BF2S Forums Obama buys 30-minute block of air time

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

So wait, you're basically telling me now that you're not even voting for McCain based on the issues?
    Nice.
    Obviously the only one who's "bought into" anything here is you, my friend.
    And actually, it's apparentely been going pretty good for him (OBL). He spread Al Qaeda's influence because Bush failed to stay in Afghanistan, thus allowing 1) Al Qaeda to get into Iraq and 2) him to escape.

1)Al Kinda! went into Iraq to fight trained soldiers instead of hijacking airplanes/ firebombing structures in the US.  Al Kinda got their asses kicked.
2)So He's running the land he sought to liberate? I never took you for a "my face hurts more than your hand so i win" guy.

Actually it's cumulative.  McCain has  better character, judgment, experience, respect, loyalty, leadership and understanding of foreign policy.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is that the Iraq war is what distracted us from Afghanistan (the REAL problem) and allowed OBL to get away. And while Obama wants us to re-focus on Afghanistan where the real problem lies, McCain wants us to continue to stay in Iraq.

Better understanding of foreign policy? Yeah, must be why he thinks Putin's the president of Germany and said he wouldn't sit down with the Prime Minister of SPAIN.

Experience is the only thing I can really give to McCain out of the list you gave. Then again, Abe Lincoln had no experience politically, and he's considered one of the best presidents this country has ever had.

Wrong.  And you sidestepped every point I made.  You stay till the job is finished.  Your golden boy supports those with genocidal and terrorist ties.  He wants to cede.  So do you. 

57 States? Dead veterans seen in the crowd today.  Civilian bombing?  You really want to go there?  Give it a break.  The horse you're backing is lame.

Last edited by Poseidon (2008-10-09 20:34:21)

Poseidon wrote:

I actually didn't, but if you want to accuse me of doing so when you do so yourself, that's fine. It's not my fault your post was so badly written anyways.

But wait, I thought the surge worked? If so, why can't the Iraqi forces take over? Perhaps I'm simplifying it, but it seems like an awfully to-the-point process to me. If we can't let the Iraqi forces take over, I guess the surge didn't work so well after all, eh? I mean hell, the fucking IRAQI PM wants a timetable for our withdrawl. Says a lot.

Oh wow, 57 states...do you even need me to list McCain's gaffes?

Fuck, I'd probably need to ask Chuy for a new server in order to.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Oh no, he said 57 states. He must not know anything about America!

The guy fucking went to Harvard Law and then was the head of the Law Review. The guy's smart, he obviously knows there are 50 states. Let's see you go around campaigning for months and not say something stupid. Hell, I say stupid things all the time and the most difficult things I do are write essays.

It's not about ceding, it's about listening to the leader of a sovereign country. You guys really need some better fighting points than a gaffe and a radical statement like "If you don't support the war you must hate the troops!". Sounds just like that vapid broad Palin, saying something like "It'd be nice if Mr. Obama said he wanted us to win for once." Ugh.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

You say the same about Bush or is Yale not as good?

Sorry pal, but we're at war.  Whether you want to be or not, it's a fact.  You want to aide and comfort, be my guest, but I won't when we are clearly winning.  Go on and Reid it up.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Bush did win in Iraq. Victory is still to be achieved.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

I don't think you understand what the US has done, at all. Thousands of US lives have been lost needlessly in Iraq. If the objective really was just to topple Saddam there was no need to stay in the country for years after the fact.

And if Iraq was about terrorism, the focus should have been on those responsible for 11th Sept attack. You know, AQ, who are in a different country. And now several different countries thanks to you guys dropping the ball.

Last edited by Spark (2008-10-09 20:59:14)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Spark wrote:

He underestimated the insurgency.

Now there's an understatement.

Bush took a horrid strategy into Iraq. He needed at least twice the number of ground troops, probably more, if he truly intended to hold the place.

With the help of the media, France, Russia, the UN, and other predominate Democratic leaders and party members it wasn't his fault.  W doesn't work the PR as well as O"bah"ma.

So spark, you were for the troop surge or the pullout?

Last edited by Spark (2008-10-09 21:13:44)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Spark wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

With the help of the media, France, Russia, the UN, and other predominate Democratic leaders and party members it wasn't his fault.  W doesn't work the PR as well as O"bah"ma.

So spark, you were for the troop surge or the pullout?

For the surge. Needed to be much bigger IMO.

My position all along has been - it was a mistake going in, and we botched the early days due to not enough troops, but we should stay so the place doesn't become a bomb.

So there wasn't enough shock and awe?  Meh... Fair enough.  The UN should have removed Saddam, but -The US is the UN.

Kmarion wrote:

They needed more troops at the very beginning. Presence matters. You must begin occupations with crushing numbers. The defeated population must see their occupiers on every corner. You may be able to loosen restrictions quickly if the situation allows it but it is impossible to tighten up after you have permitted social chaos. We wage war to be politically correct. We use advanced technology and smart bombs to avoid "collateral" damage. This will not just be an American problem, this is the precedent for all wars to come. Wars were never meant to be civilized. They must be ugly. The enemy's will must be completely broken. The Human race is evolving and what was acceptable in the past is no longer. Throw in Embedded journalist and 24/7 cable news and the job of the military has severely been impaired.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Oh no, he said 57 states. He must not know anything about America!

The guy fucking went to Harvard Law and then was the head of the Law Review. The guy's smart, he obviously knows there are 50 states. Let's see you go around campaigning for months and not say something stupid. Hell, I say stupid things all the time and the most difficult things I do are write essays.

It's not about ceding, it's about listening to the leader of a sovereign country. You guys really need some better fighting points than a gaffe and a radical statement like "If you don't support the war you must hate the troops!". Sounds just like that vapid broad Palin, saying something like "It'd be nice if Mr. Obama said he wanted us to win for once." Ugh.

Somebody should have explained to Mr.Harvard what his preacher was saying over the last 20 years. The man plays dumb with the best of them.

I can't blame him. I slept through about 16 years of church. I had no idea what the pastor was saying either.

Poseidon wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Somebody should have explained to Mr.Harvard what his preacher was saying over the last 20 years. The man plays dumb with the best of them.

I can't blame him. I slept through about 16 years of church. I had no idea what the pastor was saying either.

Me either - there's a reason I haven't been in any religious building since 5th grade!