Top Priorities

[asterism]

Military solutions have worked to quell terrorism? Really? Where? When?

Iraq.

Zarqawi is not only dead, but unable to pull another 9/11.

so we should spend billions to invade countries, precipitate resistance and attract regional terrorists to destabilize our efforts?

please don't feel offended if i dont think this has 'worked'.

I don't feel offended at all. I just disagree. The threat of terrorism from Al Qaeda and other associated groups has been drastically diminished as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was messy (as all wars are), but I think it was the correct strategy.

 

[antagon]

while i think afghanistan impacted al qaeda, i think our work in iraq destabilized one of the most stable, secular countries in the region. i think this was the intent, but i dont think that intent serves a counter-terror objective at all. quite the opposite.

 

[midcan5]

....That most Americans opposed and most now believe has extended and deepened the recession.....

The key word is 'believe,' a better word or descriptor would be emotionally attached. So much knowledge today is ahistorical, it reminds me of debates on FDR amazing accomplishments during the Great Depression. Did Roosevelt occasionally screw up, sure, but any reading of the history [from non revisionist sources] demonstrates that Keynesian economics works. As Drew Westen demonstrates, thought is often just emotional response.

Timeline of the Great Depression


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Good-Society-Humane-Agenda/dp/0395859980/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Good Society: The Humane Agenda (0046442859981):…[/ame]

 

[Spoonman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sky Dancer
The President is ending the war in Iraq. He's set the Israeli Palestinian peace talks as a priority. He's been responsive to the oil spill, he addressed health care reform, he's on the economy. He's addressed DADT.

I'd say he's working hard with very little bipartisan support. He's completely on target with his campaign promises.


•Passing the "largest" economic stimulus bill in American history.
•Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing "enhanced interrogation techniques."
•Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.
•Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan, and setting a timetable for a drawdown of our troops.
•Signing laws to expand children's health insurance (financed by a 61-cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax the adviser did not tout).
•Banned offshore drilling until parameters for deep well safety procedures are clarified.
•Put a hold on Artic oil exploratory digging until environmental impacts are clear.
•Passed health care reform.
•signed a hate crime bill .

Sky, be realistic and keep this all in perspective.

Ending the ar in Iraq? He is pretty much on Bush's time table. What has he doen differently? Obama has a million things set as a priority, but he accomplishes none. it's a joke. Every president has set israel palestine peace talks as an objective. none have changed a thing. neither will Obama

It took him a month to get on the oil spill, and look how long it lasted. Just as long as BP said it would from the start. He got nothing done any quicker.

The economy sucks and is getting worse.

OK the stimulus bill was a pork laden fiasco. Put us deeper in debt and has done nothing to help the economy. The rich got richer and gave it a temporary bump. unemployment is still rising, foreclosures are up. he hasn't created new jobs or brought back manufacturing. Now what that the stimulus money is running out? He didn't even rebuild the infrastructure like he promised.

Gitmo is still open, we still use the same techniques, just elsewhere

Bush set the timetable. Obama is just attempting to follow it. Of course things are getting worse in Iraq in the process.

Troops aren't the answer in Afghanistan. The more troops he pumps in the worse things are getting. He even had to can his top military man because he kept telling Obama he was wrong. He's set a timetable for withdraw and hasn't even solved the problem yet. Does that make sense to you?

Let's see how much of that cigarette tax goes to it's intended purpose. Clinton taxed the hell out of tobacco comapanies to help offset the increased costs of healthcare. None of it went to that. All this is was a silent method for Obama to increase taxes with out making it look like he increased taxes.

Banned off shore drilling? Doesn't that just increase our dependence on foriegn oil?

Healthcare reform? are you sure you want to call it reform? there was no reform. Big Pharma and the Insurance companies got just what they wanted. Pity the fool who can not afford to pay for healthcare today but will have to under plan Obama.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sky Dancer
The President is ending the war in Iraq. He's set the Israeli Palestinian peace talks as a priority. He's been responsive to the oil spill, he addressed health care reform, he's on the economy. He's addressed DADT.

I'd say he's working hard with very little bipartisan support. He's completely on target with his campaign promises.


