If Obama Wins - Page 3




 
--
 
July 27th, 2008  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Wouldn't go quite that far, there are individuals in both parties that are worth something.
Name one. The people who could really lead this nation are smart enough to stay the hell away from politics as an elected position.

We end up with second stringers and blithering idiots who want to dialouge with freakin terrorist's and find out whats really bothering them.
July 27th, 2008  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Name one. The people who could really lead this nation are smart enough to stay the hell away from politics as an elected position.

We end up with second stringers and blithering idiots who want to dialouge with freakin terrorist's and find out whats really bothering them.
--------------------------------------------------------

Well that's partially true, but again I am not quite so pessimistic...
Well for the Republicans I would say Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, Richard Lugar, Arlen Specter. And for the Democrats, Feinstein, Conrad, Durbin, Levin.

As for dialoguing with Terrorists, America has ALWAYS dialogued with its enemies, thats nothing new. Secondly negotiating with Terrorists has worked in the Past such as in Northern Ireland.
Even with the worst of the worst, You can be sure that despite all his bluster and sabre rattling George Bush has a connection, (most likely through a proxy such as Pakistan) to comminicate with Al-qaeda. These things always follow the same formula, both sides swear never to surrender and they go at it for decades until finally both sides are exhausted and they sit down to strike a deal.
July 27th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
Mmarsh, it only seems that way because we don't know those candidates well enough. Once they get more "important" you'll have the press and opponents dig up all kinds of weird crap about them.
--
July 27th, 2008  
Gunner13
 
 
Well, mmarsh you have a lot of issues here (and in more ways than one).

First off, you have misread what President Bush wrote in his letter to Congress. I can see how you could make that mistake, but he is not accusing Sadam Hussein of being a part of the 9/11 attacks. Remember that the larger part of The Global War on Terror (dumb name in my opinion, but no one asked) and Iraq is a long time sponsor and supporter of terrorism. Getting rid of that problem is worth a lot in my book

Second, Iraq has lots of oil, but we are buying it, not stealing it, which is what we are accused of doing. Oil is absolutely a vital commodity and the US (and every other single nation state on the globe) acts to preserve access to commodities and markets. Sure, Iraq has hired out of country oil firms and specialist companies to get oil production back up and running, but they retain full control of their resources. Note that they have worked out what looks like a lasting internal arrangement to share the revenue it brings in with the various provinces. If we were taking it all from them, there would be no revenue to share now would there?

Third. OK, you want to run down the Coalition of the willing and pretend that the US really acted on its own to further the myth of the Bush as a Cowboy. I would like to know what, in your mind, constitutes a "valid" partner or military contribution? I seem to remember that we are there under a UNSCR Resolution that authorized this action too (OK, you don’t want it to count because it's not brand new, so what?).

As far as the road to democracy in Iraq goes, yes this is going to be long and hard. However, simply because we can't instantly make everything nice a wonderful does not invalidate our goals, reasons for being there or what has been accomplished. The election you denigrate so readily is the first real vote in Iraq in a very long time. Are all elections invalid because certain groups boycott them? Does that include votes in France??????

I am not interested in buying any bridges, from you or anyone else. Do you think that the Iraqis do not have the capacity for democracy, self-rule and a peaceful society? Talk about low expectations. The pay-off for this is already starting, you simply do not wish to acknowledge any of it.

Fourth. Hard for me to agree with anything you said about this one and your estimates of who supports what are wildly off. Senator McCain proposes finishing what we started and stabilizing things in Iraq before we depart. Senator Obama, well what does he propose? Is he for an arbitrary timetable or will he listen to what the diplomats and military leaders there say? I can't make head or tails out of anything he is proposing as he seems t be for both at the same time (kind of like a lot of the positions he has: Gun Control, NAFTA, etc.). I would be really careful about saying what the leaders elected government of Iraq are backing as I think they can make up their own minds.

Fifth and I really don't get you point here at all, if everyone is so hot to get involved in Darfur and other places (there is no mandate to intervene in Zimbabwe that I noticed) why don't they do it? Oh, wait the OAU is already there and is not really effective. Are you saying that the US has to get involved to make anything happen? What about France?

Sixth, you need to review the latest polling data the shows Obama and McCain in dead heat. McCain has had some success in raising money as well so don’t count him out. You should also remember that the message you are trying to send counts for a lot. A lot of money enables you to shout really loud, but if you have nothing to say, people will begin to see through you, no matter how good you look.

