Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Dec '09 17:00 / 2 edits
    Watching President Obama's surge speech (and he really is an excellent speaker, by the way), I found it fascinating to compare the Obama Afghan surge with the Bush Iraq surge. The two are essentially identical operations. Both are infusions of 30,000 soldiers to secure areas plagued by partisan-like resistance and to end the perception that the US is losing control of the target area. Obviously, there are important differences; but the similarities are eerie.

    When Bush increased operations in Iraq, and when he launched operations in general; his tone was basically: "This is what we need to do in the name of our own security. If you don't like it, too bad. As for when it will end; it will end when we decide to end it."

    Obama's take is more like: "Well, we really think this is a good idea because of A,B,C and D. If you don't like it, well, we admit we've screwed this one up a bit, so you may be right; but I've decided- and I don't take this decision lightly- to do it anyway. We promise we'll be out in X period of time. So it's not really like a war, is it? Also, if you like, you can help us. If you don't like it, we respect your opinions; but gosh fellas, we'd really appreciate it if you would like it."*

    * Paraphrased. Obama's actual speech had more words.

    So, they're doing the same thing. (You don't buy this 18 month cap do you? Sure he may intend for it to be 18 months, but of course we all realize that's subject to change based on the circumstances at the time.) So, is the difference between Obama and Bush basically in how they deliver the same message?
  2. 02 Dec '09 17:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Watching President Obama's surge speech (and he really is an excellent speaker, by the way), I found it fascinating to compare the Obama Afghan surge with the Bush Iraq surge. The two are essentially identical operations. Both are infusions of 30,000 soldiers to secure areas plagued by partisan-like resistance and to end the perception that the US is losing con erence between Obama and Bush basically in how they deliver the same message?
    My question is, at the end of the day what will all this change? You have all the fanatics hiding in Pakistan just bidding their time, not only overthrowing the Pakistani government, but the Afghanistan government as well. They ain't going anywhere and there is no one to come after them. So they just wait till the US leaves to make their moves.....unless they want to stay in that waste land indefinately. My guess is, if and when the US leaves, the Taliban will eventually take over Afghabnistan and Pakistan will be next. The question then becomes, what if anything will the US do about it?
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Dec '09 17:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    The question then becomes, what if anything will the US do about it [when the Taliban takeover Afghanistan and Pakistan]?
    Actually I don't see what was wrong with sh76's question about contrasting message delivery styles of the last 2 U.S. presidents. Why not start a new thread about yours?
  4. 02 Dec '09 17:23
    Originally posted by sh76
    Watching President Obama's surge speech (and he really is an excellent speaker, by the way), I found it fascinating to compare the Obama Afghan surge with the Bush Iraq surge. The two are essentially identical operations. Both are infusions of 30,000 soldiers to secure areas plagued by partisan-like resistance and to end the perception that the US is losing con ...[text shortened]... erence between Obama and Bush basically in how they deliver the same message?
    "Watching President Obama's surge speech (and he really is an excellent speaker, by the way)" -sh76

    Incorrect,Obama is a excellent reader of a teleprompter,reading speeches some one else wrote for him.
    When he has been put on the spot,which is rare, all you hear is "ahh...duh...duh"

    I seriously wonder about you some times. You are very pro Obama and claim to be a Republican.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Dec '09 17:31 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    "Watching President Obama's surge speech (and he really is an excellent speaker, by the way)" -sh76

    Incorrect,Obama is a excellent reader of a teleprompter,reading speeches some one else wrote for him.
    When he has been put on the spot,which is rare, all you hear is "ahh...duh...duh"

    I seriously wonder about you some times. You are very pro Obama and claim to be a Republican.
    I hate the Red Sox with a passion, but I admit that Jon Lester is a good pitcher.

    I'm pro- some of what Obama does. I admit that. I don't see a contradiction between that and being a Republican.

    Edit: I also admit that I look for the best in every US President. It drives FMF and some of the others crazy sometimes, but I do. Maybe I'm a naive patriot. I don't know. But there you have it.

