McCain: There Will be Other Wars

[Damocles]

I still have no fucking idea what you are talking about. It was never presented as novel or new. It was presented in response to a debate question. When Obama, followed by Edwards followed by Richardson, followed by Clinton (who hedged by saying that she would let the Pakistani government know when missiles were on the way), responded that they would pursue Al Qaeda into Pakistan, they weren't presenting it as a novel idea.

Again, it was the Republicans idiots, including Mitt Romney, that seemed to think it was remarkable, not the Democrats.

It is constantly presented as novel and new on this very site and in articles. Your ignorance notwithstanding I've heard many times how "Obama, at least, would send in troops after Osama!" pretending that troops do not cross into Pakistan and that this would be a change in policy.

That you "don't know" about this, I believe is deliberate. Because you like to spin your own little whirlpool in supposed "darkness".

 

[Bonestorm]

It is constantly presented as novel and new on this very site and in articles. Your ignorance notwithstanding I've heard many times how "Obama, at least, would send in troops after Osama!" pretending that troops do not cross into Pakistan and that this would be a change in policy.

That you "don't know" about this, I believe is deliberate. Because you like to spin your own little whirlpool in supposed "darkness".

I like your curious use of the passive voice. Who presents it as novel and new? That strawman of your dreams?

It seems to me that, where the three front-runners of the Demcratic party plus a few also-rans all agree on the policy, there is nothing novel about it.

Again, it is the dumbass Republicans, like Mitt Romney and Chapdog, among others, that have no clue what they are talking about that seem to think it is a new policy position.

 

[Damocles]

I like your curious use of the passive voice. Who presents it as novel and new? That strawman of your dreams?

It seems to me that, where the three front-runners of the Demcratic party plus a few also-rans all agree on the policy, there is nothing novel about it.

Again, it is the dumbass Republicans, like Mitt Romney and Chapdog, among others, that have no clue what they are talking about that seem to think it is a new policy position.

Whatever, I think you ignore the people on this very site that consistently suggest that it is "better policy" because they would be "going after Osama". I think you do it purposefully. An attempt to use my writing style to attack my point that you didn't address is simply ad hominem dodge. Look up the "Obama would attack Pakistan" thread and see the posts I speak of... I don't have the time at this moment to search them up for you.

 

[Bonestorm]

Whatever, I think you ignore the people on this very site that consistently suggest that it is "better policy" because they would be "going after Osama". I think you do it purposefully. An attempt to use my writing style to attack my point that you didn't address is simply ad hominem dodge. Look up the "Obama would attack Pakistan" thread and see the posts I speak of... I don't have the time at this moment to search them up for you.

When you have the time go ahead and provide the sources.

All I know is that there are any number of Republican idiots that acted as if Obama and the Democrats were taking on this dangerous new policy position whereas the Democrats and lefties were commenting about how the policy makes sense:

http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4716&highlight=obama+pakistan

 

[Damocles]

When you have the time go ahead and provide the sources.

All I know is that there are any number of Republican idiots that acted as if Obama and the Democrats were taking on this dangerous new policy position whereas the Democrats and lefties were commenting about how the policy makes sense:

http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4716&highlight=obama+pakistan

Without pointing out that it is not a change. As I said. The "idea" that I suggest is exactly that. So far, you are the only one I remember who has pointed out that it isn't a change at all. Strange, for the candidate of change to promote the standard.

 

[Socrtease]

And very curious Dano was on the post pretending that the WHOLE thing was completely CRAZY! Oh my god we would go into Pakistan without their permission to get terraists! Oh the Humanity!

 

[Cancel7]

And very curious Dano was on the post pretending that the WHOLE thing was completely CRAZY! Oh my god we would go into Pakistan without their permission to get terraists! Oh the Humanity!

Well, I am not for that policy either…though I admit to be slightly alarmed that it puts me on the same side as Dano.

I just don’t trust it one bit not to be abused. The wrong people will be killed. Innocents will be killed. And it will eventually incite a wider war. How about we do something crazy and start extraditing these people and putting them on trial?

 

[Damocles]

And very curious Dano was on the post pretending that the WHOLE thing was completely CRAZY! Oh my god we would go into Pakistan without their permission to get terraists! Oh the Humanity!

Yup. I would also disagree with that. However, not one lefty said, "It's good policy because that is what we already do!" as seems to be the suggestion in this thread...

 

[Socrtease]

Yup. I would also disagree with that. However, not one lefty said, "It's good policy because that is what we already do!" as seems to be the suggestion in this thread...

Alright now I see what you mean. And you are right, if Bush sent the Rangers into Pakistan to get Al Qaeda after they attacked US troops in Afghanistan the left would have SCREAMED bloody murder. Lucky for us, there are so few troops in Afghanistan where the enemy really is so we don't have to worry about bush doing shit in Pakistan.

