Obamas Military advisor...100 years in Iraq

Cypress said:
McPeak was against Bush's Iraq policy from the beginning. He wasn't fooled. He worked on Howard Dean's campaign, for God's sake.

In short, McPeak showed good judgement on Iraq from the beginning. Unlike superfreak, Bush, McCain, and damocles.
Click to expand...


You forgot to add that McPeak endorsed Bush in 2000 and served as co-chair of "Oregon Veterans for Bush." Then the Iraq War happened.
 
Dungheap said:
"Accusing me of building up strawmen when you attack Obama by attacking Obama's one of Obama's military advisers is hilarious."

Read my original post again moron. I did not attack Obama.... I asked if you thought his ADVISOR McPEAK was a warmonger for stating the same thing as McCain. So yes, it is a complete strawman attempt to suggest I was attacking Obama. You were simply projecting that onto my statement.

"Additionally, the idea that one of Obama's advisers (not "Obama's leading military advisor" as you claim) "

Another strawman... I did not "claim" that. I restated what was in the article.

"who did not support the war and viewed the war as a disaster from the beginning stating that the best hope for the war after the ear has begun is a 100 year presence in Iraq as opposed to an immediate Iraqi democray which would be harshly anti-American in support of the proposition that McPeak "said the exact same thing as McCain" is fucking laughably hilarious."

Got you... so building a government and staying their occupying their country for 100 years without a democracy is not warmongering. But giving the Iraqi people a chance to vote and staying for a 100 years IS warmongering. Good to know.
Click to expand...

Wow... how many strawmen can you create in one day????
 
And what is this protect the embassy crap ? Reason number 301 to stay in Iraq ?
I thought we had embassies in countries that want us to have one there.
 
ugg how many times do we have to go thru this. they built permanent bases. we are not leaving iraq any time soon. dems just lie about it for votes.

part of the war on terror is getting the fuck out of saudi arabia.. meaning move our bases from saudi to iraq.. for 50 years.

Then we are no longer in the 'holy land' that was the motivation of all of the 911 terrorists
 
Dungheap said:
More proxy horseshit.

McPeak is not Obama. He's free to have his own opinions on things, but it's Obama's opinion that matters, not McPeak's.

Are you really this fucking dense or do you just play the moron on message boards?
Click to expand...


these two choices are not mutually exclusive.
 
Damocles said:
Again, how many will we have to leave to protect the Embassy? Just saying, "He is a realist" when it is actually what he says he will do is pretense or ignoring what you don't want to hear from your own candidate.

Barack says he will leave forces in Iraq to protect the Embassy. I ask how many it will take to do so.

Barack says he will leave forces in the area for quick re-entry if extremists use Iraq as a place to put bases. al-Qaeda objects to us being in S.A. and other holy areas, that is where the forces will go. I ask will this continue the same policies that got us attacked to begin with...
Click to expand...

I have no idea how many troops will be necessary to protect the embassy .. do you?

What I do know is that neither Obama nor his policies are what got us attacked in the first, second, or last place.

There is no cookie-cutter example of how we get out of Iraq responsibly. As I said, the events on the ground will force the our retreat.
 
Chapdog said:
ugg how many times do we have to go thru this. they built permanent bases. we are not leaving iraq any time soon. dems just lie about it for votes.
Click to expand...

There is definately truth there for Hillary, and probably for Obama as well.

It is about securing a "fix" for our countries oil addiction.
That is the ugly reality.

But in any case I feel Obama is the least bad of the current lot.
 
So bottom line is this....

The Gumby squad is going to pretend that the two 100 years in Iraq comments are somehow different. What a bunch of hypocrits.

By the way Dung... what McPeak stated was far worse than what McCain did. At least McCain wanted to let the Iraqi people have a choice in their leadership. Unlike McPeak who apparently did not want them to be able to vote for 100 years.
 
Darla said:
Desperation is stinky. Someone should spray some air freshener around Damo and Superfreak’s posts.
Click to expand...

Desperation is the current state of US foreign policy and there is no way Obama can cleanly sweep up the mess that Bush and those who voted for him created.
 
Darla said:
I’m very happy to see bac back, but his presence had nothing to do with my ability to discern your intent. I never can, and here’s why – you are desperate for McCain to win because you would do anything to avoid a Dem win. So no one can discern the “sarcasm” in your posts, because they’re really not sarcastic. You don’t’ give a fig what takes Obama down. You just want him down.

So give me a break Damo. Just come out of the closet already! You would be 80 times less annoying if you would just come out of the closet. Put up a big “Vote McCain”! banner and you’ll be free.
Click to expand...

