Funny you should say that since Ben Stein basically said the exact same thing today. To paraphrase:
"Obama is planning on giving his nomination speech in a sports stadium. THAT SOUNDS LIKE DER FUHRER."

needs a black people tag

such anger

like climbing rope in gym class kinda feeling?

Obama makes me feel fuzzy, so I'm voting for him.

Wait, why aren't you in Iraq again? Why aren't you fighting for what you believe in? Oh that's right, you don't have an answer, because you are a hypocrite, a coward, and a worthless piece of shit.

HEY CONSERVATIVES DON'T NEED TO FIGHT IN THE WAR BECAUSE THEY ARE FIGHTING HERE AT HOME TO HELP SUPPORT THE COUNTRY THAT SUPPLIES THE SOLDIERS AND FUNDS THE WAR EFFORT, DESPITE WANTING TO NOT PAY FOR IT OR WANTING TO FUND FOR THE CARE OF OUR SOLDIERS AND PRETTY MUCH IGNORING THEM WHEN THEY'RE NOT AT WAR.

I HAVE A BUMPER STICKER AND EVERYTHING.

There's no need for me to go to war. The surge worked, and now we can focus on bringing our boys home.

btw

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/07/12/2008-07-12 _iraq_attacks_us_casualties_at_4year_low.html

God bless our troops for the heroic job they've done!

The surge didn't completely work.
Do you even read what the commanders are saying?
Oh whatever.
You're a moron. Why am I talking to you?

I hate to side with Billy Buttsex, but vague counterpoints like the "surge didn't completely work" don't exactly suggest a sophisticated command of current events in Iraq.

That said, Billy - what do you say to reports, such as those from the GAO, which raise serious objections to the statistics the Pentagon is using the defend the surge, such as their practice of qualifying shots to the back of the head qualify as "secrarian violence", and shots to the front of the head as criminal? Or Stephen Simon's FA analysis which concludes that "the surge is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state and may even have made such an outcome less likely...recent short-term gains have thus come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq"? These reports seem to indicate no divergence from the administration's habit of sacrificing the long-term welfare in Iraq for the sake of short-term political expedience.

No, the surge did not completely work, and is not in itself responsible for the temporary reduction in civilian and military casualties, but it does have a role, particularly in Baghdad. More troops helped out, of course they did. I've thought they were necessary, especially when I was for the war in Iraq several years ago (I knew going in that the ideals of freedom that the Bush administration posited were merely whitewash for a much less benevolent agenda), but it's too little too late.

The three "benchmarks" issued by the Democrats (and many terrified Republicans) in 2007 that have not been satisfied are the most important ones there are. Mainly, the disarming of militias and the division of oil profits among all the many sects and ethnicities. The other benchmarks are so untenable at the moment that ascribing their status as "satisfactory" (in each circumstance) while symbolically pulling back six brigades of surge troops is just wrong. The superficial appearance of success in Iraq has more to do with what's going on outside and beneath the troop surge. 30,000 troops did not solve our problems in the short term, but can we really tell our military families that brokering deals with Saddam Hussein's supporters, the Mahdi Army and the Salafists, conveniently near election season, are the prime motivators what's stopping them from attacking us? No, of course not. It's far more convenient for people like Billy Buttsex to believe that 30,000 new recruits were able to quell a civil war in a year. Anything outside of this rigid belief system feels like treason to them.

Yes, it is necessary to convene, consort and fund fascist groups in Iraq in order to have peace. That is something that nobody wants to openly discuss, but it is something that is openly known to anybody that bothers reading Stars and Stripes, the Economist, Foreign Affairs... Anything outside of the Fox News isolation tank.

Futurebot, my simplistic reply was a reply to a simpleton. This effort was wasted on him but perhaps not on you.

You're both intelligent, but completely wrong. Wank all you like about it, but the purpose of the surge was to make Maliki tell us that things are okay and it's time to go. Mission accomplished, and if it's not (as Maliki has mentioned earlier), our exit is only predicated upon regional stability.

That would appear to be the mission, unfortunately the stability you perceive in Iraq is a borrowed one. Malaki wants us to leave, I'm so happy that the channels you've been getting your news from are finally admitting that.

Perhaps you're right! Perhaps four hundred years of oppression, mixed with the meddling of oil rich neighbor states, can be solved with a one year surge! It certainly would be the first time in history that it ever happened.

"And if it's not..." And if it's not, what? You are ignoring everything that is actually happening, in essence, cutting and running from a new group of fascists and gangsters. It's like you are walking through this war looking through an empty toilet roll.

The Bush doctrine is so beyond damaged, so without credibility right now, that anybody following in his footsteps is doomed to fail.
Remember when you were basking in the glow of a free Iraq? I perceive the same ludicrous blindness and fear (fear of being wrong, fear of losing) from the dwindling Republicans that are still proud to say they support the Iraq War. If you are unwilling to pay any attention to the realities of this war, then somebody else will. It won't be your friends, it won't be John McCain (who has no intention of ever pulling out until oil is pumping into American hands at full capacity).

