What is Obama thinking?

erikbj · 08-02-2007, 09:04 AM

[quote=cycloneworld;160244]I use to be a hardcore republican, now I just call myself a conservative because there aren't many actual "conservatives" in Washington. And Bush has dropped the ball on more than one thing in the past 7 years. I'll start with the $8.8 trillion national debt he has racked up (not all his doing but a lot of it is).QUOTE]

I meant that Bush had dropped the ball on everything since he came into office. The guy is a bumbling idiot - too bad there are not a lot of good candidates to replace him next year.

RON PAUL in 08

jdoggivjc · 08-02-2007, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Well I'll just have to agree to disagree:)

Anyways, how are the Cubs doing....

The Cubs are acting like the Democrats - showing and making lots of promises but will just end up breaking your heart in the end

Cyclonepride · 08-02-2007, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Jeremy

What he's saying is that he'd go after our actual enemy instead of just somebody that tried to kill his papa. He'd risk pissing off a country that is actually protecting Osama instead of wasting our military lives and our international reputation going after somebody that is no threat. He's doing what some in this country have forgotten that the US should be doing, leading instead of blindly killing.

And you think people would not support him for not having a strategy to complete the mission, umm what the **** have we done in Iraq? That's the biggest cluster **** this countries been in since Vietnam and there's absolutely no chance we can win. Obama should actually get a rise in the polls because he's trying to remind people that Iraq wasn't worth invading, they didn't start the war on terrror. He'd actually try defeating the enemy that brought a war to the US. That is what a leader does.

Regardless of why we are in Iraq, or how we got there, we must find a solution that doesn't destabilize the Middle East. The aftermath of this will be laid at the feet of the United States for years to come.

He is either showing his ignorance to the facts, or trying to make a statement hoping for the ignorance of the American public. Musharraf has been helping the US, in many ways that are not public, and will not become public for a long time. Why do you think he is under attack by Islamic extremists in his own country? The "official" comment is that Pakistan will not allow the US military in his country. The truth is, he is covertly allowing access, in hopes of removing the threat without losing power.

travman23 · 08-02-2007, 09:33 AM

First off I think eventually you'll see Obama fade in the race here regardless. He lacks the expirience and smooth talking can only get you so far. Secondly, if this was a republican speaking right now I bet you they'd get grilled for thinking of such a thing. Raise your hand if you think that if it were Bush that said this that everyone would be blasting the idea because you know they would.

This is exactly why I don't affiliate with a political party because both are terrible at spinning things and all you ever hear is "guess what those crazy democrats/republicans are up to now!" If these people would just do their damn jobs that they were elected to do and not be so party biased on things we'd be much better off I think.

jdoggivjc · 08-02-2007, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Jeremy

See that's the Republican speak:) They aren't against it now because it's popular, they're against it now because the evidence has proven there was no threat and we don't need to remain there. That's called progress and understanding when you were wrong and not being blindly bull-headed.

I would agree except there isn't a black or white solution to Iraq and therefore it's not worth taking up pages of posts for me to state the way to win. The way to win is to leave so we can worry about actual threats like Iran. To suggest that we have to have a clear cut victory is to say that we'll be there for 100 years with tens of thousands of lives.

And it's not just liberal-speak as Republicans would like to suggest, it's about saving our military strength so we can use it when it's actually needed.

I agree politics are a hateful thing these days and I think both sides need to grow up. I'm not a liberal propogandist, I support the actual cause, even if the Republicans would come up with something that would help people (prolly not gonna happen).

Anyways, this is why I usually stay out of political threads, they strike a nerve with me. Just take this as my opinion and don't hate me for it We're all still Cyclones! (we just can't sit together)

So when they found the chemical labs that most likely produced the chemical weapons at the onset of the war, that didn't prove that there was a threat there? I heard a lot of people downplay those labs saying that the Iraqis were producing agricultural fertilizers, but does someone want to remind me of the Iraqi's need for fertilizers for their agricultural industry in the middle of the desert? Good luck with that one... Also, just because we didn't find them there doesn't mean they weren't there at one time. There are a lot of governments in the Middle East that hate us. You don't think that Syria or Jordan were willing to take the weapons in so when we went to look for them in Iraq we'd look like bumbling idiots and embarrass ourselves?