Please explain why every post you or I make to each other has to have some ulterior motive?

What's up with that?
 
Superfreak said:
So bottom line is this....

The Gumby squad is going to pretend that the two 100 years in Iraq comments are somehow different. What a bunch of hypocrits.

By the way Dung... what McPeak stated was far worse than what McCain did. At least McCain wanted to let the Iraqi people have a choice in their leadership. Unlike McPeak who apparently did not want them to be able to vote for 100 years.
Click to expand...

Yeah McPeak does have a better grasp on reality than McSame does.
 
uscitizen said:
There is definately truth there for Hillary, and probably for Obama as well.

It is about securing a "fix" for our countries oil addiction.
That is the ugly reality.

But in any case I feel Obama is the least bad of the current lot.
Click to expand...

it IS the ugly truth. Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world that we know of.

People need to start voting on issues other then iraq because none of the candidates are that different. Obama seems to me to be the least attached to specail interests and the most fiscally conservative in his thinking.
 
blackascoal said:
Desperation is the current state of US foreign policy and there is no way Obama can cleanly sweep up the mess that Bush and those who voted for him created.
Click to expand...

On that we agree. There is not a way any of the three candidates can do this cleanly. So they must take the route they deem the least likely to cause further damage in both the short and long run. Obviously they have different opinions on how to go about doing that.

Side note... I guess the final answer is that McPeak is also a warmonger by the standards of this board.
 
Superfreak said:
Dungheap said:
"Accusing me of building up strawmen when you attack Obama by attacking Obama's one of Obama's military advisers is hilarious."

Read my original post again moron. I did not attack Obama.... I asked if you thought his ADVISOR McPEAK was a warmonger for stating the same thing as McCain. So yes, it is a complete strawman attempt to suggest I was attacking Obama. You were simply projecting that onto my statement.

"Additionally, the idea that one of Obama's advisers (not "Obama's leading military advisor" as you claim) "

Another strawman... I did not "claim" that. I restated what was in the article.

"who did not support the war and viewed the war as a disaster from the beginning stating that the best hope for the war after the ear has begun is a 100 year presence in Iraq as opposed to an immediate Iraqi democray which would be harshly anti-American in support of the proposition that McPeak "said the exact same thing as McCain" is fucking laughably hilarious."

Got you... so building a government and staying their occupying their country for 100 years without a democracy is not warmongering. But giving the Iraqi people a chance to vote and staying for a 100 years IS warmongering. Good to know.


Wow... how many strawmen can you create in one day????
Click to expand...


Look up the definition of strawman. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Additionally, maybe you should post your own thoughts once in a while. I'm pretty sick and fucking tired of ripping your posts to shreds only to get a response of "buy the book" or "I only repeated what was in the article." Stand by your convictions, if you have any.

And you did say this, which seems to suggest that you think McPeak is Obama's leading military advisor:

So Obama, who has NO military background isn't going to listen to his leading military advisor?

Obama has as his leading military advisor a man who said exactly the same thing as McCain and you do not call McPeak a warmonger like you do McCain?
Click to expand...


And hiding behind the article isn't going to cut it. As I said, quit reading that bullshit and uncritically reprinting it here and repeating it's assertions as fact because that only ends up with you looking like an idiot.

Finally, McPeak was against the war from the get go and was giving his opinion as to the likely outcome. So no, he is not a warmonger. He didn't want to go to war in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Chapdog said:
it IS the ugly truth. Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world that we know of.

People need to start voting on issues other then iraq because none of the candidates are that different. Obama seems to me to be the least attached to specail interests and the most fiscally conservative in his thinking.
Click to expand...

Um... slight correction... Iraq is behind Saudi, Canada, Iran and Venezuela.

:)

So if were really about securing oil... why would we not have just invaded the Canuckistanis?
 
Superfreak said:
So bottom line is this....

The Gumby squad is going to pretend that the two 100 years in Iraq comments are somehow different. What a bunch of hypocrits.

By the way Dung... what McPeak stated was far worse than what McCain did. At least McCain wanted to let the Iraqi people have a choice in their leadership. Unlike McPeak who apparently did not want them to be able to vote for 100 years.
Click to expand...


You're the new Lizardbrain. Congrats. Dano would be proud.
 
Superfreak said:
Um... slight correction... Iraq is behind Saudi, Canada, Iran and Venezuela.

:)

So if were really about securing oil... why would we not have just invaded the Canuckistanis?
Click to expand...

hmm thats interesting..
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves[/ame]

I do get the thinking however about how Iraq would strategically be the better us long term source over iran in the middle east.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top