Have a nice day
July 27th, 2008  
Gunner13
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Guy
And I think McCain's will ruin what's left of America's self-respect.

It's an opinion.
Yes, and you are entitled to it. However, my self-respect is just fine thank you very much. You listen to the negative voices of the intelligencecia, mainstream media and élites I think. None of them really count for much.
July 27th, 2008  
Yossarian
 
 
This same story was in the Navy Times

I don't like this situation, at the mere mention of january of 09, I think (aw crap! I've gotta live through that!)

This election sucks, I like Mr. Mcaine, but, I am not 18 yet, so it does'nt really matter what I think, heck, it wouldn't really matter if I was 18, is all up to those delegates.

It's not that America is not ready for our first non white president, it's just America doen't seem ready for it's first Muslim president. And that day will may not come for good while.

Prejudice and fear in action. Business as usual in media dominated 21st century!
July 27th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sukio
It's not that America is not ready for our first non white president, it's just America doen't seem ready for it's first Muslim president. And that day will may not come for good while.
You seem to forget the huge stink over Obama's MINISTER. He's NOT MUSLIM!!!!!!
July 27th, 2008  
wolfen
 
Like I said in another thread, Obama, McCain either way were still in a war somewhere. McCain will "stay the course" Boo.......more war.

Ok Here's Obama, young dynamic, COVERED in various different forms of controversy, no more honest or dishonest that the rest of the candidates in our American history, BUT, he's gonna pull out of Iraq YEA!!!...........Oh wait he's gonna send them all to Afghanistan, except for the ones he saves for out war with Iran, hmmm. McCain would send troops to Iran for that war too.

Well folks seems to me the deciding issue for my vote is my taxes, my pay check, gas prices, alt energy sources, and such.
If I base my vote on weather or not my two boys end up in a war, hell I might as well vote for Roseanne.
July 27th, 2008  
mmarsh
 
 
Gunner13

1. Come'on your grasping at straws here. The letter I quoted you was a letter he wrote was the one asking Congress to authorize military action in Iraq. He is saying that states that support terrorism were responsible for 9-11. Who else would he be referring to? Iceland? This is typical misinformation tactic of this administration, say something indirectly, let all your proxies and allies suggest it in the media (Fox News) but avoid actually saying it yourself, so you can avoid having a embarrassing retraction later as the did when the WMD failed to materialize.

The implication he was trying to make was pretty darn clear, I dont think many, even in the GOP would dispute this.

2. Do you know what you just discribed? IMPERIALISM. Invade another country with your military, put some puppet in office paid off with bribes and then take its resources. Boy, that sounds like Iraq now doesnt it? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Iraqis dont WANT to sell their oil to us? Maybe India, Europe, or China would have given them a better price. Not exactly giving them the option are we?

While we are subject, You can talk about "buying" the oil but everyone knows where the money goes: into the greedy hands of corrupt politicans that WE put in office, not into the country. Its exactly what the Chinese have done in Zimbabwe. The British did it in the Americas, the Middle East and Southwest Asia. The French and Spanish did it in the Caribbean,the Japanese did so in China and elsewhere so and on and so forth...

The fact we need oil is not an excuse, its OUR fault we are still on oil, if Reagan hadn't killed off alternative fuel research in the 1980s we might not be in the energy mess we are now in.

3. Do you what what "Coalition of the Willing" really means? The Coalition of the Coerced, Bribed, and Intimidated. The four countries that actually participated in the 2003 invasion was the USA, UK, Australia and Poland.
The rest recieved a vast amount of foreign aid for their political support (like Estonia, Latvia, etc). Buying allies is not a coalition. 98% of all armed forces was from the US and UK alone. Thats not much of coalition, its pure political SPIN.

4. A insurgent enemy that is well equipped, trained, motivated and eager to fight. A weak and corrupt Central Government thats a puppet to the USA. A population that is displaced, and at the very least sympathetic to certain insurgents. Refusing to leave until the insurgents surrender en mass (so called victory). Do you know where this was? VIETNAM. If it didnt work in Vietnam how the heck can you expect to work in Iraq? I didn't even add the religous and ethnic problems you have in Iraq that didnt exsist in Nam.

Do you know the number of successful military counter insurgencies that have been successful? Its almost nil.

