Tell His Aussie Arse Obama

[Scalliwag]

The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."

I agree, the dems have no idea of victory, but what would constitute a "win"? We hear all the republicasaurus talk about winning, yet no one has said just what goal we are trying to achieve. After all, Baghdad will never be Seattle, if our goal is to turn it into a poster child for democracy, we have already lost. In all reality a military victory is unattainable in Iraq, I believe they realize such, and the lack of a realistic goal is their work-around for the reality of the situation. I can easily see how other national leaders have had enough of the snake oil politics, and want out. It's getting to be a bit like a daunder with that battery-bunny on TV, it just keeps going, and getting nowhere.

Just to top it all off, I believe it has become a case of when, not if the USA or Israel starts dropping iron on Iran.

I don't think even the republicans think there is a true way to win this. But there is no way in hell they are going to stop it on their watch because that would be conceding they were idiots. They want the pullout to happen under a democrat so they have plausable deniability and say that the dems lost it.
Stopping the insurgency is like stopping crime. Find me a politician that says he can stop crime in Detroit without killing all the citizens and I will show you a fool.

Are republicans either A: stupid enough to believe insurgency is a tangible war with a true "win" or B: Evil enough to just keep letting our guys get killed and blown up so they can try and save face?
With the problems with the VA care these guys are getting and now there are cases where soldiers have been told they have to return bonus enlistment money after getting injured and permanently diabled because they got blown up too quickly is flippin nuts.
Repubs don't talk about that stuff in their debates. They pretend it isn't happening. I don't hear them talking about getting more money to help vets. Bush and the gang just say that the dems are not giving them enough money for "body armor" and bullets when they talk about the budget.

This is the same bunch of dumbass repubs that said democrats were lying when they said the war was going to cost a lot more than the repubs said. Yet again, the repubs were either lying or stupid and there are only two kinds

[lemmiwinks]

The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."

I agree, the dems have no idea of victory, but what would constitute a "win"? We hear all the republicasaurus talk about winning, yet no one has said just what goal we are trying to achieve. After all, Baghdad will never be Seattle, if our goal is to turn it into a poster child for democracy, we have already lost. In all reality a military victory is unattainable in Iraq, I believe they realize such, and the lack of a realistic goal is their work-around for the reality of the situation. I can easily see how other national leaders have had enough of the snake oil politics, and want out. It's getting to be a bit like a daunder with that battery-bunny on TV, it just keeps going, and getting nowhere.

Just to top it all off, I believe it has become a case of when, not if the USA or Israel starts dropping iron on Iran.

I don't think even the republicans think there is a true way to win this. But there is no way in hell they are going to stop it on their watch because that would be conceding they were idiots. They want the pullout to happen under a democrat so they have plausable deniability and say that the dems lost it.
Stopping the insurgency is like stopping crime. Find me a politician that says he can stop crime in Detroit without killing all the citizens and I will show you a fool.

Are republicans either A: stupid enough to believe insurgency is a tangible war with a true "win" or B: Evil enough to just keep letting our guys get killed and blown up so they can try and save face?
With the problems with the VA care these guys are getting and now there are cases where soldiers have been told they have to return bonus enlistment money after getting injured and permanently diabled because they got blown up too quickly is flippin nuts.
Repubs don't talk about that stuff in their debates. They pretend it isn't happening. I don't hear them talking about getting more money to help vets. Bush and the gang just say that the dems are not giving them enough money for "body armor" and bullets when they talk about the budget.

This is the same bunch of dumbass repubs that said democrats were lying when they said the war was going to cost a lot more than the repubs said. Yet again, the repubs were either lying or stupid and there are only two kinds

I'm a democrat, but I wouldn't say all republicans are bad. coughRonPaulcough

Seriously though, I would probably support the democratic candidate more than him because I generally agree with the democratic views more often, but I would take him over any other republican if for no reason other than because he'll bring back the constitution.

