What a surprise, Obama says its all Bush's fault...I believe I called that in the other thread.

Kudos to Obama for putting up front the total cost of these wars and in particular, the cost of the new surge. I don't agree at all with his decision, but unlike the last guy, he made it painfully clear that we are talking real money here...as in 40 billion dollars.

As for the Bush bashing......good for him. America needs to be reminded over and over again...that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...a concept that still escapes many, many people.

Footwedge wrote: Kudos to Obama for putting up front the total cost of these wars and in particular, the cost of the new surge. I don't agree at all with his decision, but unlike the last guy, he made it painfully clear that we are talking real money here...as in 40 billion dollars.

As for the Bush bashing......good for him. America needs to be reminded over and over again...that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...a concept that still escapes many, many people.

LOL

SQ_Crazies wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Kudos to Obama for putting up front the total cost of these wars and in particular, the cost of the new surge. I don't agree at all with his decision, but unlike the last guy, he made it painfully clear that we are talking real money here...as in 40 billion dollars.

As for the Bush bashing......good for him. America needs to be reminded over and over again...that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...a concept that still escapes many, many people.

LOL

No really, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Really they didn't. Back in 04, when Bush was re-elected, about 60% still believed Saddam was involved with 9-11.

Still ticked off about the Yankee thread I see. LOL.

Usually, when you start talking about going to or escalating a war, you want to foster some sort of unity.
I didn't get that.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I like how people are bashing the start of the speech rather than the actual content and policies.

Oh you mean like my criticizing him for telling the enemy when we plan to leave, regardless of whether we're successful?

No, not ticked about the Yankee thread at all--you think I haven't heard it all before. And why would I be ticked? 27 rings baby, don't care if you like it or not--don't hate the player hate the game. It's just like this, I could present an argument but you won't listen to any of it. Same thing goes for the Yankee thread. I'm not going to argue about it with you, but the war is the war on terror and Iraq is most definitely connected to the same reason we're in Afghanistan. And basically, if it wasn't for liberal pussies we'd probably be out of there by now, or at least much closer. The way Obama is handling this is a joke. Don't believe me? Then believe my marine friend that was home for Thanksgiving that can't wait to go back to fight (he leaves for his 2nd tour December 16th) and is one of those people that isn't afraid to talk about it because it's what he lives for. He hates Obama and straight up told me that his superiors hold them back and have gotten soldiers killed because of it--and that goes straight up to the top. For whatever reason we decided to let public perception control war decisions and wanted to fight a PC war--which is a terrible plan for winning, use Vietnam as an example.

Footwedge wrote: Kudos to Obama for putting up front the total cost of these wars and in particular, the cost of the new surge. I don't agree at all with his decision, but unlike the last guy, he made it painfully clear that we are talking real money here...as in 40 billion dollars.

As for the Bush bashing......good for him. America needs to be reminded over and over again...that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...a concept that still escapes many, many people.

I don't believe for a minute that 40,000 troops will cost an extra 40 Billion. That's a totally bogus number.

SQ_Crazies wrote: No, not ticked about the Yankee thread at all--you think I haven't heard it all before. And why would I be ticked? 27 rings baby, don't care if you like it or not--don't hate the player hate the game. It's just like this, I could present an argument but you won't listen to any of it. Same thing goes for the Yankee thread. I'm not going to argue about it with you, but the war is the war on terror and Iraq is most definitely connected to the same reason we're in Afghanistan. And basically, if it wasn't for liberal pussies we'd probably be out of there by now, or at least much closer. The way Obama is handling this is a joke. Don't believe me? Then believe my marine friend that was home for Thanksgiving that can't wait to go back to fight (he leaves for his 2nd tour December 16th) and is one of those people that isn't afraid to talk about it because it's what he lives for. He hates Obama and straight up told me that his superiors hold them back and have gotten soldiers killed because of it--and that goes straight up to the top. For whatever reason we decided to let public perception control war decisions and wanted to fight a PC war--which is a terrible plan for winning, use Vietnam as an example.

+1

tk421 wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Kudos to Obama for putting up front the total cost of these wars and in particular, the cost of the new surge. I don't agree at all with his decision, but unlike the last guy, he made it painfully clear that we are talking real money here...as in 40 billion dollars.

As for the Bush bashing......good for him. America needs to be reminded over and over again...that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...a concept that still escapes many, many people.

I don't believe for a minute that 40,000 troops will cost an extra 40 Billion. That's a totally bogus number.

I think it's somewhat high as well. But when the White House says it will cost 40 billion, then who am I to argue? If they wanted to score political points in lying, they would understate the cost like the former administration did...not overstate it.