•Passing the "largest" economic stimulus bill in American history.
•Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing "enhanced interrogation techniques."
•Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.
•Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan, and setting a timetable for a drawdown of our troops.
•Signing laws to expand children's health insurance (financed by a 61-cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax the adviser did not tout).
•Banned offshore drilling until parameters for deep well safety procedures are clarified.
•Put a hold on Artic oil exploratory digging until environmental impacts are clear.
•Passed health care reform.
•signed a hate crime bill .

Sky, be realistic and keep this all in perspective.

Ending the ar in Iraq? He is pretty much on Bush's time table. What has he doen differently? Obama has a million things set as a priority, but he accomplishes none. it's a joke. Every president has set israel palestine peace talks as an objective. none have changed a thing. neither will Obama

It took him a month to get on the oil spill, and look how long it lasted. Just as long as BP said it would from the start. He got nothing done any quicker.

The economy sucks and is getting worse.

OK the stimulus bill was a pork laden fiasco. Put us deeper in debt and has done nothing to help the economy. The rich got richer and gave it a temporary bump. unemployment is still rising, foreclosures are up. he hasn't created new jobs or brought back manufacturing. Now what that the stimulus money is running out? He didn't even rebuild the infrastructure like he promised.

Gitmo is still open, we still use the same techniques, just elsewhere

Bush set the timetable. Obama is just attempting to follow it. Of course things are getting worse in Iraq in the process.

Troops aren't the answer in Afghanistan. The more troops he pumps in the worse things are getting. He even had to can his top military man because he kept telling Obama he was wrong. He's set a timetable for withdraw and hasn't even solved the problem yet. Does that make sense to you?

Let's see how much of that cigarette tax goes to it's intended purpose. Clinton taxed the hell out of tobacco comapanies to help offset the increased costs of healthcare. None of it went to that. All this is was a silent method for Obama to increase taxes with out making it look like he increased taxes.

Banned off shore drilling? Doesn't that just increase our dependence on foriegn oil?

Healthcare reform? are you sure you want to call it reform? there was no reform. Big Pharma and the Insurance companies got just what they wanted. Pity the fool who can not afford to pay for healthcare today but will have to under plan Obama.

My point is Obama was elected to do certain things--like end the war in Iraq--and he is doing that. He is acting on his campaign promises.

 

[Foxfyre]

Iraq.

Zarqawi is not only dead, but unable to pull another 9/11.

so we should spend billions to invade countries, precipitate resistance and attract regional terrorists to destabilize our efforts?

please don't feel offended if i dont think this has 'worked'.

I don't feel offended at all. I just disagree. The threat of terrorism from Al Qaeda and other associated groups has been drastically diminished as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was messy (as all wars are), but I think it was the correct strategy.

I've had mixed emotions about Iraq and Afghanistan for some time now. I object to expending national treasure and most especially our young men and women on a fool's errand. I can support objectives in both, but unless we're going to be in it to win it and have the will to do what is necessary and most expedient to do that, the price is too high.

At the same time, I know the people of Iraq have been given an opportunity to implement their unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which they did not have under the brutal Saddam Hussein regime. And I agree that terrorist organizations of Al Qaida/Taliban, if not broken, have been severely wounded in Afghanistan.

So it distresses me when the President's 'priorities' include telegraphing to the enemy a timeline that is far more useful to the enemy than it is to anybody else. I was listening to a high ranking retiring Marine Officer this morning saying that is bad strategy. Having spent most of the last seven years in Afghanistan, he is certain the Taliban is just mostly biding their time as they have a time certain that the NATO troops will be leaving. The one thing they have going for them is patience and a willingness to wait until defenses are down and then strike.

 

[Spoonman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sky Dancer
The President is ending the war in Iraq. He's set the Israeli Palestinian peace talks as a priority. He's been responsive to the oil spill, he addressed health care reform, he's on the economy. He's addressed DADT.

I'd say he's working hard with very little bipartisan support. He's completely on target with his campaign promises.


•Passing the "largest" economic stimulus bill in American history.
•Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing "enhanced interrogation techniques."
•Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.
•Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan, and setting a timetable for a drawdown of our troops.
•Signing laws to expand children's health insurance (financed by a 61-cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax the adviser did not tout).
•Banned offshore drilling until parameters for deep well safety procedures are clarified.
•Put a hold on Artic oil exploratory digging until environmental impacts are clear.
•Passed health care reform.
•signed a hate crime bill .

Sky, be realistic and keep this all in perspective.

