murder) of them as
possible.
| Quote: |
When the Democrats praised Petraeus for recent
"success" they were praising Bush for those successes..right?
|
Nope, and you have the right of it by putting "success" in horror
quotes. Militarily it was a success, and Petraeus gets the credit for
that *military* effort. As national policy, it was mass murder,
further destruction of our military, and a waste of this country's
limited financial resources. Those things are Bush's fault; the
military part was Petraeus's success.
You apparently have never heard of winning the battle, but losing the
war. The war was lost 4 years ago. This doesn't mean that there
hasn't been any military heroes since then, but their efforts have
nonetheless been a total waste.
| Quote: |
You cannot have it both ways.
|
You see a false dichotomy.
| Quote: |
Either Petraeus is responsible for the war
|
He is responsible for the *military conduct* of the war and nothing
else. He cannot be faulted on that.
| Quote: |
with the Democrats promoting him for it, or Bush gets the credit for
Petraeus' success.
|
Bush can have credit for appointing Petraeus to make the most of his
disastrous policies. But the policies are still a total waste. Every
soldier that has died or been wounded in Iraq in the last few years
has sacrificed in vain, because successful surge or not, we cannot
win.
| Quote: |
If Petraeus gets the credit, he gets the blame.
|
He gets military credit. Bush gets policy blame.
| Quote: |
The question is how much control Petraeus has over the events of the
war,
|
Not much.
| Quote: |
If Petraeus has control over the troops enough
to be praised for military successes, his control is only enhanced (NO
MATTER WHO WINS THE ELECTION), since he was just promoted by Democrats
to a higher post over the region.
|
He has no "control", because he is still subject to the orders of the
commander in chief. And those orders will differ depending on who is
elected.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: Re: Reject All Incumbents....not a bad idea |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Ahh - so, Bush is to get the credits for the troop surge and not
Petraeus, right?
What credit? It has accomplished nothing except to allow us to spend
another $100+ billion dollars to no useful end.
Petraeus gets the credit for properly implementing it to save as many
valuable soldiers from Bushwhack's sacrifice (i.e. murder) of them as
possible.
Are you even listening to yourself? You just defeated your own side's
argument.
|
What side is that?
| Quote: |
If Petraeus is properly implementing it,
|
He is competently implementing a bad policy.
| Quote: |
and both candidates are on record as saying they will follow commanders'
advice.
|
No. They said that they would listen to the commanders.
The commanders will tell them how best to use the military to
accomplish the commander in chief's policy goals. The policy goals of
the two candidates are drastically different.
You make the fallacious assumption that a politically savvy general
will give the same advice to McCain who is pro-war that he would give
to Obama who is anti-war.
| Quote: |
What is the difference in the candidates?
|
If you don't know the difference, go read some more.
| Quote: |
Despite your side's love to attack Bush, he isn't running.
|
McCain is doing his best to look like he is running for Bush's third
term.
| Quote: |
Shoot....at this point, BUSH is even following Petraeus' plans,
|
No. Petraeus is following Bush's policies, which are the wrong
policies.
| Quote: |
Nope, and you have the right of it by putting "success" in horror
quotes. Militarily it was a success, and Petraeus gets the credit for
that *military* effort. As national policy, it was mass murder,
further destruction of our military, and a waste of this country's
limited financial resources. Those things are Bush's fault; the
military part was Petraeus's success.
And...BOTH McCain and Obama would be using this man to direct the
continued war.
|
No. Obama would be using this man to withdraw troops and END the war.
| Quote: |
So, what's the difference?
|
You figure it out, clueless.
| Quote: |
You cannot have it both ways.
You see a false dichotomy.
Either Petraeus is responsible for the war
He is responsible for the *military conduct* of the war and nothing
else. He cannot be faulted on that.
And will be for both candidates.
|
The problem with the war is NOT the military conduct of the war, but
the fact that we are still in the war, and that Bush and McCain have
no plan nor desire to end it.
| Quote: |
Bush can have credit for appointing Petraeus to make the most of his
disastrous policies. But the policies are still a total waste. Every
soldier that has died or been wounded in Iraq in the last few years
has sacrificed in vain, because successful surge or not, we cannot
win.
Yet, Obama, himself, says the troops will stay there for at LEAST 18
months...under the SAME commander as McCain would have.
|
With a different mission.
| Quote: |
If Petraeus gets the credit, he gets the blame.
He gets military credit. Bush gets policy blame.
Bush isn't running for office.
|
McCain has not indicated any differences from Bush in Iraq policy.
| Quote: |
If Petraeus has control over the troops enough
to be praised for military successes, his control is only enhanced (NO
MATTER WHO WINS THE ELECTION), since he was just promoted by Democrats
to a higher post over the region.
He has no "control", because he is still subject to the orders of the
commander in chief. And those orders will differ depending on who is
elected.
Again, if Petraeus has no control over fighting the war, he shouldn't
have been promoted for his successes in the troop surge,
|
His successes were in management.
| Quote: |
and Bush would get the credit for that.
|
Bush gets no credit for anything right now except continuing to
breathe so that Cheney doesn't get into power.
| Quote: |
However, if he does have control over
the fighting of the war, BOTH candidates would have the same result,
since both plan on following his advice.
|
Wrong, clueless.
| Quote: |
Since Bush isn't running for office, and both candidates will let Petraeus fight the war,
|
McCain's war would not be Obama's war, and thus Petraeus as a
competent general would fight it differently.
| Quote: |
there is no difference who wins the election in regards to Iraq.
|
Go ahead and continue to believe such nonsense if it pleases you.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
106 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
