Chicago loses olympic bid! - Page 2

SP01715 · #1 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

dcdoug makes a valid point. Clearly the reputation of the USA has suffered a setback under the previous administration. While some may not care, it is an issue that cannot be lightly dismissed.

...And the current administration is perceived around the world as weak.

cobra de capell · #2 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 03:34 PM

Keep jumping on any point that seems liberal, exc. You are so predictable with your analysis skills no deeper than a bottle cap.

The question is: Why did Obama invest so much personal capital and time for this? Well, he simply can’t help himself. It’s the same force of ego that drives him on to those TV talk shows again and again and that imagines that a grand speech with no content and no appeal outside his base will be a game changer on health-care reform.

This fiasco shows that Obama is a genuine pathological narcissist. No president in his right mind would pursue an objective like this is a way that put a giant "kick me" sign on his back and his wife's back. Indeed, his whole Olympic pursuit was extraordinary from the lack of simple political intelligence, in the sense of the information gathering political operative usually do, which allowed him to believe he could prevail, to the incredible, hubristic stupidity that sent him and Michelle to Copenhagen on an exposed mission that was almost sure to fail. The Obamas' elevators don't go all the way to the top.

computerworks · #3 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

This fiasco shows that Obama is a genuine pathological narcissist. No president in his right mind would pursue an objective like this is a way that put a giant "kick me" sign on his back and his wife's back. Indeed, his whole Olympic pursuit was extraordinary from the lack of simple political intelligence, in the sense of the information gathering political operative usually do, which allowed him to believe he could prevail, to the incredible, hubristic stupidity that sent him and Michelle to Copenhagen on an exposed mission that was almost sure to fail. The Obamas' elevators don't go all the way to the top.

The above original thought was posted on freerepublic, posted on October 02, 2009 04:34 PM by libstripper

cobra de capell · #4 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 03:35 PM

Excaliber · #5 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 03:36 PM

I don't think that is true (percieved as weak), that is YOUR opinion, here's mine. I think the tide is turning in terms of respect for the USA. Were in a pretty deep hole (thanks to Bush, Cheney, others) but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The biggest lesson we should learn is this: You can't solve the worlds problems with more bombs or more troops.

I like that new Generals approach to the Afghan conflict. Yes he wants more troops, but hold on a minute, we need to think this through, as Obama is doing. WHAT will he DO with more troops? Well that's where the CHANGE is coming. NOT to vigorously go on the attack as much as to secure more villages and towns! To win the hearts and minds of the PEOPLE. Blasting the hell out of the insurgents will buy time, but that alone will never win the war. Something Cheney STILL doesn't understand.

It was refreshing to see the President take a hands on approach to securing more jobs for Americans as it applies to the Olympics in Chicago.

SP01715 · #6 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I don't think that is true (percieved as weak), that is YOUR opinion, here's mine. I think the tide is turning in terms of respect for the USA. Were in a pretty deep hole (thanks to Bush, Cheney, others) but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The biggest lesson we should learn is this: You can't solve the worlds problems with more bombs or more troops.

I like that new Generals approach to the Afghan conflict. Yes he wants more troops, but hold on a minute, we need to think this through, as Obama is doing. WHAT will he DO with more troops? Well that's where the CHANGE is coming. NOT to vigorously go on the attack as much as to secure more villages and towns! To win the hearts and minds of the PEOPLE. Blasting the hell out of the insurgents will buy time, but that alone will never win the war. Something Cheney STILL doesn't understand.

It was refreshing to see the President take a hands on approach to securing more jobs for Americans as it applies to the Olympics in Chicago.

Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans? Ha, I take it you have never been to that part of the world. They will take the side of who they think will win. If the commanding general ask for more troops, GIVE HIM MORE TROOPS OR PULL THEM ALL OUT.

Remember Somalia 10/03/93? The general on the ground asked for armor. Clinton denied the request because of how that might be perceived around the world. The result was 19 dead Americans. Don't play politics with the guys on the ground.

Obama is the second coming of Carter, only I fear in the end he might be worse. I would rather have the bad guys in the world fear us, rather than try and convinve them we are really great understanding people.

cobra de capell · #7 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I don't think that is true (percieved as weak), that is YOUR opinion, here's mine. I think the tide is turning in terms of respect for the USA. Were in a pretty deep hole (thanks to Bush, Cheney, others) but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The biggest lesson we should learn is this: You can't solve the worlds problems with more bombs or more troops.

I like that new Generals approach to the Afghan conflict. Yes he wants more troops, but hold on a minute, we need to think this through, as Obama is doing. WHAT will he DO with more troops? Well that's where the CHANGE is coming. NOT to vigorously go on the attack as much as to secure more villages and towns! To win the hearts and minds of the PEOPLE. Blasting the hell out of the insurgents will buy time, but that alone will never win the war. Something Cheney STILL doesn't understand.

It was refreshing to see the President take a hands on approach to securing more jobs for Americans as it applies to the Olympics in Chicago.

First, try to keep it pithy around here, Second; if I need the liberal view of things - I'll just go to CNN or MSNBC. Why you continue to post liberal talking point garbage to a 99.999999% conservative site is beyond belief....

Also, please stay off my threads - I will stay off your threads.

392cobra · #8 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 03:39 PM

I think it is worse than what has already been whined about.