Ending the ar in Iraq? He is pretty much on Bush's time table. What has he doen differently? Obama has a million things set as a priority, but he accomplishes none. it's a joke. Every president has set israel palestine peace talks as an objective. none have changed a thing. neither will Obama

It took him a month to get on the oil spill, and look how long it lasted. Just as long as BP said it would from the start. He got nothing done any quicker.

The economy sucks and is getting worse.

OK the stimulus bill was a pork laden fiasco. Put us deeper in debt and has done nothing to help the economy. The rich got richer and gave it a temporary bump. unemployment is still rising, foreclosures are up. he hasn't created new jobs or brought back manufacturing. Now what that the stimulus money is running out? He didn't even rebuild the infrastructure like he promised.

Gitmo is still open, we still use the same techniques, just elsewhere

Bush set the timetable. Obama is just attempting to follow it. Of course things are getting worse in Iraq in the process.

Troops aren't the answer in Afghanistan. The more troops he pumps in the worse things are getting. He even had to can his top military man because he kept telling Obama he was wrong. He's set a timetable for withdraw and hasn't even solved the problem yet. Does that make sense to you?

Let's see how much of that cigarette tax goes to it's intended purpose. Clinton taxed the hell out of tobacco comapanies to help offset the increased costs of healthcare. None of it went to that. All this is was a silent method for Obama to increase taxes with out making it look like he increased taxes.

Banned off shore drilling? Doesn't that just increase our dependence on foriegn oil?

Healthcare reform? are you sure you want to call it reform? there was no reform. Big Pharma and the Insurance companies got just what they wanted. Pity the fool who can not afford to pay for healthcare today but will have to under plan Obama.

My point is Obama was elected to do certain things--like end the war in Iraq--and he is doing that. He is acting on his campaign promises.

No the point is he did nothing different from what Bush had already laid out and what McCain said he was going to do. Obama said they were wron, they weren't doing it quick enough. Yet he is on the timetable they laid out. But, since Obama took office the roadside attacks have increased, attacks on Iraqi security have increased. The situation has gotten worse because Obama has made it clear he has turned his back on that situation. Al Qaida knows Obama is done.

 

[jillian]

Let's imagine that the GOP sweeps the House races this autumn. Do you suppose their "top priority" will be job creation, or subpoena power?

Job creation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Let's imagine that the GOP sweeps the House races this autumn. Do you suppose their "top priority" will be job creation, or subpoena power?

Job creation.

Nice debating skills,

Would you care to explain why you find my choice funny?

 

[jillian]

Job creation.

Nice debating skills,

Would you care to explain why you find my choice funny?

i didn't think it required 'debate'. darryl issa is already talking about his 'investigations'. and why would the repubs focus on job creation now when they concentrated on corporate welfare and tax breaks for the top 1% for eight years? do you really think anything changes? if you listened to bohner yesterday, it sure won't.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Nice debating skills,

Would you care to explain why you find my choice funny?

i didn't think it required 'debate'. darryl issa is already talking about his 'investigations'. and why would the repubs focus on job creation now when they concentrated on corporate welfare and tax breaks for the top 1% for eight years? do you really think anything changes? if you listened to bohner yesterday, it sure won't.

I don't give a rat's ass what Issa says or does he doesn't represent the Republican party as a whole. John Boehner said back in April that repealing the healthcare legislation passed in Congress last month and signed into law by President Barack Obama would be the GOP's top priority if it wins back control of Congress this fall. Earlier this month Rep. Mike Pence told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that the American public had two basic concerns, job creation and then deficit reduction -- and jobs were the no. 1 priority.

It quite possible these guy can chew gum and walk at the same time, unlike Obama.

 

[antagon]

so we should spend billions to invade countries, precipitate resistance and attract regional terrorists to destabilize our efforts?

please don't feel offended if i dont think this has 'worked'.

I don't feel offended at all. I just disagree. The threat of terrorism from Al Qaeda and other associated groups has been drastically diminished as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was messy (as all wars are), but I think it was the correct strategy.

I've had mixed emotions about Iraq and Afghanistan for some time now. I object to expending national treasure and most especially our young men and women on a fool's errand. I can support objectives in both, but unless we're going to be in it to win it and have the will to do what is necessary and most expedient to do that, the price is too high.

