|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
If 1 million Iraqis have been murdered in 5 years, how many will be dead in 100?
As loving souls such as e.g. Madeline Albright have stated:
"The price is worth it" ( i.e. the ends justify the means)
Hmmmmm ... excellent ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
If 1 million Iraqis have been murdered in 5 years, how many will be dead in 100?
As loving souls such as e.g. Madeline Albright have stated:
"The price is worth it" ( i.e. the ends justify the means)
Hmmmmm ... excellent ... |
Numbers aren't accurate.
And they were killed by the Bathists and the Al Qaedists.
Saddam if allowed to go free would have killed off the Kurds and re invaded kuwait.
Igothisguitar supports any mass killer who is against the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, now that the Nazi accusations are over with...
*BACK ON TOPIC*
"Hundred Years War"McCain has spent a lot of energy and money accusing Romney of being in favor of benchmarks, when HE HIMSELF was in favor of benchmarks AND considering withdrawal.
http://stuckon-stupid.com/2008/01/31/an-epiphany-john-mccain-was-for-benchmarks-in-iraq-before-he-was-against-them/
| Quote: |
McCain said Thursday that he hadn�t yet decided on precise benchmarks. �They�d have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them,� he said.
Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: �I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven�t met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we�re not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options.
Even Joe Biden was surprised about McCain�s Statements:
several Senate Democrats who oppose the troop buildup and also may seek the presidency said they were struck by McCain�s comments.
�We Catholics call that an epiphany,� said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., who is sponsoring the main Democratic resolution opposing the troop buildup. |
Either he is in favor of benchmarks with the threat of withdrawal, or he is not. He can't accuse Romney of it being that he never supported benchmarks or withdrawal. But he can't have it both ways.
Sounds to me like the "Straight Talk Express" lost more than few wheels. It may be off the road. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Y'know, much as I disagree with the Iraq War and think it was a mistake of historically enormous proportions...
I'd rather have a President that's willing to fully commit than a President who will twiddle around with fruitless, wasteful, Nixonian "Vietnamization" tactics.
Which of the candidates do I see as most likely to do the latter? Romney, Huckabee, and... Hillary.
IMO Hillary will be so obsessed with proving she's "tough enough for the job", while trying to hew to her campaign promises of drawdowns, that she will make things far worse in Iraq. There are only two ways to approach a war: fight it, or don't fight it. Triangulator nonpareil Hillary will be looking for a "third way" that does not exist.
So, if it comes down to Hillary versus McCain, even I -- the ultimate Iraq-war opposer who marched in the streets in 2003 -- will have a difficult choice.
Other issues, especially the Supreme Court, would probably tilt me toward Hillary. But Iraq is the biggie and would guarantee that I'd vote for Clinton with my nose firmly held, if at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
Y'know, much as I disagree with the Iraq War and think it was a mistake of historically enormous proportions...
I'd rather have a President that's willing to fully commit than a President who will twiddle around with fruitless, wasteful, Nixonian "Vietnamization" tactics.
Which of the candidates do I see as most likely to do the latter? Romney, Huckabee, and... Hillary.
IMO Hillary will be so obsessed with proving she's "tough enough for the job", while trying to hew to her campaign promises of drawdowns, that she will make things far worse in Iraq. There are only two ways to approach a war: fight it, or don't fight it. Triangulator nonpareil Hillary will be looking for a "third way" that does not exist.
So, if it comes down to Hillary versus McCain, even I -- the ultimate Iraq-war opposer who marched in the streets in 2003 -- will have a difficult choice.
Other issues, especially the Supreme Court, would probably tilt me toward Hillary. But Iraq is the biggie and would guarantee that I'd vote for Clinton with my nose firmly held, if at all. |
Take note Kuros and Ya-ta. Stillnotking is one of many.
I do acknowledge that the Supreme Court issue is one good reason to vote for Hillary. that being said, i think your average voter cares more about Iraq than the Supreme Court. And as stillnotking noted, McCain's stance on the Iraq war looks a hell of a lot better than Hillary's does. You might not agree with him, but you know what he's going to do there. Hillary though? If she has a clear plan, she isn't articulating it very well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| McCain's stance on the Iraq war looks a hell of a lot better than Hillary's does. |
No it doesn't.
McCain: another 100 years...The neocon plan was the right way to go.
Something like 75% of the people think it was the wrong thing to do. They want out. Clinton knows this. Does she know how to get us out? Probably not. No one does. Bush has got us stuck to the Tar Baby. Powell: If you break it, it's yours.
But she will try. McCain isn't even interested in trying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| McCain's stance on the Iraq war looks a hell of a lot better than Hillary's does. |
No it doesn't.
