McCain's surge tells me that we were wrong about something.
- Thread starter Matthew Zak
- Start date
McCain cannot win the general election. By nominating him, the party is conceding the election, just like Bob Dole. That's what I think, anyway.
itshappening
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 12,355
i'm not sure, McCain is very much the embodiment of the establishment even with his fake party "arguments", I see little chance of 'they' allowing Obama to be President, it will be McCain who is the more powerful Senator, probably just and controversially with the other Stooge conceeding like Kerry
Dr.3D
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 30,314
Does anybody really think the GOP cares if they win? Looks a lot like they are setting the stage for a democrat to win. Seeing as the difference between the two parties is virtually nonexistent, I would be willing to bet both the GOP and the DEMs are in this together to get the one they want in the White House. They just want to make it look like the people have a choice.
fuzzybekool
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,192
I wish we had someone in the MSM with the trust and credibility of a Walter Cronkite.
Dr.3D
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 30,314
When I was in the Navy at the time (1970), we used to call him Cralter Wronkite.
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
HILLARY, CRONKITE CALL FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/hillary_cronkite_nwo.htm
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/hillary_cronkite_nwo.htm
lastnymleft
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 590
That is EXACTLY correct. And it's also the reason that people will turn against McCain prior to Nov 4, and why Dr Paul must keep going.
The perception of "benefits" of this "surge" is fake, and is unsustainable:
(1) Some soldiers classed as "disabled" (enough to be able to get handicapped parking stickers!) are being SENT BACK to Iraq.
(2) Year on year 2006:2007 suicides have increased 20%
(3) The DoD are now talking about a "pause" in the ending of the surge in July. huh? Basically, the troops are needed on an ongoing basis. They haven't stamped out violence enough to withdraw any troops.
(4) The only reason the violence is down in the south is because the British basically surrendered to the Shiite militias with strong connections to Iran.
(5) Muqtadr Al Sadr basically walked off the battlefield late August - TEMPORARILY. He declared a 6-month cease-fire in order to (a) purge his "Sadr Army" forces of "foreign elements", and (b) to further his religious studies, so that he can become powerful enough not to be constrained in any way by Iranian mullahs. He will emerge from his 6-month self-declared cease-fire at the end of this month, stronger than ever before.
Add all those points up, and it means that there's a lot worse to come. When the bodybags start rolling in, the public's opinion will turn. I'm thinking that it will happen prior to Nov 4.
But, yeah, it makes me sick that just because the perception is now that things are "better" (and such is spread via the Government's propaganda wing, the US MSM), that the people now support it, seemingly ignoring all that has led up to this point.
The problem is: when you have a voting public so stupid/uneducated that anti-war independents vote for McCain, what is the likelihood that they will scrape beneath the surface of Obama? I have very low expectations of people now.
Closer examination shows nuance within both Obama and Clinton's positions that they are both not averse to the wars, and that they will carry on as is. Again, though, the public seem to be buying the idea (thanks to the MSM) that they are both "anti-war" and will bring the troops home. Again, you have to trust that the public will scratch beneath the surface to find the truth. I have no faith that they will.
I think the economy is the weak point for all of them, and the strong point for Dr Paul, that we must focus on. Whilst I am *fairly* confident that the war will get worse prior to Nov 4, I am *very* confident that the economy will get worse - and MUCH worse - by then.
Whereas Dr Paul is one of the "three" talking about ending the war, he is the ONLY one talking about monetary policy, and the root causes of what will hit people shortly. We need to have that aspect front and centre at all times, to contrast him most clearly with the johnny-come-latelys that will have things to say about the economy when it turns south.
So when we are talking to Dems, and converting them, we should focus on the economic aspects. When they say, "yeah, but i really want the war to end", BAM, we hit them with the fact that Dr Paul is BETTER than the Dems on that aspect, too.
And if you focus on the economy, you are more likely to convince the Repubs. And if they try to say, "yeah but I really want the war to continue", BAM, we hit them with the fact that it *can't* continue, because we cannot afford it, and if we do carry on, we will lose everything when we have a catastrophic collapse, which will be brought on by continued spending for their war.
As a lot of the Romney guys were saying on FreeRepublic after he bowed out: Better to lose the war overseas, than the war at home. They were actually convincing themselves to support Dr Paul, and that was their rationale for supporting him over McCain. A good one, too, which I think we would do well to push.
Last edited:
According to the exit polls people think that McCain is best suited to end the war. In other words, in the masses heads they think that they want the war over so it is best that I vote for McCain. Johnny will end the war and win. This is how they think believe or not.
Goldwater Conservative
Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 1,783
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
According to the LA Times poll there taken a few weeks ago, 8% of Republicans want troops withdrawn right away and another 24% want them withdrawn within a year. 7% are unsure, with the remainder (61%) wanting them to stay as long as it takes. If Paul was getting even half of those wanting withdrawal within a year, he'd have 16% in national polls, not the 4% he had at the time of that survey. I think the problem is people voting for McCain are either ignorant or don't think Paul can and somehow have come to the conclusion that McCain is the next best thing. We can't do anything about people not doing their homework or the media conning people into thinking Paul can't win and McCain is some moderate maverick instead of an insane invasionist.