I think the reason the Obama's & Ophra (Burris too) got dissed is because they are all Black.

The Olympic Committee is just plain racist.
I mean,why else would they turn down Chicago ??

Excaliber · #9 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 04:06 PM

I take it you have never read the "Art of War". This principle of winning the hearts and minds of the people goes back 1,000's of years. History shows over and over that "winning" a war militarily will not stand the test of time without the will of the people.

Now if that will is based on a better lifestyle, more security, money, is not as important as securing it in the first place. There is AMPLE reason to believe the Afghans DO want all of the above. For many years the Tabliban was despised there, the people fundamentally DO NOT want them in power. But what choice do they have? The Americans cannot defend them and they cannot defend themselves.

I support the request for additional troops, with an understanding of the goals to be achieved. Otherwise, we could be there for decades and accomplish nothing. If it is not possible to win the favor of the people then we should pull out the majority of troops and rely more heavily on "drone" missle strikes to kill the Taliban leadership. This will NOT result in a victory but it will buy time. The drone attacks kill many civilians, that really pisses off the people. But if we don't care about the people, no problem!

MODS: I had been thinking about starting a new thread on this subject, Afghan. Perhaps this post could be the start of that? Some editing of course required...

computerworks · #10 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

MODS: I had been thinking about starting a new thread on this subject, Afghan. Perhaps this post could be the start of that? Some editing of course required...

Just do it. Cut and paste

SP01715 · #11 (**permalink**) 10-03-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I take it you have never read the "Art of War". This principle of winning the hearts and minds of the people goes back 1,000's of years. History shows over and over that "winning" a war militarily will not stand the test of time without the will of the people.

Now if that will is based on a better lifestyle, more security, money, is not as important as securing it in the first place. There is AMPLE reason to believe the Afghans DO want all of the above. For many years the Tabliban was despised there, the people fundamentally DO NOT want them in power. But what choice do they have? The Americans cannot defend them and they cannot defend themselves.

I support the request for additional troops, with an understanding of the goals to be achieved. Otherwise, we could be there for decades and accomplish nothing. If it is not possible to win the favor of the people then we should pull out the majority of troops and rely more heavily on "drone" missle strikes to kill the Taliban leadership. This will NOT result in a victory but it will buy time. The drone attacks kill many civilians, that really pisses off the people. But if we don't care about the people, no problem!

MODS: I had been thinking about starting a new thread on this subject, Afghan. Perhaps this post could be the start of that? Some editing of course required...

First I have read Sun Tzu's The Art Of War, and I actually have my paperback copy on the shelf right next to me. It has been there for years. I suggest you read the chapter "Waging "war". It talk about troop levels and protracted campains. That said, I don't base my knowledge on a book.

I served a combat tour in Iraq with the 1st Cav in a combat MOS (military Occupational Skill). I have actually been on the ground in the Middle East. You abviously don't understand the thinking of the culture there. The people do not respect weakness. From the guys I know that have served in Afghanistan, they say this is even more true than in Iraq. You are never going to build a nation in Afghanistan even close to Iraq. We need to concentrate on killing the enemy, and we need to expect a troop presence there for a long time.

You need to listen to the General on the ground in charge of operations. He is the expert. As Sun Tzu refers to him "The Respected One". "If wise, a commander is able to recognize changing curcumstances and to act expediently"." If courageous, he gains victory by seizing opportunity without hesitation" . The general on the ground has "recognized" the "changing curcumstances" in Afghanistan, and he has asked Obama for more troops so he can "gain victory without hesitation".

Obama needs to listen to the guys in the military on the ground. They are the experts, and have the best knowledge of what they need. My.02

Excaliber · #12 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 04:22 PM

CDC, your cordially invited to my new thead on Afghanistan. Enjoy!

392cobra · #13 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 05:27 PM

"BO and Chelle just got B I T C H slapped in front of the whole world!" Rush Limbaugh

MMMMMMM MMMMMMMM MMMMMMMM

Buzz · #14 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 06:56 PM

Actually, the USA got b i t c h slapped in front of the whole world and you patriots are too busy celebrating the supposed loss of face to your president to even notice or care about that.

"Divide and conquer" is the catch phrase of the day. You folks are so busy fighting among yourselves over your own personal pieces of the pie, no wonder it's difficult to muster the solidarity and political will to decisively fight and win a military conflict. I know what the knee jerk replies to this are going to be already so save them - or bring them - or whatever.

I don't see the big deal in any president, prime minister, first lady or other head of state joining in the pitch to have a major international event held in their home town. Having said that though, I'm with Jamo - I do plan a trip to the next Olympics and I'd much rather be distracted by the spectacle of beautiful, bethonged South American wimmins than the fat dudes moonwalking in Chicago. Arriba Arriba!

(There goes my "moral code".)

Excaliber · #15 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 07:29 PM

It's not like Obama is the first head of state to actively campaign to promote his country. France and Russia did it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, good call on Obama's part giving it a shot. I don't see what the big deal is myself, the competition for the games is always tough. Doesn't mean those that didn't make it "got slapped down".

Dan40 · #16 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 07:43 PM

Actually we NEVER had a chance at the Games. China just had the Games so it was very unlikely that China West [aka USA] would get the Games this time.