Military solutions will not solve a political problem (even the DOD has acknowledged this), only the Iraqis can sort themselves out we cannot do it for them.

We caused this mess when we stupidly opened pandoras box, but only the Iraqis can close it again. Obama has recognized this, McCain still thinks we can militarily in fact, just 15 minutes ago he stated to a CNN journalist thats wants to build permanent military presence in Iraq. He does that and absolutly guerentee that the war in Iraq will go on and on and on...

5. Because the Government of Sudan won't allow non-African troops in their country thats why. And the OUA is ineffective because they are very poorly trained, pooly armed, and poorly equipped. They only have small arms for Christsake, how'd do you expect them to fight tanks and attack helicopters. You see the other members of the UN have a certain respect of each members national sovereity. And do you know why France, is espicially relucentant? Its because they have a painful memory about when they recklessly stuck their nose in other peoples business. The same lesson we learned (and then forgot) after Vietnam.

6. McCain has gotten closer I'll grant you that, but hes still losing between 2-6 pts in all polls. I think McCain has more to worry about having nothing to say, just ask him the economy (the #1 issue) his reponse: "I am not a economist". Doh! Just what John Q. Citizen wants to hear! Or when McCain isnt putting his foot in his mouth his advisors do it for him.

Economic Advisor Phil Gramm: "American problem with the economy is all in Americans heads, they are just a bunch of whiners". So Mr.Voter (who just lost his house because of the Real Estate Crisis) current problem of homelessness is all just in his head and that hes a whiner, according to the multmillionaire who supposed to be running McCain economic policy. I heard the Obama campaigned sent Gramm a big fat check after McCain fired him...for services rendered to their campaign.

At least Obama knows the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, because according to McCain "Iran (Shiite) supports Al Qaeda (Sunni)". Christ almighty, this guy wants to fight both al Qaeda and Iran and he doesnt anything about either one, espicially the fact that they HATE each other, and have been at constant war for the past 800 years. Do we want someone so ignorant about the world to be leading us? We have had enough of Bush's incompetance.

Gunner13 continued

"Yes, and you are entitled to it. However, my self-respect is just fine thank you very much. You listen to the negative voices of the intelligencecia, mainstream media and élites I think. None of them really count for much".

So what your saying is that its better to sit on our rear end be uninformed and ignorant? That's exactly the disastrous mentality that got us into the Iraq mess in the first place. Do you know why they are called "intelligentsia" it means Intelligent People, people with brains. You can bet your salary that George Bush is sitting in the Oval Office regretting every second that he didn't listen to those so called "negative voices". Perhaps his administration wouldn't be the clusterf*** it is now.

What your stating is a classic example "if the news is bad and not what you want to hear...ignore it".

Sukio

He is not a Muslim, he has said so about a zillion times and even if he was it wouldn't matter. Just because his middle name is Hussein automatically doesn't make him a Muslim, just like someone named David or Sarah doesn't make someone Jewish.
July 27th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner13
Yes, and you are entitled to it. However, my self-respect is just fine thank you very much. You listen to the negative voices of the intelligencecia, mainstream media and élites I think. None of them really count for much.
I don't watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, or ABC or go on their websites for my news. I get most of it from here, thank you very much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
3. Do you what what "Coalition of the Willing" really means? The Coalition of the Coerced, Bribed, and Intimidated. The four countries that actually participated in the 2003 invasion was the USA, UK, Australia and Poland.

4. A insurgent enemy that is well equipped, trained, motivated and eager to fight. A weak and corrupt Central Government thats a puppet to the USA. A population that is displaced, and at the very least sympathetic to certain insurgents. Refusing to leave until the insurgents surrender en mass (so called victory). Do you know where this was? VIETNAM. If it didnt work in Vietnam how the heck can you expect to work in Iraq? I didn't even add the religous and ethnic problems you have in Iraq that didnt exsist in Nam.
3. I still think that Poland participated in the Invasion not because they supported it, but rather because Germany, France, and Russia didn't support it.

4.Exactly. We're grasping at straws here. We're out of things to fight our way, and we can't fight it their way. Time to get out of Dodge.
 


Similar Topics
Obama goes to war
Barack Obama May Recruit Defence Chief Robert Gates
YES!!! OBAMA WINS THE NOMINATION!!!!
John McCain And Barack Obama Tilt Toward The Center On Iraq Plans
Many Troops Would Stay In Iraq If A Democrat Wins