Organizing for America | loser boy's Blog: Don't you dare argue with me!!

Don't you dare argue with me!!

By Loser from Humble, TX - Apr 28th, 2007 at 11:14 am EDT

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

>>All of you who keep talking about Vietnam and us pulling out and then chaos do not understand the dynamics of the world we live in. This is not Vietnam...

I agree, in many ways, this is NOT Vietnam; however, I have seen this comparison made by liberals over and over again, so I thought I would approach it from the perspective of their similarities (the "marching in the streets to end the war" mentality).

>>and Obama at least is not asking us to just run and leave like we did in Vietnam. He wants us to leave responsibly and in the process force the Iraqis to compromise with each other.

I disagree with you on this point; no matter how much pontificating that he does on this point, that is exactly the strategy. Any other "pull-out" strategy calls for us to stay nearby there and to re-enter the fray a few months or a few years down the line, when things will be worse (according to our generals on the ground).

Our leaving responsibly, whatever that means, is not going to force the Iraqis to do anything; it will result in a bloodbath, as there are powerful political forces at work in that region; there is much more going on there than simply two internal factions fighting. If that were the case, we would not be dealing with Iranian weapons or Al-Queada there.

>>Also, the region is different. There are lots of vested interests within and around Iraq that we can talk to and bring into the process in Iraq. We didn't have that in Vietnam. And we also have the ear of the government of Iraq and are currently protecting them. This makes pulling out a bargaining chip to force them to rein in groups and negotiate a settlement.

In the Vietnam era, we could have "talked to" China, Cambodia and North Vietnam, and that would have done as much good as talking to Iran today. If Pelosi, Clinton and Obama are unable to achieve any sort of agreement with President Bush and the Republicans, who are willing to talk; then how on earth do you think any of them can speak with Iran and get something meaningful done? The very best they could do is, hand over a big chunk of Iraq to Iran, and let them subjugate that property (which is again, going to result in bloodshed, terror, and death or extreme poverty to the innocents).

>>We can stay there and keep getting killed and wasting money, or we can do the smart thing and make the people take their future in their own hands.

Compared to other wars, the US body count there is small; Clinton lost about as many soldiers in peace time as we have lost in Iraq in war.

Many of the Iraqis do want to seize this future and their freedom, and many of them are dying for it. Remember, 65% of them voted, despite that fact that they risked being killed going to the polls. If 65% of Americans voted in any election, the press would flip out.

Btw, when it comes to "wasting money," the percentage of our budget which goes to the military is extremely low, historically speaking. It needs to be doubled.

>>Think about this: the Iraqis have taken no esponsibility for their people, no stable power, no security, no social amenities. Meanwhile we are getting blamed even though we keep sending them hundreds of billions of dollars.

Wrong again. They risk their lives to vote; there is a democratically elected government leading Iraq; and when it comes to cell phones and televisions and schools and internet access, Iraq is at an all-time high. We are blamed by our Islamic fascist enemies, who will blame us for anything; and we are blamed by the left. The biggest concern that Iraqis have is, will we just suddenly pull out due to a political whim. If I was an Iraqi citizen, this would concern me more than anything else.

>>Let us stop giving them the chance to blame us, while killing us and each other and taking our money.

The primary targets in Iraq, which will remain the primary targets, whether we are there or not, are common, everyday citizens, who are targeted by terrorists and fanatics. Although obviously, we have been targets as well, terrorists kill thousands of innocents and very few American soldiers by comparison (and these kinds of attacks occur all over the world; see Link for this week's body count).

>>And also, people like Loser from Humble need to stop this childish talk about Iraq.

Personal attacks are always a mark of high intelligence (that is sarcasm, btw).

>>If Iraq as the President claims is the fight for our future and our way of life and our future generations, is this really how to fight such a fight? No armor, not enough troops (screaming new startegy as if 15000 troops can make a difference in a country of millions and insurgents).

Has no one ever explained this to you before? Most of Iraq is peaceful. I forget the exact numbers, but 14 out of 17 provinces are relatively peaceful. We're not sending 15,000 troops and spreading them throughout the land, we are concentrating them in the troubled provinces. If all of Iraq was in turmoil, you would be correct; no way could 15,000 troops make a difference. But that is not the case. Unfortunately, network news is not going to tell you these things. They are as heavily invested in our defeat in Iraq as many liberals are.

