Let's Be Real... Obama Is No Lincoln

[777 fixer]

And the majority of German population loved Hitler as well. Look how well that turned out.

My previous question, are you trying to compare the Civil War with the war in Iraq?

 

[Cosworth]

LESS than ONE THIRD of the Federal Revenue Stream is from the Personal Income Tax

The government confiscation of your wages by the jack booted thugs of the IRS is imoral.

and it's BaaaaaD.

Now go back to grazing in Obama la la lama lama ding dong land

Where does the other two thirds come from?

 

[delldude]

Where does the other two thirds come from?

Have to be from shaking down...er I mean taxing corporations.

 

[dapoes]

My previous question, are you trying to compare the Civil War with the war in Iraq?

Are you trying to compare Lincoln to Obama? :blink:

 

[777 fixer]

Are you trying to compare Lincoln to Obama? :blink:

No I'm not, and could you show me where I have. I'm just trying to get an answer to my question.

 

[dapoes]

No I'm not, and could you show me where I have. I'm just trying to get an answer to my question.

The historical parallels between the Civil War era Copperheads and Barack Obama and the current antiwar Democrats are noteworthy:

* They assert that the United States is responsible for world terrorism.
* They believe that Iraqis are incapable of democratic self government.
* They assert that President Bush has become a tyrant and is bent upon destroying civil liberties.
* They assert that the War in Iraq is a national and international tragedy which we cannot win and which must be ended, even if that ending is a victory for the terrorists.

Despite fierce opposition from the Democrats Lincoln (Bush) saw the mission through to completion.

Lincoln saw his nation suffer 700,000 deaths rather than see it broken into two.

Bush saw his nation suffer 4200 deaths rather than concede Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran.

Obama agitated to surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran and not even the prospect of genocide deterred him from his devotion to that goal. And he pursued this goal for at least a year after it was obvious that Iraq was being inexorably pacified. He then claimed to be surprised by the success of The Surge.

Obama is the polar opposite of Lincoln.

If Lincoln were Obama, then today Obama would be a slave rather than POTUS.

 

[dapoes]

Here's how the War on Terror stacks up with other US Wars:

The population today in the US is much larger than when these previous wars were fought. If you factor that in it really puts things into perspective.

In Afghanistan:
The US has suffered 604 fatalities in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda has suffered 12,000 fatalities. 28,700 militant Islamists have been captured.

In Iraq:
The US has suffered 4227 fatalities in Iraqi Freedom. More than 19,429 Al-Qaeda and Islamic militants have been killed. Over 18,900 insurgents have been captured.

 

[777 fixer]

The historical parallels between the Civil War era Copperheads and Barack Obama and the current antiwar Democrats are noteworthy:

* They assert that the United States is responsible for world terrorism.

When did the Democrtic Party assert this?

* They believe that Iraqis are incapable of democratic self government.

When did they say this?

* They assert that President Bush has become a tyrant and is bent upon destroying civil liberties.

When did the Democratic Party call him a tyrant?

* They assert that the War in Iraq is a national and international tragedy which we cannot win and which must be ended, even if that ending is a victory for the terrorists.

Given the fact the US is spending around $10 billion a month in Iraq and this country has huge deficit we have to get out.

Bush saw his nation suffer 4200 deaths rather than concede Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran.

Iraq was never in any danger of falling to Al Queda or Iran prior to the invasion.

If Lincoln were Obama, then today Obama would be a slave rather than POTUS.

And you know this how? Comparing the Civil War with the war in Iraq is comparing apples to oranges. Two totally different situations. In the Civil War our very existence as a united country was in danger. Iraq never posed that sort of threat.

Here's a historical fact that you overlooked. Lincoln was opposed to the Mexican-American War. Using your logic that must mean he was a quitter.

 

[dapoes]

The historical parallels between the Civil War era Copperheads and Barack Obama and the current antiwar Democrats are noteworthy:

* They assert that the United States is responsible for world terrorism.

When did the Democrtic Party assert this?

* They believe that Iraqis are incapable of democratic self government.

When did they say this?

* They assert that President Bush has become a tyrant and is bent upon destroying civil liberties.

When did the Democratic Party call him a tyrant?

* They assert that the War in Iraq is a national and international tragedy which we cannot win and which must be ended, even if that ending is a victory for the terrorists.

Given the fact the US is spending around $10 billion a month in Iraq and this country has huge deficit we have to get out.

Bush saw his nation suffer 4200 deaths rather than concede Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran.

Iraq was never in any danger of falling to Al Queda or Iran prior to the invasion.

If Lincoln were Obama, then today Obama would be a slave rather than POTUS.

And you know this how? Comparing the Civil War with the war in Iraq is comparing apples to oranges. Two totally different situations. In the Civil War our very existence as a united country was in danger. Iraq never posed that sort of threat.

Here's a historical fact that you overlooked. Lincoln was opposed to the Mexican-American War. Using your logic that must mean he was a quitter.

Are you kidding me? You obviously have not been paying attention these past few years.

The comparison you fail to see between the two wars are that both elected presidents had convictions to the cause despite what popular opinion was. The civil war was not viewed favorably at the time by most. Lincoln stuck to his convictions despite public outrage of the overall loss of lives and bankrupting the economy.