You're right about there not being a black and white solution, because one of those would be politically incorrect, and we can't have that, now can we? The biggest way to win this is to fire-bomb the entire country, damn the collateral damage, and make Iraq the largest exporter of desert-sand glass in the world. But like I said, that's politically incorrect... By the way, just to clear things up, I don't think this is the correct solution either, I consider innocent lives valuable, but it would be the most effective way.

As far as flexing our military strength, Bill Clinton showed us how to do that, didn't he? What he did in Somalia was such a huge disaster that Hollywood made a movie about it (Black Hawk Down). And the fact that when the media pines for the days of Clinton while ripping the war in Iraq just shows that their true color is an ugly shade of hypocrite. As far as Clinton flexing military muscle the rest of his Presidency, well, I guess if you can call "flexing your muscles" bombing Iraq for crossing a no-fly zone and bombing the former Yugoslavia because we just had to throw our .02 into their civil war, because in neither case after the debacle in Somalia he didn't have the guts to actually send the Army in, then yes, Clinton was a military genius.

Yes, the Republicans (not just Bush) have mismanaged the entire war since they let Osama escape into the mountains, but when the Dems point their accusatory fingers it's as if they forget that they don't exactly know how to manage wars either.

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

I'm with you here. I get so tired of hearing the same arguments. For example...abortion. I would bet the farm that whichever of these people are elected will no absolutely nothing to further or rescind abortion rights because it is political suicide. If none of them plan on doing anything about it, THEN WHY DEVOTE SO MUCH TIME TO IT?!?! Let's talk about getting out of our $8.8 trillion debt. Let's talk about implementing an ACTUAL plan to secure our boarders. Let's talk about the skyrocketing cost of healthcare. Sure, a lot of these issues get 30 seconds cookie cutter responses but it would be great to get into a full blown discussion/debate about each one of these issues...not a 60 second answer with a 30 second rebuttal.

The biggest reason why you'll never see the debt settled, securing the borders, and the skyrocketing cost of health care, along with the impending bankruptcy of Social Security (you forgot that one) is because trying to solve these issues are ALSO political suicide. All you had to do was watch an episode from season 5 of "The West Wing" entitled "Slow News Day" to understand why all politicians will acknowledge that Social Security is a problem, but not a single politician will touch it with a 100 foot pole (the 10 foot pole is just too short). In trying to settle this debate, the kinds of concessions each side of the aisle would have to give in order to make it work makes every politician fear for their political lives.

keepngoal · 08-02-2007, 09:44 AM

IHMO:

Barrack may have said it, but he would never do it. And there are many, many reasons why he wouldn't do it.

- keep.

isucyfan · 08-02-2007, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

The biggest way to win this is to fire-bomb the entire country, damn the collateral damage, and make Iraq the largest exporter of desert-sand glass in the world. But like I said, that's politically incorrect... By the way, just to clear things up, I don't think this is the correct solution either, I consider innocent lives valuable, but it would be the most effective way.

This would not only be politically incorrect, but inhumane and atrocious, among other adjectives. You may want to rethink this policy, as it may be used against us in the future when we are not the superpower we once were. The Chinese may be then saying, "Let's just firebomb the whole US, innocents be damned."

The war has gone wrong on so many levels, but on the human level it is horribly wrong. Have we really helped the people on the streets of Baghdad? John McCain is apparently the only one that can walk the streets and proclaim it safe, yet he did that in a flak jacket and with a security entourage, which is not usually available to Joe Baghdad. It really gets me how most Republicans are fervently pro-life, but seem to lack any regard for human life in situations like this.

jdoggivjc · 08-02-2007, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by isucyfan

This would not only be politically incorrect, but inhumane and atrocious, among other adjectives. You may want to rethink this policy, as it may be used against us in the future when we are not the superpower we once were. The Chinese may be then saying, "Let's just firebomb the whole US, innocents be damned."

The war has gone wrong on so many levels, but on the human level it is horribly wrong. Have we really helped the people on the streets of Baghdad? John McCain is apparently the only one that can walk the streets and proclaim it safe, yet he did that in a flak jacket and with a security entourage, which is not usually available to Joe Baghdad. It really gets me how most Republicans are fervently pro-life, but seem to lack any regard for human life in situations like this.