SQ_Crazies wrote: No, not ticked about the Yankee thread at all--you think I haven't heard it all before. And why would I be ticked? 27 rings baby, don't care if you like it or not--don't hate the player hate the game. It's just like this, I could present an argument but you won't listen to any of it. Same thing goes for the Yankee thread. I'm not going to argue about it with you, but the war is the war on terror and Iraq is most definitely connected to the same reason we're in Afghanistan. And basically, if it wasn't for liberal pussies we'd probably be out of there by now, or at least much closer. The way Obama is handling this is a joke. Don't believe me? Then believe my marine friend that was home for Thanksgiving that can't wait to go back to fight (he leaves for his 2nd tour December 16th) and is one of those people that isn't afraid to talk about it because it's what he lives for. He hates Obama and straight up told me that his superiors hold them back and have gotten soldiers killed because of it--and that goes straight up to the top. For whatever reason we decided to let public perception control war decisions and wanted to fight a PC war--which is a terrible plan for winning, use Vietnam as an example.

After 8 years you still think Iraq and Afghanistan are one of the same? Am I hearing you correctly? Not a very political person I take it. Neither war has any common denominator. That has been proven by the CIA, the FBI, and the State Departments official declassified documents.

For your friend's buddy..Godspeed to him. Little Wedge's best bud from high school enlisted because Obama was going to be elected...and as such, he wouldn't have to go fight in a humanitarian....nation building mission against a country that has no army, no navy, and absolutely no method of attacking our homeland....unless home land security butchers their job. If they do in fact butcher their job on the home front, then a surge of even 1 million American soldiers would have no effect at all in us getting hit again.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I like how people are bashing the start of the speech rather than the actual content and policies.

Oh you mean like my criticizing him for telling the enemy when we plan to leave, regardless of whether we're successful?

Yeah boy...shoulda elected Mccain and then implemented his "endless wars" package...of what 50 years?...100 years?

At a cost of 100 billion per annum, that's a lotta tax dough being forked over from the next 5 generation of Americans.

atleast he wouldnt have been lying to you.

Like I said, I'm not going to waste time arguing with you and you proved why in your response.

Footwedge wrote: Kudos to Obama for putting up front the total cost of these wars and in particular, the cost of the new surge. I don't agree at all with his decision, but unlike the last guy, he made it painfully clear that we are talking real money here...as in 40 billion dollars.

As for the Bush bashing......good for him. America needs to be reminded over and over again...that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...a concept that still escapes many, many people.

I love that he's making a big deal about $40 billion when it suits him, but when its a drop in a bucket compared to what he's spending on everything else its all "hush hush" about what he is spending.

SQ_Crazies wrote: No, not ticked about the Yankee thread at all--you think I haven't heard it all before. And why would I be ticked? 27 rings baby, don't care if you like it or not--don't hate the player hate the game. It's just like this, I could present an argument but you won't listen to any of it. Same thing goes for the Yankee thread. I'm not going to argue about it with you, but the war is the war on terror and Iraq is most definitely connected to the same reason we're in Afghanistan. And basically, if it wasn't for liberal pussies we'd probably be out of there by now, or at least much closer. The way Obama is handling this is a joke. Don't believe me? Then believe my marine friend that was home for Thanksgiving that can't wait to go back to fight (he leaves for his 2nd tour December 16th) and is one of those people that isn't afraid to talk about it because it's what he lives for. He hates Obama and straight up told me that his superiors hold them back and have gotten soldiers killed because of it--and that goes straight up to the top. For whatever reason we decided to let public perception control war decisions and wanted to fight a PC war--which is a terrible plan for winning, use Vietnam as an example.

I have many friends from high school in the military, most of whom have served or are serving in Afghanistan and many of them believe in and still support Obama. Even had the chance to talk to one on Skype last night after he heard Obama's speech, and he liked it.

We all know folks in the military, and there is absolutely no consensus among them as far their like/dislike of Obama, from what i have seen.

I understand what you're saying, but the "friend in the military" argument really doesn't work, which is why i gave my own personal example as well.

But, god bless your friend.

jmog wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Kudos to Obama for putting up front the total cost of these wars and in particular, the cost of the new surge. I don't agree at all with his decision, but unlike the last guy, he made it painfully clear that we are talking real money here...as in 40 billion dollars.

As for the Bush bashing......good for him. America needs to be reminded over and over again...that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...a concept that still escapes many, many people.

I love that he's making a big deal about $40 billion when it suits him, but when its a drop in a bucket compared to what he's spending on everything else its all "hush hush" about what he is spending.