You have been told that President Bush is stupid, incompetent, evil, an ideologue; and this is the message of the press and of almost every Democrat and we watched the Democratic presidential nominees spend far more time bashing Bush in the debate than they did offering up their own ideas (watch the "debate" again). If we are victorious in Iraq; if Iraq becomes a settled democracy; then this is going to be problematic for the press and it will be problematic for Democrats. Success in Iraq could virtually end the Democratic party; so bear in mind, we have to lose in Iraq; we have to leave in defeat in Iraq; Bush has to be seen as having ruined Iraq; if this plays out in any other way, the Democratic party (or, at least the left of center Democrats) is in serious trouble. So watch carefully how Democrats approach Iraq; they will do everything in their power to make us fail in Iraq, and put the blame onto Bush. The recent bill sent to Bush is an example of that, which exactly the opposite strategy of our generals on the ground is their proposition.

>>If it is the fight of our life and future, let's give it our all, let's re-instate the draft and make sure we win and give it
all we have, and then let me see how many of you so called supporters will remain.

I'm not against that; but we have the best army in the world as it is; and no general has called for a reinstatement of the draft. Our lead general there has told us what we need to do, and he received 100% confirmation; now we ought to support his strategy. Doing anything different, whether we like Bush or not, is a mistake.

>>Be real and be wise. Strength is not wisdom, the application of knowledge in a realistic way is wisdom.

These platitudes mean absolutely nothing.

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

mmm... | Report to Admin

By Frances Apr 28th 2007 at 12:24 pm EDT

I'm guessing you are a Republican-probably conservative, and that you probably would not vote for Obama, regardless.

So, why are you here: to try to turn people against Obama?

Unless, of course the only thing you disagree with is Obama's war ideas.

I have to tell you that most of the people here have done their homework, have read "The Audacity of Hope" and checked out all of the issues and background information on Obama that they could find. So it is unlikely that you will get anyone to drop him as a result of what you say. But go ahead and keep trying if it makes you feel better, it just proves a lot of Republicans are scared that Obama might actually win.

He wants us to come together as a country, instead of being polarized into you are a Democrat or a Republican, because all this bickering gets nothing accomplished, and a lot of Americans are actually middle of the road.

Personally, I am neither a Democrat or a Republican or affiliated with any party, for that matter. I think people should vote for whoever will do the best job in your opinion, regardless of party. And Obama is that person for me: I'm tired of all the fighting, and all the spun stories in the media that twist things out of their original perspective (and it happens on both sides) and hopefully, that will at least happen less if we have a President who is in the middle for the most part.

Re: mmm... | Report to Admin

By Loser from Humble, TX Apr 28th 2007 at 1:03 pm EDT

These are good questions, and they deserve answers.

I have been told for the past several months that this Obama was really something; another JFK. He was not just another politician, but a man with something to say, who did not have to read it off a prompter. I heard this long before he was a presidential candidate.

So, I paid attention to Obama. Now, he is well-spoken, which could be said of almost anyone compared to our present President (who I like and support; but I agree that he is not the best public speaker in the world--and yes, that is an understatement).

Now, there are things in Obama's life which I find admirable. He has a traditional family and he is a successful man and his wife is a successful woman; and I think that their success has little to do with liberal social agendas; and a lot to do with their hard work. The message of their lives is one that the Black population should pay attention to.

On the other hand, I find his politics wanting. If you examine his voting record, he an Senator Clinton have voted identically in something like 69 out of the last 70 votes. If I was a Democrat, then they are so much alike in their actions, that I'd prefer to take the candidate who has the most experience (neither of them has any real executive experience).

Obviously, I have disagreed with his politics, and have stated a few instances where I do disagree and why.

However, here is the #1 thing that I have against him: he is portrayed as intelligent and articulate, a person who will unite this nation. At the "debate," he defaulted on several occasions to Bush-bashing. He did not answer the questions which were put to him, he just went into his talking points. That is disgraceful and I am disappointed in this. I have given several examples of where he did this.

Secondly, his talking points again and again bash Bush; as someone who supports Bush, that does not make me feel like I am going to be a part of this great unifying process.

What I am trying to do is insert some true points of disagreement into this love-fest you guys have going on. You responded in kind, without name-calling, and I appreciate that and I respect that.

Unfortunately, Clinton, unless she makes some horrendous mistake, will be the Democratic presidential candidate, and SHE WILL NOT ASK OBAMA TO BE HER RUNNING MATE. She'll probably choose Biden. She, as a standing Democrat, has the Black vote; for this reason, she does not need a Black running mate.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.