Debate III.

[Knotbuyinit]

You do know what he actually said in the debate...look at the word "fewer":

"Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we're counting ships. It's — it's what are our capabilities."

"We have these ships that go underwater . . ."

 

[eolesen]

You do know what he actually said in the debate...look at the word "fewer"

“Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed.

He's right there are fewer horses, but the Pentagon actually has 3x more bayonets now than they did in 1912. There were around 200,000 in the Army and Marines back in 1912. Today, there are over 600,000 bayonets in the combined arsenals of the Army and the Marines.

Yes, you can check the transcripts on that. Even with Obamanomics, 600,000 is not fewer than 200,000.

 

[AA89]

When you dig just below the surface you find that our government has done some pretty despicable things. Also of note is all of these wars took place after the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law. Cause & effect?

Not sure of a direct causal link, however consider that the Federal Reserve pretty much paved the road to Corpratism and the rise of the Banksters which ARE the cause of most of the wars post 1960.

Surely you aren't condoning The President'S SUPPOSED apology tour???

 

[SparrowHawk]

Surely you aren't condoning The President'S SUPPOSED apology tour???

Most certainly not! That was likely the dumbest thing he's donend that's saying soething.

There are better, less public ways to signal a change in foreign policy and not have to apologize or admit a single thing. Not to mention actions like living up to his promise to get us out of Afghanistan & Iraq in 16 months. Anaction that would have supported more diplomatic approach.

What we did in the past is merely a reminder of how intervention & empire building can go wrong, apologizing for it is just silly.

 

[Ms Tree]

Most certainly not! That was likely the dumbest thing he's donend that's saying soething.

That would be true if it actually happened.

CS Monitor
Fact Check

There are better, less public ways to signal a change in foreign policy and not have to apologize or admit a single thing. Not to mention actions like living up to his promise to get us out of Afghanistan & Iraq in 16 months. Anaction that would have supported more diplomatic approach.

What we did in the past is merely a reminder of how intervention & empire building can go wrong, apologizing for it is just silly.

 

[southwind]

You don't have to say the word's "I'm Sorry", to apologize !

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FGbDJuD2do&noredirect=1[youtube]

 

[AA89]

Most certainly not! That was likely the dumbest thing he's donend that's saying soething.

There are better, less public ways to signal a change in foreign policy and not have to apologize or admit a single thing. Not to mention actions like living up to his promise to get us out of Afghanistan & Iraq in 16 months. Anaction that would have supported more diplomatic approach.

What we did in the past is merely a reminder of how intervention & empire building can go wrong, apologizing for it is just silly.

There are people in this country that actually beliieve that the current administration has done more to damage our standing in the world than the former. We can debate that until the cows come home but the fact is we had the world on our side after 9/11. Imperialist/interventionist policies in the middle east are catching up with us and having a president that speaks honstly about it is certainly no worse than the same old crap of "might makes us right" That aint working so well. And cmon, posting an edited youtube video is silly no matter who the target is. They are available to slam both sides and any rational person can see through them.

 

[Keroseneuser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y&feature=player_detailpage

 

[AA89]

Obama banned this video??? Banned from where? See post 127..............

 

[southwind]

Someone had their blinders, professionally installed !

 

[777 fixer]

Takes two to mak a war. Charles Lindbergh was an adamant foe of our entry into WWII and a brief look at how we provoked the Japanese into attacking us doesn't put Roosevelt in a very good light.

You should really read a history book before you go off and make ignorant remarks.

First of all, how is Charles Lindbergh's position on the war relevant? What exactly was Roosevlet supposed to do? Continue feeding the Japanese war machine with iron and oil? What would history say of him then?

 

[777 fixer]

When you dig just below the surface you find that our government has done some pretty despicable things. Also of note is all of these wars took place after the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law. Cause & effect?

Wars having never occured before 1913 and mankind living in harmony singing campfire songs. WWI, started becasue a member of the Austro-Hungarian royla family was murdered. Although it really just lit the fire that was smoldering for a number of years. WWII, started becasue the Germans were pissed off becasue ab out WWI.

 

[777 fixer]

You do know what he actually said in the debate...look at the word "fewer":

"Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we're counting ships. It's — it's what are our capabilities."

Don't let details like that get in anyones way. It's more fun to try and spin it into something it is not. What probably bothers the right more than anything is that the presidenst is well, RIGHT! Just look at how many B-17's it took in WWII to tkae out a munitions factory and the losses incured. Now all you need is a B-2 carrying sixteen 2000lbs JDAM.

 

[777 fixer]

He's right there are fewer horses, but the Pentagon actually has 3x more bayonets now than they did in 1912. There were around 200,000 in the Army and Marines back in 1912. Today, there are over 600,000 bayonets in the combined arsenals of the Army and the Marines.

Yes, you can check the transcripts on that. Even with Obamanomics, 600,000 is not fewer than 200,000.

Wow, you're really digging deep if you have to go back a hundred years to find some nit pick factoid to try and support a losing argument.

 

[southwind]

Whether Barrack used the word "fewer" or not is NOT the issue .
Him coming off as a condescending, arrogant bastard is an issue, in my book !