Dude, at this point I don't really care if Iraq is free or not. I'm glad that it's looking more stable. I actually don't believe any countries in the Middle East are currently capable of democracy (for a million politically incorrect reasons I'll leave you to assume), and I just want things to stop being so messy so we can clean up Afghanistan.

Although I'm not quite the Iraq hawk I think you believe I am, I do believe in American dominance, mostly because I read about what China and Russia do when THEY dominate, and it's not anywhere near as safe for those dominated or for us. America uber alles, my friend, now and forever. Either that or the Bear or the Dragon, and I'm not prepared to give them the chance to take the world over.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1036105/How- Chinas-taking-Africa-West-VERY-worried.html

At least you're willing to admit that.
Oddly enough, what you have just said diverges from McCain's plan completely. That's actually from the Obama playbook, minus the not caring about the stability of Iraq thing.

I agree that America can be the best option for world security and peace, where we differ is in our methods and motivations. You don't have to link me to an article about Chinese meddling in Sudan. Part of the reason why we all think we fucked up with Iraq is because we lost our traction in serious trouble spots such as Sudan, Chechnya, Venezuela, Nigeria, North Korea and Burma, just to name a few.

Many security specialists have been saying that the greatest risks to our security, and to world peace, are the AIDS crisis in Africa, displacement from global warming, and control of Russian and Chinese arms. In that order. The trillion dollars we have spent managing a foreign revolution could have best been used to address those fundamental issues of our lifetime, instead of lining the pockets of a few corporate goons who derailed and co-opted the great Straussian Social Experiment (Iraq) as soon as it seemed to go awry.

AIDS Threat
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1475 649

Global Warming declared security threat
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security /
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759 _1731383_1731632,00.html

Time link doesn't work, here's a comprehensive list of sources:

http://securityandclimate.cna.org/news/

"I actually don't believe any countries in the Middle East are currently capable of democracy (for a million politically incorrect reasons I'll leave you to assume)"

FUCK YOU. This is not some kind of pragmatic insight you've managed despite some kind of irrational feel-good fascism that's forcing you to believe otherwise - this is you being a fucking racist bigot, concluding that the brown Muslims are incapable of the enlightened rationality that Billy Buttsex achieves so easily. It is exactly that mentality that is responsible for America's continued (and absolutely not "conservative") foreign adventures, the racist and completely unsubstantiated conviction that people who aren't white absolutely need US troops guarding the polls if they're going to have free and fair elections.

The fact, Billy Buttsex, is that you are simply the modern incarnation of the classic racist, a irrational and reactionary coward hiding your bigotry behind a pseudo-rebellion against political correctness. You support this war for the worst possible reasons and will be remembered by history as, at best, a defect of the human conscience that we finally, someone, got rid of.

And by "someone" I mean "somehow". I am drunk and still a thousand times more articulate than you. Live with the shame of being a racist moron.

I like how Baleen and I are now having an intelligent conversation (which I am actively considering and enjoying), and you're the one yelling obscenities and crying "RACISM!"

Futurebot, it's true: Iraqis are backward and less intelligent. Read a national IQ estimate. Look at their culture. Quit pretending like we're all the same, because we're not.

Baleen, I've run out of time, but I will personally take the time to read the articles you've sent.

Billy, I am trying to have a perfectly legitimate discussion, in absolute compliance with the internationally recognized protocols of internet civility and strict adherence to Cartesian logic and the scientific method, about whether or not you are a virulent racist. I know this must be an emotional subject for you, but try to discipline yourself and keep the allegations of "yelling" to a minimum.

FACT: There are no national IQ estimates which demonstrate that Iraqis can't run their own country. None.

FACT: By your (fucking stupid) rationale and (racist) standards of evidence, China, Singapore and France have both the right and the moral obligation to sack DC repeal the right to vote from every American citizen.

FACT: Your posture of being a hard-nosed realist who deals in Logic And Science rather than petty emotion and sentimentality towards brown people is a joke. You're just the classic racist, justifying himself with bell curves and measuring the shapes of people's skulls.

Fun fact: I am a half-brown person.

Fact #2: I never said we should invade Iraq to support democracy.

Fact #3: I said their culture was to blame for their backwardness as well. If you don't think culture has anything to do with outcome, you've gotta take a look around you. We're lucky to have a combination of high IQ's and a superior culture, and I think we take that for granted and expect others to do well without the same combination. This is kinda unfair to ourselves and the world.