Last edited:
hawks4ronpaul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,478
"Gee, why do they hate us?"
"Maybe we didn't kick their a** enough!"
Part of the "surge" scam (updated): http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/01/finish-job-scam.html
Sey.Naci
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,285
I don't agree with the OP. The problem I think, is that people haven't tracked the changes between McAnti-War of his last run for the nomination to McWar of the current run. They think they're voting for the same man.
That's why it's so important for a series of print, radio, and TV ads to be done that will expose his metamorphosis and changed stances on war and other issues.
That's why it's so important for a series of print, radio, and TV ads to be done that will expose his metamorphosis and changed stances on war and other issues.
PC_for_Paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 292
The Surge is bullshit. It's a Cease-Fire with Alsadr, it's all about politics, GW is trying to give the GOP cover.
The problem is the "real" enemy in Iraq will end the Cease fire not when the GOP wants, but when they are good and ready.
I say by this spring, Mid March? the body counts will rise, the pentagon is already saying they don't want to "draw down" troops. They know the deal...
The problem is the "real" enemy in Iraq will end the Cease fire not when the GOP wants, but when they are good and ready.
I say by this spring, Mid March? the body counts will rise, the pentagon is already saying they don't want to "draw down" troops. They know the deal...
wgadget
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,946
I'm thinking that if the neocons start a new war in Iran because of the Oil Bourse, we will have a lot more people on our side. I would think that the neocons are treading lightly and wondering how exactly to go about this without causing even more distress to McCain's candidacy.
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
We were not wrong. We were ignored. People who are truly conservative aren't even bothering to vote. Or they're voting for Obama.
MY Mom, a die-hard Republican who is now 64, voted Democrat for the first time in her life in 2004, because she's not a neocon. She'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat on principle alone. She will not vote for McCain.
Oh you're over here too? If not, shut the hell up. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm all for getting out of here too, many of us are, but the reason the surge is working is because the enemy is smothered and we are doing our jobs. It's pretty simple, but you sitting in your mother's basement stating God knows what as fact is pretty pathetic. Get over here and give a first hand account of what's going on on the ground here, you'll have a little credibility. If Ron Paul believed even 10% of what some of his supporters on here believed, he'd have no support, thank God he doesn't and thank God sane people can look past some of the loons that support him. People like you are a big reason why people are turned off to the man, you are a direct reflection of the man in many peoples eyes, right or wrong.
Last edited:
“Things are bad, but it will get a lot worse,” said Jim Sims, 60, of Greer, S.C.
Hey, that's where I live!
Why did people "boo" Dr. Paul when he said that at one of the debates? I suspet the debates were loaded with plants (sorry to sound like a conspiracy theorist but something doesn't add up.)
I am amazed at the plethora of articles supporting Dr. Paul's positions as of late.
Hey, that's where I live!
Why did people "boo" Dr. Paul when he said that at one of the debates? I suspet the debates were loaded with plants (sorry to sound like a conspiracy theorist but something doesn't add up.)
I am amazed at the plethora of articles supporting Dr. Paul's positions as of late.
lastnymleft
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 590
I'm sure you're doing a good job, but the fact of the matter is that much of the opposition simply hasn't been on the field during the period of the surge:
(1) As the previous guy said, the CIA/DoD are making payments to militia heads, to support them, and hunt down supposed opponents (whether they are real opponents or not, is another story. But the fact is money is changing hands), and
(2) Muqtadr Al Sadr has had his Mahdi Army on a self-declared cease-fire since August 29 (possibly ending late this month)
Here's an article supporting Point 1:
" Fortuitously and at precisely the right time, the main Shia militia group, the Mahdi Army, declared a cease-fire. That moderated both Shia-on-Sunni violence and Shia-on-American violence. However, although a cease-fire was declared, the Mahdi Army was neither disbanded nor disarmed. They are ready to go into operations against Americans or the Sunnis, whenever it is deemed necessary by their leaders.
Perhaps more ominously, in order to make up for an unavoidable shortage of American soldiers for the surge (they simply were not available), the Petraeus plan called for co-opting the Sunni militia that had previously been killing Americans. To do that, the U.S. forces have been funding, arming and training Sunni militias to work side by side with American troops against al-Qaida in Iraq. "
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/p...20080120/FEATURES15/801200317/1030/FEATURES15
That full article is worth a read. The author is an ex-CIA Station Chief.
And we all know how well such picking sides and arming them works, in the Middle East, don't we? It worked out just swell with bin Laden.
Weren't the Sunni militia the ones that we were fighting when we started this?
