Quote: chipolata @ January 14 2009, 2:49 PM GMTNobody's suggesting it was nice place and Saddam was a great guy, just that the justification for going in was based on lies, and that now we have gone in, we've created a hell of a mess that has inflamed extremism across the globe.
Acknowledged and agreed.
Quote: Geoff Mutton @ January 14 2009, 2:54 PM GMTAcknowledged and agreed.
Not acknowledged here. Anyone who thinks that the invasion of Iraq served as anything more than the rallying cry of the day has forgotten pre-Iraq events like what took place in New York on September 11th, Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc. There was an existing problem with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and the only reasonable course of action was to fight them anywhere and everywhere. If it causes them to be whipped into a frenzy, so be it. As long as they die.
Quote: DaButt @ January 14 2009, 3:05 PM GMTNot acknowledged here. Anyone who thinks that the invasion of Iraq served as anything more than the rallying cry of the day has forgotten pre-Iraq events like what took place in New York on September 11th, Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc. There was an existing problem with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and the only reasonable course of action was to fight them anywhere and everywhere. If it causes them to be whipped into a frenzy, so be it. As long as they die.
You really are going to miss George Bush.
Quote: DaButt @ January 14 2009, 3:05 PM GMTNot acknowledged here. Anyone who thinks that the invasion of Iraq served as anything more than the rallying cry of the day has forgotten pre-Iraq events like what took place in New York on September 11th, Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc. There was an existing problem with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and the only reasonable course of action was to fight them anywhere and everywhere. If it causes them to be whipped into a frenzy, so be it. As long as they die.
I don't understand why we have to go into this pesky long-running war, and not just nuke the bastards out of existence.
Quote: chipolata @ January 14 2009, 3:09 PM GMTYou really are going to miss George Bush.
No, not at all. It'll be nice to have a new person in the White House and I'm sure that Obama will kill plenty of terrorists himself - he's already promised as much. This nation doesn't make wild changes in direction. Maybe a minor tack one way or another, but anyone who thinks that Obama's presidency will result in a profusion of peace, love and understanding in the world has his/her head buried in the sand. Or perhaps "head in the clouds" would be a better term for such wishful thinking.
Quote: DaButt @ January 14 2009, 3:19 PM GMTNo, not at all. It'll be nice to have a new person in the White House and I'm sure that Obama will kill plenty of terrorists himself - he's already promised as much. This nation doesn't make wild changes in direction. Maybe a minor tack one way or another, but anyone who thinks that Obama's presidency will result in a profusion of peace, love and understanding in the world has his/her head buried in the sand. Or perhaps "head in the clouds" would be a better term for such wishful thinking.
I certainly don't think anything of the kind, and his cowardly refusal to condemn Israel is a clear indicator that he's not going to be that different, except stylistically. And stylistically, he wipes the floor with Bush.
Quote: chipolata @ January 14 2009, 2:29 PM GMTCompare and contrast Obama's statesman like press conferences
Statesman-like is a synonym for "orchestrated and prearranged?"
The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/1360142,CST-EDT-carol04.article
Quote: chipolata @ January 14 2009, 3:26 PM GMTAnd stylistically, he wipes the floor with Bush.
I don't care whether my president is stylish. I want him to be a good leader.
Quote: DaButt @ January 14 2009, 3:32 PM GMTStatesman-like is a synonym for "orchestrated and prearranged?"
The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day.
That's the way all press conferences are done now.
Quote: DaButt @ January 14 2009, 3:32 PM GMTI don't care whether my president is stylish. I want him to be a good leader.
I'm not talking about style as such (although Obama is very stylish) I'm talking about the way he conducts himself. And after the aw-shucks goofiness of Bush, it's nice to have somebody in the White House who can form coherent sentences and give considered responses to questions.
Quote: DaButt @ January 14 2009, 3:32 PM GMTI don't care whether my president is stylish. I want him to be a good leader.
Hear, hear!
Quote: chipolata @ January 14 2009, 3:35 PM GMTAnd after the aw-shucks goofiness of Bush, it's nice to have somebody in the White House who can form coherent sentences and give considered responses to questions.
But then you're removing the doubt about what was said. Wasn't that doubt Bush's defence all too often?
Quote: chipolata @ January 14 2009, 3:35 PM GMTThat's the way all press conferences are done now.
That is not the way presidential press conferences have been run in this country. I hope the press will rediscover their balls once Obama is in office.
Quote: Aaron @ January 14 2009, 3:35 PM GMTHear, hear!
Is there anyone (realistic) that you would like as president?
Quote: DaButt @ January 14 2009, 3:40 PM GMTThat is not the way presidential press conferences have been run in this country. I hope the press will rediscover their balls once Obama is in office.
Not going to happen. America is the most testicle-free nation on the planet. 
I've been reading Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope and in between all the rhetoric I do seem to find evidence of a genuine desire to reconcile American politics, to cross the divide and do what's best for the nation rather than the party. A touch of this type of thinking could definitely be used in Britain at the moment. DaButt, do you think the divide between the parties is that great, if so do you think it is possible to reconcile them for the good of your nation?
Quote: PhQnix @ January 14 2009, 3:48 PM GMTDaButt, do you think the divide between the parties is that great, if so do you think it is possible to reconcile them for the good of your nation?
I think the difference between the parties is very small and most of the points of contention are minor non-issues like abortion. They make for a great debate, but are actually of little consequence.
I wouldn't want the 2 parties to reconcile. We have a good track record of flipping back and forth between the two every decade or so, thus keeping us on a fairly even, centered path.
My only complaint - and it would be echoed by almost every American - is that politicians are too beholden to their donors and the special interests they represent. I would like to see an end to earmarks and influence peddling of all kinds by both parties.