Fact #4: I'm not calling you names or anything, and I think it's funny that I--the supposed bigot in the room-- am willing to chat these things out, but you're just willing to give me the title RACIST and disregard everything I have to say, which is incredibly typical of the left. Isn't the definition of a bigot someone who's utterly intolerant of any opposing viewpoint? If your viewpoint is that Iraqis are ready for democracy and I say they're not, and then you just start calling me a racist and an idiot, who's the bigot here?

Come on... even Baleen and I (the most FEARSOME ARCH NEMESES OF ALL TIME) can talk this out, and you're throwing a hissy fit.

One among many points that you're missing: there is nothing intrinsically uncivil, irrational or inaccurate about describing someone as a racist. It is an entirely appropriate and useful concept to use when, for example, we want to talk about members of the KKK and Neo-Nazis; the question is not whether I am allowed to call Billy Buttsex a racist, but whether I am accurate in doing so.

If you want to have some kind of PC conversation where we have to avoid topics that hurt your feelings, you're in the wrong place; and if you were truly "willing to chat these things out" you wouldn't keep insisting that we aren't allowed to propose and draw conclusions about the possibility that Billy Buttsex is a racist. This is a quite typical move of the right, claiming a committment to open discussion while silencing dissent. Bush claiming that "we believe in free speech in America" while dragging away the protesters.

Anyway, I'm curious: is this claim that you're "a half-brown person" supposed to prove that you aren't a racist, self-hating half-brown person?

My points to be made were that once a lefty utters the word "racist," no conversation can be made about any point other than how much so and so is a racist.

Point proven!

See, even if your theory were true, it would only hold for this specific conversation, not "lefties" in general. Though this is a good example of your habit of extrapolating negative traits onto entire demographics of people, be they LIEberals or Iraqis.

That said, again, I don't get what's wrong with wanting to talk about you being a virulent racist. You accuse me of refusing to change the conversation, but I don't really get how that's a bad thing. Your racism is fascinating to me, like an elephant in the room that suddenly started vomiting on everything.

Also, why in god's name are you not on POE-NEWS? It's a much more appropriate place for these kinds of conversation, and so many people want you there.

Oh poetv. Somehow it removed an entire page of my comments from my comment history, so I forgot this was going on.

Basically, what was said was that people like me went to fight in Iraq so people like you could say it was a good thing you didn't have to.

So, fuck you and Obama is awesome.

No, we can't stop playing cops of the world. Having all this shit means we have to be the cops of the world. If you don't want to be one of the cops of the world, move to Costa Rica.

Yeah, if one thing sounds like *change* for US foreign policy, it's the novel "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT MOVE TO FRANCE" rationale.

That's a misinterpretation. With great power comes great responsibility. We DO have to stop genocide. We DO have to stop fascism.

The question isn't whether or not one should oppose genocide or fascism - that level of philosophical abstraction is entirely useless in the domain of foreign policy, where any war can (and every war is) sold in the name of humanitarianism.

One question is whether, as Obama claims, "American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security" of Europe. The answer, of course, is that they clearly do not - certainly not that of Germany, nor any of the countries I named - none of which face any credible military threat (much less a threat of such magnitude that they need US intervention).

The more interesting question is why he offers this false statement as a counterpoint to "the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world".

Futurebot, regardless of whether or not you feel PNAC is the blueprint of our military, the Iraq and Afghanistani wars are part of a sea change in military focus. The European forces are eventually going to be divided over Afghanistan and Iraq (which we are never going to leave). It started with the closing of Subic Bay in the 90's, the largest naval front our nation has ever assembled.

I'm particularly interested in how you choose to address the problem of ethnic cleansing. I would like you to go to Bosnia and tell those people that they were merely taking part in a massive philosophical abstraction.

Only if you go to Bosnia and tell the survivors, "I'm going to turn your horrific past into a sweeping talking point that justifies any and all military adventures I can ever dream up."

I was (quite obviously) observing that war apologists often talk about the world at a level of misleading abstraction - not somehow claiming that the world itself is an abstraction.

Thank you for demonstrating my point so vividly. It took an incredibly bizarre misinterpretation for you to paint my minimal criticism of Obama's statement as some unconscionable objection to any and all humanitarian action, but when one speaks abstractly enough anything's possible.

OH YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE
Read more about FISA and its history before following all the kneejerk hype about it.

Do actually know anything about the FISA issue or did you just get your opinions from blogs?

Directed towards Twitch.
Damn not-indenting comment system

typical attack from liberals: YOU'RE AN IDIOT. NO FACTS FROM US, BTW. YOU READ BLOGS.

typical conservative: I'm a pussy. I don't have to fight! we can take our boys home! only we can't because IF WE PAID ATTENTION TO OUR OWN FUCKING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HE SAYS THEY ARE GOING TO BE THERE TILL 2013


TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN YOU STUPID, HALF LITERATE JACKASS

I like to see the mental gymnastics you people go through.