[Scalliwag]

Find me a repub politician that will say Bush is a complete idiot and I will admit that is not a bad repub. Chuck Hagel has came closer than anyone.
To me it is not just about the war. It is pretty much everything Bush has done and not done that makes it very amazing to me that they refuse to state the obvious.
They got all wrapped up in him when he had artificially inflated popularity and now it is hard to step back. So now the party as a whole is taking incredible beating.
Now that fool Huckabee is blaming Bill Clinton to try and deflect his guilt on recommending parole for the guy that raped a distance cousin of Clinton's? He even wrote the guy a letter in prison that he supported his parole.
The guy goes and kills again and now Huck tries to use the Clinton card.
Republicans complained at the time that the guy got a stiffer sentence because the victim was related to Clinton. Huckabee being a Clinton hater felt the same way.
So repubs have no problem blaming Clinton for everything and all their problems. Their real problem is GW

[joseph*]

Well, not to bring up anything to old, but I took a look at the troop levels and populations posted for bopth the USA and Australia. Obviously you can't compare the raw numbers of troops there since the USA has a larger population, so I calculated the percentage of the populations represented in Iraq, which seems like a more fair assessment.

Australia: (800 troops/ 20,000,000)*100=0.004% of the population
USA: (130,000 troops/298,400,000) * 100= 0.044% of the population

That means, as a percentage of population the USA has 11 times more soldiers in Iraq. This means to have the same proportian of their population in Iraq Australia would need to have 8713 troops there.

Not that I think they should do this, I don't think the solution to this mess is a millitary one. Killing people is not the only solution to a problem, and in fact is rarely the correct course of action.

[Scalliwag]

I really don't fault the so-called "coalition". To me that has always been GW's bullshit propaganda here. Most people only heard how many countries were in the coalition and not the raw numbers. I don't blame any of the countries that had heavy economic ties with the U.S. to at least "say" they supported the U.S.
GW made it clear that any country that did not support his dumbass could expect the cold shoulder from our government.
But when Howard started talking crap about Obama I thought he should have been called to task on it. But he suffered a humiliating defeat by his own countrymen and that's the great thing about democracies. Just because there is a fool running the country does not mean the majority of the people support them.

More people are against Bush than support him. The world knows this and that is a good thing. They all know his days are numbered and that even his party has fallen from grace here. To me that "almost" makes it worth it but in reality I wished people would not have had to learn this lesson so damned hard.

[quickbyname]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/oba...ment/index.html

So the Prime Minister of Australia talks a lot of talk about his support for GW and the Iraq mess (this is hardly a war) and decides to mouth off about how Al Qaeda should want Obama and the democrats to win in 08.
The problem with the remark is that there is barely over 1000 Aussie soldiers in Iraq right now. We have over 120 times that.
So Obama called the PM out on it and told him to put up or shut up basically. If he does feel so strongly about Iraq show it by sending in more Aussie troops. Problem for the PM is that he is about as popular as GW and he is up for re-election.
Most likely as with all of GW's other comrades he is all talk. The so-called "coalition of the willing" has always consisted of about 9 American soldiers to 1 from anywhere else. If Al Qaeda ever had a friend it was ball-less loudmouths like this PM that only sent a fraction of what we sent there.

I eagerly await the PM's response to Obama and him putting his soldiers where his mouth is. Odds are damn good his remarks did not help him at hom either.
At least we are not the only country with an idiot at the helm folks

The problem is the 'now' Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd is planning a total withdraw of the Australian Armed forces from Iraq, atleast John Howard (sounds like he isnt your favourite person scalli) had big enough balls to stand up to the hippies here and send troops to fight next to our American friends what ever the "mess". May I also say yes America did commit many more troops than us Aussies, but we sent Quality not Quantity, our SAS, one of the best in the world.

[Scalliwag]

Now that is has been apparent for a very long time that GW and his cronies cherry-picked yhe reasons to start the war everybody else should pull out. If a friend drags me into a fight on false pretences me and the "friend" are going to have problems. The last thing they better do is try and keep bulldhitting me.

It does not take "big balls" as you say to send somebody else to fight your fight, just a big mouth. That is the one thing Howard and GW have in common.
Bush, Cheney, Dan Quayle, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and a lot of other republican big mouths here avoided Vietnam.
They have proven themselves to be cowards with no balls at all when it was their asses on the line. Standing down hippies was easier than standing down Bush. Howard never even grew the balls to forcefully question him even when it was clear everybody was duped. Is that "big balls". More like a waterboy.