 

[Cypress]

the fossil sang "bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran" to the melody of the beach boys barbara ann tune.

Do you need to know anything else about him, besides this freudian slip?

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah McCains statements needed no spin to make them look bad for the non war mongers of us.

 

[Cypress]

Yeah McCains statements needed no spin to make them look bad for the non war mongers of us.

he still thinks the iraq war was a good idea, he thinks the surge is a "victory", he sings about bombing iran, he muses about more wars.

It's obvious what kind of commander in chief he will be. What kind of political hack, dismisses this as left wing "spin"?

 

[uscitizen]

And where will we get the troops and money for the other wars ?

 

[Bonestorm]

Yup. I would also disagree with that. However, not one lefty said, "It's good policy because that is what we already do!" as seems to be the suggestion in this thread...

You're an idiot. You asserted that the candidates presented it as a remarkable change when in fact they did not. Show the goods. Show me where the candidates asserted that this would be a remarkable change in US policy. In fact, Joe Biden pointed out that we had been doing this for four years. Certainly you can show me where Obama and the other candidates, to use your words, "present it as spectacular change though."

 

[Damocles]

You're an idiot. You asserted that the candidates presented it as a remarkable change when in fact they did not. Show the goods. Show me where the candidates asserted that this would be a remarkable change in US policy. In fact, Joe Biden pointed out that we had been doing this for four years. Certainly you can show me where Obama and the other candidates, to use your words, "present it as spectacular change though."

I said "People on this board" and that "nobody disabused them"... I spoke about the press sensationalizing and promoting it as "good" (as shown by the articles in the thread)... What I said was what I remembered. And it seems that, reading that thread, it was also accurate.

Talk about strawman! You either have reading comprehension issues or, as I stated earlier you prefer to create a whirlwind in the darkness.

 

[Bonestorm]

I said "People on this board" and that "nobody disabused them"... I spoke about the press sensationalizing and promoting it as "good" (as shown by the articles in the thread)... What I said was what I remembered. And it seems that, reading that thread, it was also accurate.

Talk about strawman! You either have reading comprehension issues or, as I stated earlier you prefer to create a whirlwind in the darkness.

It is interesting how they present it as spectacular change though. So much so that people note it on here as if it were not happening already. Of course they don't disabuse them of such an incorrect notion... They want to seem "strong on terror" in a way they pretend the current admin isn't.

And, of course, you ignore that Obama said we'd go in force without regard to the Pakistani government's permission.

?

 

[Damocles]

?

Please, use the context of the thread. In this thread I spoke of people on this board. And "they" were a subset of that set. Don't be deliberately disingenuous. Especially when it is so easily seen through.

Your strawman wasn't even dressed like a knight. How come you are so lazy today?

 

[Bonestorm]

Please, use the context of the thread. In this thread I spoke of people on this board. And "they" were a subset of that set. Don't be deliberately disingenuous.

You're full of shit.

This is what you said:

That was Obama... Oh wait.. all of them seemed to say it. Except those that are not in the running. Interesting.

And I responded thusly:

It is also interesting that all would merely permit the military to do what it currently is permitted to do, follow militants into Pakistan from Afghanistan without prior approval from Pakistan. It's not a divergence from current practice at all and is largely unremarkable.

Clearly, we were speaking about the candidates, not the people on this board.

Then you said:

It is interesting how they present it as spectacular change though. So much so that people note it on here as if it were not happening already. Of course they don't disabuse them of such an incorrect notion... They want to seem "strong on terror" in a way they pretend the current admin isn't.

And, of course, you ignore that Obama said we'd go in force without regard to the Pakistani government's permission.

You clearly asserted that the candidates themselves presented the idea as a "spectacular change." Will you please provide the evidence to support that assertion or just say you were wrong?

 

[Damocles]

You're full of shit.

This is what you said:



And I responded thusly:



Clearly, we were speaking about the candidates, not the people on this board.

Then you said:




You clearly asserted that the candidates themselves presented the idea as a "spectacular change." Will you please provide the evidence to support that assertion or just say you were wrong?

Yet later I made it clear that the original post was sarcasm and then we had a conversation showing that what I was speaking about was about "people on this board" by stating it was about "people on this board." (Real hard to imagine that a statement like that was so hard for you to understand).

Again, you are being deliberately disingenuous pretending that a whole conversation didn't take place where I expanded on my actual position rather than the dry sarcasm that you originally quote.

Again, the attempt is to create a whirlpool in darkness, thankfully there is somebody around with a flashlight...

Your position is weak taking a post that is so obviously sarcasm to mean more than what it does then ignoring the actual conversation to attempt to build that naked strawman.

You must have taken some lesons from Cypress lately.

 

[WRL]

Bush vs. Clinton on terrorism

Terrorists have been at war with the US since 1993