What gets me is how you think the Democrats are any better. The majority of them supported the invasion in Iraq. The only reason why they have flipped now is because they see it as their key to the White House and an even bigger majority in '08. That's not caring for human life, that's changing their opinions to fit their political needs. Sure, Republicans do it too. Actually, all politicians do it. Just don't point the finger at the guys you hate when the guys you love are just as guilty.

isucyfan · 08-02-2007, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

What gets me is how you think the Democrats are any better. The majority of them supported the invasion in Iraq. The only reason why they have flipped now is because they see it as their key to the White House and an even bigger majority in '08. That's not caring for human life, that's changing their opinions to fit their political needs. Sure, Republicans do it too. Actually, all politicians do it. Just don't point the finger at the guys you hate when the guys you love are just as guilty.

I was for the war, too, under the pretenses that were (falsely) given from our President (and I use that term loosely). There were no WMD...no Al-Qaeda link...greeted as liberators...

There's no question Saddam was a bad guy, but don't say we're going to "go get the people who knocked down those buildings" then use that political and emotional momentum to satisfy your agenda.

I bet Colin Powell feels the same way as I do. He was trotted out by the administration to basically unknowingly lie, as he was seen as credible by the American people. It worked, they got their false war, now they don't know how to clean it up.

isucyfan · 08-02-2007, 10:02 AM

By the way, jdoggivjc, I do support your pro-Cyclone stance!

everyyard · 08-02-2007, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Kyle

No one is promoting a full scale invasion of Pakistan. Here's the actual quote:

This suggests to me that he will strike Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, without Pakistan's permission if needed. This would likely be an air strike, or perhaps special ops. This is far from an "invasion." I can't say I wholeheartedly approve of the way he said what he did, but it is not that far out there.

Obama is simply stating what we should have been doing the last 5 years instead of messing around in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. If we had kept it up after afganistan and followed through in pakistan we wouldn't be getting reports that Al Queda is as strong as ever and poised to attack the homeland again.

jdoggivjc · 08-02-2007, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by isucyfan

By the way, jdoggivjc, I do support your pro-Cyclone stance!

Glad that was never in question!

jdoggivjc · 08-02-2007, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by everyyard

Obama is simply stating what we should have been doing the last 5 years instead of messing around in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. If we had kept it up after afganistan and followed through in pakistan we wouldn't be getting reports that Al Queda is as strong as ever and poised to attack the homeland again.

Not sure about that - you'd probably just hear of reports of Osama in Indonesia with the Taliban being as strong as ever and Pakistan being the mess Iraq is, or at least, the mess that Afghanistan is.

darts180 · 08-02-2007, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

What gets me is how you think the Democrats are any better. The majority of them supported the invasion in Iraq. The only reason why they have flipped now is because they see it as their key to the White House and an even bigger majority in '08. That's not caring for human life, that's changing their opinions to fit their political needs. Sure, Republicans do it too. Actually, all politicians do it. Just don't point the finger at the guys you hate when the guys you love are just as guilty.

The problem is context. I was against the war in 01, Iraq was no greater than the 4th greatest threat to American security at the height of their powers.

We had/have an inferior man leading the country, and he used the hysteria following 9/11 to ramrod this act down the throats of this country. I kept thinking the Colin Powell would be able to talk the yahoo's in the White House out of anything rash, but when I saw him stand in front of the UN and try to make the case for invading Iraq, well I knew then that all hope was gone. And here we are 6 years later in the midst of a cultural battle that has been going on for centuries. The one thing that they can all agree on is that WE are the enemy.

Any lawyer will tell you that you never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to, well as someone should have explained to this idiot of a president, you don't throw the nation's military force at someone if you don't know what will happen after the objective (in this case overthrowing Sadaam) is accomplished.

jdoggivjc · 08-02-2007, 10:51 AM

With the last several Presidents we've had (not just Bush), it makes me more and more convinced that Adams, the author of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, has it right about leaders - their real job is to detract attention away from those that are really in power so those really in power can do their jobs without harassment from the public.