How does his admission of spending 40 billion on this escalation "suit him"? What exactly do you mean?

The last guy in power fired his cost analysis guy for suggesting that the Iraq war was gonna cost close to 50 billion.

Secondly, how exactly was Obama "hush-hush" on stimulating his 700 billion? What media attempted to hush-hush this spending amount?

I'm sorry, I have no idea as to the points you are making here.

Glory Days wrote: atleast he wouldnt have been lying to you.

No the last guy in power lied...at least this guy tells the brutal truth. As much as I hate his desicion, it's refreshing to know that the cards are on the table...and if you count them, there will be 52 of them.

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote: atleast he wouldnt have been lying to you.

No the last guy in power lied...at least this guy tells the brutal truth. As much as I hate his desicion, it's refreshing to know that the cards are on the table...and if you count them, there will be 52 of them.

this

CenterBHSFan wrote:

You mean like this:

I am going to support his decision to send more troops and for the exit strategy. I wish we didn't have to send more troops. In fact, I wish that the troops were coming home. But he's made his decision and I respect it.That is not my issue with him

Yeah, missed that, but most of the posts were focused on the first part of the speech. But, in terms of context, he needed to explain how we got to where we are, and he had to explain the previous decisions. Now, he did spend equal amount of time on what he first did on office, including the 21,000 troops sent in Feb, and the speech in March.
Oh you mean like my criticizing him for telling the enemy when we plan to leave, regardless of whether we're successful?

Writerbuckeye wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I like how people are bashing the start of the speech rather than the actual content and policies.

Did you miss the next couple sentences on which he stated it will depend on the situation on the ground? Hear what you want to hear. Jesus, even SECDEF Gates is saying on the Hill right now that the "timeline" is pretty much exactly what we did in Iraq with the surge, as they had a "timeline" for withdraw that was dependent on the situation on the ground. But, keep the partisan attacks coming.

derek bomar wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote: atleast he wouldnt have been lying to you.

No the last guy in power lied...at least this guy tells the brutal truth. As much as I hate his desicion, it's refreshing to know that the cards are on the table...and if you count them, there will be 52 of them.

this

Yeah, except Obama isnt playing cards, he is playing Uno. Obama wouldnt know what the brutal truth was if it hit him in the face. the brutal truth, we need to be in Iraq. No one wants to say it because it wont get them elected. That is brutal truth.

Oh lordy, G-Days! Now you're really gonna set them off!
lol

Why do we need to be in Iraq?

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote: atleast he wouldnt have been lying to you.

No the last guy in power lied...at least this guy tells the brutal truth. As much as I hate his desicion, it's refreshing to know that the cards are on the table...and if you count them, there will be 52 of them.

I'm sorry, but you can't honestly believe Obama is any less of a liar than Bush was. If you do then you are drinking the kool aid.

Bush was a liar, Obama is a liar, most politicians are liars.

cbus4life wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: No, not ticked about the Yankee thread at all--you think I haven't heard it all before. And why would I be ticked? 27 rings baby, don't care if you like it or not--don't hate the player hate the game. It's just like this, I could present an argument but you won't listen to any of it. Same thing goes for the Yankee thread. I'm not going to argue about it with you, but the war is the war on terror and Iraq is most definitely connected to the same reason we're in Afghanistan. And basically, if it wasn't for liberal pussies we'd probably be out of there by now, or at least much closer. The way Obama is handling this is a joke. Don't believe me? Then believe my marine friend that was home for Thanksgiving that can't wait to go back to fight (he leaves for his 2nd tour December 16th) and is one of those people that isn't afraid to talk about it because it's what he lives for. He hates Obama and straight up told me that his superiors hold them back and have gotten soldiers killed because of it--and that goes straight up to the top. For whatever reason we decided to let public perception control war decisions and wanted to fight a PC war--which is a terrible plan for winning, use Vietnam as an example.

I have many friends from high school in the military, most of whom have served or are serving in Afghanistan and many of them believe in and still support Obama. Even had the chance to talk to one on Skype last night after he heard Obama's speech, and he liked it.

We all know folks in the military, and there is absolutely no consensus among them as far their like/dislike of Obama, from what i have seen.

I understand what you're saying, but the "friend in the military" argument really doesn't work, which is why i gave my own personal example as well.

But, god bless your friend.

The only thing I want to say about soldiers not saying if the like/dislike Obama,,,and its this,,,,,,How many of us really verbalize our pleasure or displeasure of our boss,,,,I was in the Army and they tell you up front whether you like the president or not he is your boss, what he says you have to do whether you like the idea or not.