Here's an article supporting Point 2:
Here's a story from Lebanon's major daily, the Daily Star. Why quote a Lebanese paper? Because the American Yahoo version of the VERY SAME story (from Agencies) is censored. The section in bold - all the messy, "inconvenient" bits of the story, where people actually get hurt, and it reflects poorly on the war - have been censored. Yahoo link at the bottom, for comparison, if you don't believe me.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=88805
Sadr orders Mehdi Army to maintain cease-fire - for now
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, February 08, 2008
Hard-line Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his feared Mehdi Army on Thursday to maintain its six-month cease-fire as members of the militia clashed with US and Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad. Sadr's spokesman Salah al-Ubaidi said the cease-fire, which expires later this month and has been vital to cutting violence in Iraq, should continue to be observed until militia members are told it is over or has been renewed.
Some members of Sadr's bloc are pressuring him not to extend the August 29 freeze on the Mehdi Army's activities.
"Any member of the Mehdi Army who conducts violent acts during the cease-fire, the Sadr office declares they will no longer be part of the Mehdi Army," Sadr said in a statement read to Reuters by Ubaidi.
He said Sadr had issued the statement in response to rumors the cease-fire was about to come to an end. He declined to say whether it would be extended when its term lapses.
Attacks across Iraq have fallen by 60 percent since June 2007 after a series of security crackdowns. A return to hostilities could seriously jeopardize those gains.
A new report by the International Crisis Group think tank said the respite offered by the cease-fire was "exceedingly frail" and that Sadrists - many of whom complain they are targeted by security forces - remain extremely powerful.
"Among Sadrist rank and file, impatience with the cease-fire is high and growing," the report said.
US troops raided Baghdad's largest Shiite slum early Thursday and arrested 16 people, US and Iraqi officials and witnesses said. The American military said one person died.
The military also announced the death of a US soldier killed by a roadside bomb a day earlier in western Baghdad.
In Sadr City, the US said it was targeting "criminal elements" responsible for mortar and EFP attacks on US and Iraqi troops. EFPs, or explosively formed penetrators, are sophisticated roadside bombs that fire a molten slug capable of piercing even the most heavily armored military vehicles.
Two people were wounded in the nighttime raid, and one of those subsequently died, US Navy Lieutenant Michael Street, a military spokesman, said in an e-mail.
Police and residents said that US soldiers in humvees, backed by helicopters, sealed off a block of the neighborhood and raided four houses. The front-door lock on one of the houses was shattered by gunfire, and 22-year-old Arkan Abid Ali was shot in the chest and wounded, witnesses said.
Diaa Shakir, 20, said he heard gunfire coming from inside houses US soldiers had entered, as he watched the operation from the window of his home nearby.
Ali was one of 16 Iraqis, including three teenage boys, detained by US forces, an Iraqi police officer said on customary condition of anonymity.
Two women and an elderly man were also wounded and taken to Sadr City hospital, he said. It was unclear which of the wounded had died.
Sadr City is home to about 2.5 million of the Iraqi capital's poorest residents. Overwhelmingly Shiite, the neighborhood has also been a base for the Mehdi Army loyal to Sadr.
Sadr, who led two uprisings against US forces in 2004, ordered the Mehdi Army cease-fire so he could reorganize the splintered militia. Ubaidi has said Sadr is gauging the mood of senior figures before deciding whether to extend the truce.
[LASTNYMLEFT: THE REST OF THE STORY IS NOT OVERLY RELEVANT TO MY POINT, SO IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO READ BELOW HERE. I INCLUDED IT JUST TO PROVE THAT THE CENSORED SECTION WAS FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE ARTICLE]
Washington has been urging Iraq to take advantage of improved security and move ahead with a series of laws aimed at reconciling majority Shiite and minority Sunni Arabs.
However, several of those laws, including the 2008 budget and another that would release thousands of mainly Sunni Arabs from Iraqi jails, remained deadlocked.
"The delay in the budget is harming everyone," Iraq's Shiite Vice President Adel Abdel-Mehdi told a news conference.
Votes which had been expected on Thursday did not take place. Lawmakers have refused to ratify the $48 billion budget because of disputes over allocations, mainly the 17 percent for the largely autonomous and stable Kurdistan region. Some lawmakers it was reported walked out of the session.
Taha al-Luhaiba of the Sunni Arab Accordance Front said a vote could take place Sunday or Monday, but Muna Zalzah, a finance committee member from the Shiite Alliance, feared the budget might not be voted on for at least another week.
Some fear that failure to pass the budget would hold up vital spending at a time when Washington is urging the government to take advantage of improved security and jumpstart the oil-dependent economy.
"Even if the Parliament voted today, the budget would not be implemented until March. We have lost a lot of time," Abdel-Mehdi said.
The law that would free prisoners who have not been charged with or convicted of major crimes, like murder or treason, is also seen as a step toward reconciliation because most of the 23,000 people held in Iraqi jails are Sunni Arabs.
Freeing prisoners has been one of the preconditions for the Accordance Front, the main Sunni Arab bloc, to return to Cabinet after it quit last month, fracturing Premier Nuri al-Maliki's Shiite-led unity government.
But Luhaibi said new disagreements had delayed that law, with his bloc wanting it expanded to include provisions for new trials for prisoners who may have made forced confessions. - Agencies
The censored, American version of the story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080207/ts_nm/iraq_dc_10
Similar threads