 

[Dignity]

these "elected leaders" really do not fix anything, what they do is latch onto a good economy(as if they were solely responsible for it) while blaming someone else when it is poor...to me, its all really just good timing..who is in office at the time who can "claim" the credit.

the interesting part regarding Obama was simply, he blamed everything on the Bush Administration while touting he was the one that could fix it all...after he was elected he basically said..there is a lot to do and not everything may get done... and it probably would get worse before it gets better...that is not what he said during the campaigns.. like he is hoping for "good timing"...

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Are you kidding me? You obviously have not been paying attention these past few years.

The comparison you fail to see between the two wars are that both elected presidents had convictions to the cause despite what popular opinion was. The civil war was not viewed favorably at the time by most. Lincoln stuck to his convictions despite public outrage of the overall loss of lives and bankrupting the economy.

It is a great diservice to the history of our great nation to suggest that our current war in Iraq (and Bush's actions thereto) is substantially similar to our civil war. While I cannot accurately predict whether our great grandchildren's histroy books will display the current Iraq war favorably, I am nearly certain that it will not be viewed as a war that is substantially similar to our civil war.

 

[777 fixer]

Are you kidding me? You obviously have not been paying attention these past few years.

The comparison you fail to see between the two wars are that both elected presidents had convictions to the cause despite what popular opinion was. The civil war was not viewed favorably at the time by most. Lincoln stuck to his convictions despite public outrage of the overall loss of lives and bankrupting the economy.

No I'm not. Please show where the democrats have said the US is responsible for terrorism. Show where they have said the Iraqi's are incapable of democratic self govenment. Then show me where they called Bush a tyrant. Then tell me if Iraq was in danger of falling to Al Queda or Iran prior to the invasion.

Since your the one who wanted to play the historical comparison game why don't we talk about Lincoln's opposition to the war with Mexico. Was he a quitter because of his opposition? While I'm a bit hesitant to try and compare the war in Iraq with the Mexican-American War the two have more in common than the Civil War and Iraq. After all both involved a war with another country. Both had strong opposition at home.

 

[dapoes]

No I'm not. Please show where the democrats have said the US is responsible for terrorism. Show where they have said the Iraqi's are incapable of democratic self govenment. Then show me where they called Bush a tyrant. Then tell me if Iraq was in danger of falling to Al Queda or Iran prior to the invasion.

Since your the one who wanted to play the historical comparison game why don't we talk about Lincoln's opposition to the war with Mexico. Was he a quitter because of his opposition? While I'm a bit hesitant to try and compare the war in Iraq with the Mexican-American War the two have more in common than the Civil War and Iraq. After all both involved a war with another country. Both had strong opposition at home.

You obviously have been a sleep during these past two years run-up to the election.

 

[dapoes]

It is a great diservice to the history of our great nation to suggest that our current war in Iraq (and Bush's actions thereto) is substantially similar to our civil war. While I cannot accurately predict whether our great grandchildren's histroy books will display the current Iraq war favorably, I am nearly certain that it will not be viewed as a war that is substantially similar to our civil war.

You obviously didn't understand (or read) the article I referred to.

 

[Cosworth]

The historical parallels between the Civil War era Copperheads and Barack Obama and the current antiwar Democrats are noteworthy:

* They assert that the United States is responsible for world terrorism.

Really? I did not know I believed that. I do believe that our dependence on oil helps fund them and that the US is doing very little to stop that.


* They believe that Iraqis are incapable of democratic self government.


What have they done to prove otherwise? How is our presence there allowing them to govern them selves?

* They assert that President Bush has become a tyrant and is bent upon destroying civil liberties.


That seems a bit over the top don't you think. While he has taken away certain civil liberties, the republic is certainly strong enough to endure the legacy of his presidency.

* They assert that the War in Iraq is a national and international tragedy which we cannot win and which must be ended, even if that ending is a victory for the terrorists.

Yep. You got me on that one. Can you give me an example of a war with terrorist that has been won? Israel has been fighting terrorists for 60 yer now. How has that gone for them? They hve to fight it because their survival actually depends on it. Still, they have been fighting for 60 years and are no closer to winning than they were 60 years ago (OK, they made peace with Egypt but really....). They have been fighting for 60 years and have far more experience then we do and have proven they are willing to do what ever it takes to win yet ..... they fight on.

Victory for the terrorist? Since we are helping fund them with oil revenue they ahve won long before this fight started.

Despite fierce opposition from the Democrats Lincoln (Bush) saw the mission through to completion.

What does that prove?


Lincoln saw his nation suffer 700,000 deaths rather than see it broken into two.


Seems to me that fighting to keep ones own country together verses fighting a ar for someone else is apples and oranges.


Bush saw his nation suffer 4200 deaths rather than concede Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran.


As 777 pointed out, Al-Queda was not in Iraq until Bush invited them in by taking out the one person who was keeping them out with out any plan on what to do with Iraq after Hussein was out of power. Hussein was also the one person keeping Iran out of Iraq as well.

Obama agitated to surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran and not even the prospect of genocide deterred him from his devotion to that goal. And he pursued this goal for at least a year after it was obvious that Iraq was being inexorably pacified. He then claimed to be surprised by the success of The Surge.


Can't afford it (we have a huge national debt in case you did not know). This is the price Bush will have to pay for his incompetence in the ME. He went in with no plan and no concept of what would happen. Congress was incompetent and allowed themselves to be bullied into being accomplices.

What you fail to recognize is that the people of this nation are more than willing to fight to protect their own nation but we are not willing to allow the like of Bush to go off to foreign lands risking US lives for things that have no bearing on the US and are based on lies. He went in with no plan and the price for his failure are POTUS is failure in Iraq.