At the same time, I know the people of Iraq have been given an opportunity to implement their unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which they did not have under the brutal Saddam Hussein regime. And I agree that terrorist organizations of Al Qaida/Taliban, if not broken, have been severely wounded in Afghanistan.

So it distresses me when the President's 'priorities' include telegraphing to the enemy a timeline that is far more useful to the enemy than it is to anybody else. I was listening to a high ranking retiring Marine Officer this morning saying that is bad strategy. Having spent most of the last seven years in Afghanistan, he is certain the Taliban is just mostly biding their time as they have a time certain that the NATO troops will be leaving. The one thing they have going for them is patience and a willingness to wait until defenses are down and then strike.

i could speak my opinion more plainly and with less naivete: iraq was pointless bullshit, afghanistan entered this realm when we turned on the taliban instead of the al qaeda mission that the war started with. the campaigns have cost lives, stability and money all across the world, but in particular in the US and in the theaters themselves.

the only goal set in these conflicts have been these withdrawal dates. along with our allies, i applaud the sensibility in their declaration. i wish that the president resolved to leave afghanistan last year like ol' biden said, instead of this useless surge bullshit.

 

[asterism]

while i think afghanistan impacted al qaeda, i think our work in iraq destabilized one of the most stable, secular countries in the region. i think this was the intent, but i dont think that intent serves a counter-terror objective at all. quite the opposite.

That's a valid perspective, I just think it's wrong. We'll never really know now since Al Qaeda lost. Saddam lost and the system he was using to collude with France and Russia to undermine the UN Security Council ended. I disagree that Saddam's Iraq was one of the most stable countries of the region (secular or not) and I question any of the media reports stating otherwise since Saddam controlled the press (CNN's Eason Jordan admit's his role).

 

[Foxfyre]

More than 430,000 new jobless claims this past week and some are rejoicing because they predicted 490,000. This is the strangest 'recovery' I've ever observed where every passing week sees fewer Americans working.

And everywhere I look, it is the fact that the Administration's opaque and uncertain policies re tax increases, health reform regulation, cap and trade, and banking reform will almost ensure that a great deal of American capital will not be returned to the economy until those issues are resolved. There is no indication that any of them are being given any priority to provide any assurance to anybody.

The word out now, however, is that lower income people have been disadvantaged most in the credit card 'reform'. The banks are already significantly raising interest rates to compensate for lost income in fees and penalities they are no longer allowed to charge. And they are now denying credit cards to higher risk customers which drives them to payday loan companies that take much higher fees and charge much higher interest than the credit card companies ever did.

Another illustration of intended good acts producing unintended negative consequences.

 

[antagon]

while i think afghanistan impacted al qaeda, i think our work in iraq destabilized one of the most stable, secular countries in the region. i think this was the intent, but i dont think that intent serves a counter-terror objective at all. quite the opposite.

That's a valid perspective, I just think it's wrong. We'll never really know now since Al Qaeda lost. Saddam lost and the system he was using to collude with France and Russia to undermine the UN Security Council ended. I disagree that Saddam's Iraq was one of the most stable countries of the region (secular or not) and I question any of the media reports stating otherwise since Saddam controlled the press (CNN's Eason Jordan admit's his role).

its not a matter of the press, it is about the fact israel and iraq were the only secular nations in the region, and that there weren't weekly bombings in iraq or an al qaeda presence there, and now there is. my point is that i believe that creating this chaos was our objective there, and in terms of winning and losing, we have achieved that now at ours, our allies and the region's expense.

it is the bs about anti-terror that i dont buy, and while al qaeda is not a regional paramilitary force anymore, they remain an international terrorist force, among many others. this has been spurred on by our involvement and our role of a destabilizer/disruptor, rather than the nation building that some on here are so convinced has happened. people have testified to the net result of our media's reporting right here on this thread, and i dont see it as having any different effect than saddam's propaganda.

 

[Foxfyre]

its not a matter of the press, it is about the fact israel and iraq were the only secular nations in the region, and that there weren't weekly bombings in iraq or an al qaeda presence there, and now there is. my point is that i believe that creating this chaos was our objective there, and in terms of winning and losing, we have achieved that now at ours, our allies and the region's expense.

it is the bs about anti-terror that i dont buy, and while al qaeda is not a regional paramilitary force anymore, they remain an international terrorist force, among many others. this has been spurred on by our involvement and our role of a destabilizer/disruptor, rather than the nation building that some on here are so convinced has happened. people have testified to the net result of our media's reporting right here on this thread, and i dont see it as having any different effect than saddam's propaganda.