    Edit on the Edit: Except Jimmy Carter. I can't stand him.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Dec '09 17:34
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Obama is a excellent reader of a teleprompter,reading speeches some one else wrote for him.
    So we are discussing comparisons and contrasts between Bush and Obama here. Are you saying that Bush wrote his own speeches? Are you saying Bush didn't use a teleprompter? Are you saying that Bush, when put on the spot, which was also rare, was a good speaker?
  7. 02 Dec '09 17:42
    Originally posted by sh76
    Watching President Obama's surge speech (and he really is an excellent speaker, by the way), I found it fascinating to compare the Obama Afghan surge with the Bush Iraq surge. The two are essentially identical operations. Both are infusions of 30,000 soldiers to secure areas plagued by partisan-like resistance and to end the perception that the US is losing con ...[text shortened]... erence between Obama and Bush basically in how they deliver the same message?
    obama seems constrained by his "worldwide consensus" meme.
  8. 02 Dec '09 17:42
    Originally posted by FMF
    So we are discussing comparisons and contrasts between Bush and Obama here. Are you saying that Bush wrote his own speeches? Are you saying Bush didn't use a teleprompter? Are you saying that Bush, when put on the spot, which was also rare, was a good speaker?
    no. i am not saying that. sh76 said obama is a great speaker and i am saying he is not.
    Bush was not either.
    Bill Clinton was though.I despised his politics but he could snow you real good,and you would smile the whole time he was doing it.
    One time there was a problem w/ his teleprompter.wrong speech I think.and he actually did better w/out it.
  9. 02 Dec '09 17:42
    or maybe not constrained. more like infused.
  10. 02 Dec '09 17:47
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    obama seems constrained by his "worldwide consensus" meme.
    what the hell is "meme" ?
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Dec '09 17:51
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    sh76 said obama is a great speaker and i am saying he is not.
    Bush was not either.
    Seeing as we are in a 'comparison topic' here, what was wrong with Bush's public speaking skills?
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Dec '09 17:57
    Originally posted by sh76
    I also admit that I look for the best in every US President. It drives FMF and some of the others crazy sometimes, but I do. Maybe I'm a naive patriot. I don't know. But there you have it.

    Edit on the Edit: Except Jimmy Carter. I can't stand him.
    What a puzzling comment. I don't see anything wrong with looking "for the best in every US President" and I don't think I have ever posted anything that suggests I do.

    What is interesting though, is how you hated Jimmy Carter's presidency, on one hand, but when pressed on his administration's disgraceful foreign policy, a topic that might make "a naive patriot" uncomfortable, whoops, suddenly you are too young to remember any details or pass judgement.
  13. 02 Dec '09 17:58
    Originally posted by FMF
    Seeing as we are in a 'comparison topic' here, what was wrong with Bush's public speaking skills?
    oh c'mon man (or, ma'am)! Bush spoke like a blithering idiot.Thats common knowledge.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Dec '09 18:08
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Bush spoke like a blithering idiot.Thats common knowledge.
    Well by the same standard - "common knowledge" - it is widely accepted that Obama is a vastly superior speaker to Bush. The stuff you mentioned about teleprompters and speech writers seemed to weaken your case against Obama. Sounded forced and slightly disengenuous. Maybe you are just a little too passionate to be able to pass a judgment that means anything to non-partisam bystanders. It is widely held that Obama is an excellent orator. In your efforts to land a punch, you didn't make a case. Run the "[he's] reading speeches some one else wrote for him" past us again. The authorship of his speeches affects his oratory skills in what way?
  15. 02 Dec '09 18:16
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well by the same standard - "common knowledge" - it is widely accepted that Obama is a vastly superior speaker to Bush. The stuff you mentioned about teleprompters and speech writers seemed to weaken your case against Obama. Sounded forced and slightly disengenuous. Maybe you are just a little too passionate to be able to pass a judgment that means anything to n ...[text shortened]... him" past us again. The authorship of his speeches affects his oratory skills in what way?
    No.
    Being a better speaker than Bush means nothing. A chimpanzee would be better than Bush.

    As far as non partisan,thats what i am.

    How does the authorship have an affect,you ask? You think if he had Dr.Suess writing those speeches there would be the same affect?