McCain: another 100 years...The neocon plan was the right way to go.
Something like 75% of the people think it was the wrong thing to do. They want out. Clinton knows this. Does she know how to get us out? Probably not. No one does. Bush has got us stuck to the Tar Baby. Powell: If you break it, it's yours.
But she will try. McCain isn't even interested in trying. |
as he noted, we've been in japan for over 50 years now. Korea, same thing. So saying iraq, 100 years? that's not a big thing.
A lot of anti-war people such as myself are supporting mccain. He actually got more votes from anti-war republicans than pro-war GOP supporters. Why? because he isn't a dumb ass like bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| A lot of anti-war people such as myself are supporting mccain. He actually got more votes from anti-war republicans than pro-war GOP supporters. Why? |
Because even among Republicans, most people are against this war now. But someone please explain why anti-war voters vote for pro-war candidates.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
Y'know, much as I disagree with the Iraq War and think it was a mistake of historically enormous proportions...
I'd rather have a President that's willing to fully commit than a President who will twiddle around with fruitless, wasteful, Nixonian "Vietnamization" tactics.
Which of the candidates do I see as most likely to do the latter? Romney, Huckabee, and... Hillary.
IMO Hillary will be so obsessed with proving she's "tough enough for the job", while trying to hew to her campaign promises of drawdowns, that she will make things far worse in Iraq. There are only two ways to approach a war: fight it, or don't fight it. Triangulator nonpareil Hillary will be looking for a "third way" that does not exist.
So, if it comes down to Hillary versus McCain, even I -- the ultimate Iraq-war opposer who marched in the streets in 2003 -- will have a difficult choice.
Other issues, especially the Supreme Court, would probably tilt me toward Hillary. But Iraq is the biggie and would guarantee that I'd vote for Clinton with my nose firmly held, if at all. |
Take note Kuros and Ya-ta. Stillnotking is one of many.
I do acknowledge that the Supreme Court issue is one good reason to vote for Hillary. that being said, i think your average voter cares more about Iraq than the Supreme Court. And as stillnotking noted, McCain's stance on the Iraq war looks a hell of a lot better than Hillary's does. You might not agree with him, but you know what he's going to do there. Hillary though? If she has a clear plan, she isn't articulating it very well. |
One has to wonder why if he thinks McCain's stance looks better then why is stillnotking voting for Clinton...particularly since as he says "...Iraq is the biggie" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| A lot of anti-war people such as myself are supporting mccain. He actually got more votes from anti-war republicans than pro-war GOP supporters. Why? |
Because even among Republicans, most people are against this war now. But someone please explain why anti-war voters vote for pro-war candidates.
|
Well hmmm. All the other GOP candidates seem to be in favor of continuing the war (Ron Paul excluded of course). So, if you are registered Republican, wouldn't you rather vote for someone who has experience in military affairs and foreign relations than a person who isn't but is proposing to continue the war?
As far as the democrats go, you got Hillary, who has a history of supporting it, so who is to say she won't continue it through her administration? Obama seems in favor of pulling out the troops, and his plan seems more concrete than hers. Is it do-able though? And does he have the political willpower to enact such a plan? Time will tell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| One has to wonder why if he thinks McCain's stance looks better then why is stillnotking voting for Clinton...particularly since as he says "...Iraq is the biggie" |
Asked and answered, I think. Iraq is not a stand-alone litmus test for my vote. I personally do not like Hillary, but I am very concerned over the Roberts Court and its potential to erode civil liberties, in particular; I don't trust Hillary all that far, but I trust her to nominate liberal Justices, and a Democratic Senate to confirm them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand that but you said that Iraq would "guarantee" your vote for Clinton.
Now you're saying the Supreme Court is the reason. Fine...just seemed a bit confusing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
As far as the democrats go, you got Hillary, who has a history of supporting it, so who is to say she won't continue it through her administration? Obama seems in favor of pulling out the troops, and his plan seems more concrete than hers. Is it do-able though? And does he have the political willpower to enact such a plan? Time will tell. |
Both their Iraq policies are the same. The only real difference is that Hillary is holding more of her cards to her chest, and Obama would like us all to know he opposed the war in 2002 when he didn't hold office.
That's right, Obama didn't get elected to national office until 2004. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wow, strong argument there. He didn't hold a national office until 2004. Does 4 years make that much of a difference? And do you really think Obama would have voted in favor of the resolution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And do you really think Obama would have voted in favor of the resolution? |
No way to know the answer to that. Vast majority of the Senate did, in fact, vote for the resolution, however.
What makes you think that Obama might have known all that we knew in 2004ish in late-2002/early-2003...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