Yes there are bombings and other atrocities in Iraq committed by people who are determined that Iraq will not be a free and prosperous nation in which the people are allowed to determine their own destiny.

But what was once a reality in Iraq is no longer a reality:

"Saddam had a sadistic streak a mile wide. He favored firing squads, hangings, poison, bombs, and mafia-style assassinations. His vistims were beaten, whipped, burned, frozen, shocked, and sodomized. Finers, arms, and legs were chopped off by specially designed machines. Genitals were zapped with electric wires. Toenails, fingernails, teeth, and facial hair were ripped out with pliers. Prisones were dipped into vats of acid or boiling water. Some were thown off the roofs of tall buildings. Men were made to watch as their wives and daughters were raped and then killed. Women were forced to listen to the wails of their sadistically starved babies. Ordinary Iraqis disappeared in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. Or their bodies simply showed up on the side of some lonely desert road. . . ." (Chapter 2, Page 33 Misunderestimated by Bill Sammons.

Hundreds of thousands of people in mass graves have been discovered since the invasion of Iraq. Some Iraqis estimate the number of the murdered to be a million or more.

In the 12 years of U.N. Sanctions as Saddam thwarted the inspectors at every turn, it is estimated that 50,000 Iraqis, mostly children, died of malnutrition and lack of medical care as Saddam withheld the Food for Oil provision that was supposed to help them. He instead used that money for his own lavish lifestyle and keep his allies in high cotton plus bribe cronies here and there around the world.

Iraq a stable nation? It did not have a stable leadership. And I'm guessing that the large majority of Iraqi people given a choice between living under Saddam Hussein or having the freedom and ability to fight those who would deny them their freedom, I don't think many would vote to get Saddam back.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It was not our call to go into Iraq, destroy it's existing political and social structure, occupy their land and impose a new leadership. That should have been up to the Iraqi people.

 

[DiamondDave]

It was not our call to go into Iraq, destroy it's existing structure and impose a new leadership. That should have been up to the Iraqi people.

Violations of a cease fire agreements have consequences...

 

[Foxfyre]

It was not our call to go into Iraq, destroy it's existing structure and impose a new leadership. That should have been up to the Iraqi people.

Yeah and it should have been up to the Russian people murdered by the tens of millions under Lenin and Stalin even though any dissent was met with tanks destroying the villages leaving the people to starve or freeze to death.

And it shoud have been up the Chinese people murdered by many more tens of millions if they dared protest anything done by Mao Ze-Dong.

And it should have been up the Jews to deal with Adolf Hitler as millions were tortured, starved, experimented on, shot, gassed, and buried in mass graves.

We didn't go into Iraq for the express purpose of liberating the people. But once Saddam was removed from power, there was no way that people of conscience could leave those people defenseless and almost certain to be subjected to an even worse devil. I don't know if the Iraqi people have it in them to reach for the gift of freedom and self determination they are being offered. But I don't fault us for giving them the opportunity to have it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It was not our call to go into Iraq, destroy it's existing structure and impose a new leadership. That should have been up to the Iraqi people.

Yeah and it should have been up to the Russian people murdered by the tens of millions under Lenin and Stalin even though any dissent was met with tanks destroying the villages leaving the people to starve or freeze to death.

And it shoud have been up the Chinese people murdered by many more tens of millions if they dared protest anything done by Mao Ze-Dong.

And it should have been up the Jews to deal with Adolf Hitler as millions were tortured, starved, experimented on, shot, gassed, and buried in mass graves.

We didn't go into Iraq for the express purpose of liberating the people. But once Saddam was removed from power, there was no way that people of conscience could leave those people defenseless and almost certain to be subjected to an even worse devil. I don't know if the Iraqi people have it in them to reach for the gift of freedom and self determination they are being offered. But I don't fault us for giving them the opportunity to have it.

We should not be in the job of nation making. We're terrible at it.

We helped Saddam come to power because it suited our needs with Iran to have Iran and Iraq at war. We created the Saddam monster and then we went in and wreaked havoc on the Iraqi people after messing up.