2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 11

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I sadly believe Obama has a ceiling that cannot be cracked. I hope I am wrong, but, I think there is enough racisim in the world, that things may be different when people go to vote verses the polls.:|
 
McCain will continue to spend on Iraq, Obama will spend on things that actually matter, and not America stubbornly insisting it was a good idea.
 
McCain will continue to spend on Iraq, Obama will spend on things that actually matter, and not America stubbornly insisting it was a good idea.

Point taken.

The left usually emphasizes spending domestically and does this by reducing military spending.

I hope Obama commands troop withdrawal better than it was done in Vietnam. Afghanistan will be more difficult than Iraq since most of Iraq has been handed off to their own military, and Pakistan is the entry way to Afghanistan.

Biden probably got briefed about terrorists trying to test America to try and speed up withdrawal and wanted to let the public know they should stick with Obama when he makes his decisions.
 
Well, I sadly believe Obama has a ceiling that cannot be cracked. I hope I am wrong, but, I think there is enough racisim in the world, that things may be different when people go to vote verses the polls.:|

This is my biggest fear.

Granted, if Obama loses, you can't just assume it's because everyone who voted for McCain did so because they're racist. I'd love to assume that if McCain wins, that all those who voted for McCain simply think he's the better candidate and has the better plans. (And again, as long as I'm wishing, I'd love a pony.)

Despite the excitement, despite the polls, despite how things appear in the media, I feel there are enough Americans out there who would rather die than see a black man / man with "Hussein" in his name / "socialist" / "guy with obvious terrorist ties" become president.

And that just makes me so sad. Even if he wins, it'll still make me sad because I know there are a lot of those people in this country.
 
I would gladly vote for McCain/Palin if:

a) They were pro-choice
b) They were pro-helping PEOPLE as opposed to rewarding businesses which are already shipping jobs overseas
c) They renounce abortion clinic bombers and internaitonal terrorist Oliver North unequivocally
d) Put this Diamond married to a goat thing to bed*

*I really hope Diamond doesn't whip anything out

By the way, the birth certificate thing is already in bed, only a few far right kooks think it's an open issue

:lol:
 
I don't know where you got the idea that Iraq has been largely handed off to their own military but that's simply incorrect.
The only thing keeping the country somewhat stable right now is the fact that there's 230,000 U.S. troops in there. Take your pick: pull them out in 100years from now and watch the country tear itself apart, in the meantime have thousands of more U.S. soldiers die, or take them out in the next 2 years, and then the country will desolve into chaos.
It's a no win situation, but if the U.S. leaves now, at least there will be far fewer U.S. casualties.
Do you really think Bush or McCain think the U.S. can "win"? What is even the definition of "winning" for Iraq anyway? Have them singing "We Are The World" while holding hands and watching American football? Please. They both know what the probable outcome is but neither wants that day of leaving Iraq on their hands.
The surge worked? Ok, but now what? Once you start removing troops it's going to start all over again.
Gee W, you really screwed us good, didn't ya?
Thanks for the memories.:down:
 
I don't know where you got the idea that Iraq has been largely handed off to their own military but that's simply incorrect.
The only thing keeping the country somewhat stable right now is the fact that there's 230,000 U.S. troops in there. Take your pick: pull them out in 100years from now and watch the country tear itself apart, in the meantime have thousands of more U.S. soldiers die, or take them out in the next 2 years, and then the country will desolve into chaos.
It's a no win situation, but if the U.S. leaves now, at least there will be far fewer U.S. casualties.
Do you really think Bush or McCain think the U.S. can "win"? What is even the definition of "winning" for Iraq anyway? Have them singing "We Are The World" while holding hands and watching American football? Please. They both know what the probable outcome is but neither wants that day of leaving Iraq on their hands.
The surge worked? Ok, but now what? Once you start removing troops it's going to start all over again.
Gee W, you really screwed us good, didn't ya?
Thanks for the memories.:down:

Well that's definately the liberal point of view and you covered much of what many Americans think.

What the conservatives think is that Democrats want to leave Iraq and Afghaninstan too soon so they rip each other apart and then they can blame Bush. Then the next time America gets attacked it won't go to war at all.

Bush certainly didn't invent the idea of the surge and he was naive about the culture in the middle east and compared reformation there to Japan after WWII. He also elongated the war by having tactics to taking ground only to move back later. This force the U.S. to fight over the same ground more than once. These lessons have been learned and Conservatives want to apply them in Afghanistan. If there is a pull out that won't matter.

There is an opportunity for Obama if he completes a surge after withdrawing from Iraq to secure Afghanistan. If democrats believe that leaving Iraq has more to do with the fact that the U.S. shouldn't have went in the first place then at least finish in Afghanistan. Most democrats were okay with the war in Afghanistan.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US forces hand province to Iraqis

Includes map of Iraqi controlled areas.
 
Well that's definately the liberal point of view and you covered much of what many Americans think.

What the conservatives think is that Democrats want to leave Iraq and Afghaninstan too soon so they rip each other apart and then they can blame Bush. Then the next time America gets attacked it won't go to war at all.

Bush certainly didn't invent the idea of the surge and he was naive about the culture in the middle east and compared reformation there to Japan after WWII. He also elongated the war by having tactics to taking ground only to move back later. This force the U.S. to fight over the same ground more than once. These lessons have been learned and Conservatives want to apply them in Afghanistan. If there is a pull out that won't matter.

There is an opportunity for Obama if he completes a surge after withdrawing from Iraq to secure Afghanistan. If democrats believe that leaving Iraq has more to do with the fact that the U.S. shouldn't have went in the first place then at least finish in Afghanistan. Most democrats were okay with the war in Afghanistan.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US forces hand province to Iraqis

Includes map of Iraqi controlled areas.

My thoughts:

Iraq has not been a success, and, no matter how long we stay there, we're just facilitating a civil war.

Afghanistan is undermanned due to Iraq.

The next time America gets attacked, we should defend ourselves against the correct people as opposed to going after the guy from the general area who daddy had a scuffle against back in the day.
 
What the conservatives think is that Democrats want to leave Iraq and Afghaninstan too soon so they rip each other apart and then they can blame Bush. Then the next time America gets attacked it won't go to war at all.

Much like your thoughts that Iraq is for the most part won and that it's already been handed off, you're wrong.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information but I would ask for your money back if you're subscribing to someone.
 
.

What the conservatives think is that Democrats want to leave Iraq and Afghaninstan too soon so they rip each other apart and then they can blame Bush. Then the next time America gets attacked it won't go to war at all.


That may be what conservatives think dems want, but they'd be wrong.
 
That may be what conservatives think dems want, but they'd be wrong.

Much like your thoughts that Iraq is for the most part won and that it's already been handed off, you're wrong.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information but I would ask for your money back if you're subscribing to someone.

I hope you guys are right because there are some real bad guys out there that look at the U.S. as particularly weak right now in the election cycle and look at Obama as weak. If Obama is a tough guy and will stand up to enemies then I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't think the western world can take a declining U.S. if all the other superpowers are dictatorships. Of course I can't overlook that when threats become closer or more eminent people tend to perk up and get tough.
 
I hope you guys are right because there are some real bad guys out there that look at the U.S. as particularly weak right now in the election cycle and look at Obama as weak.
It's not nice to talk about McCain that way...

If Obama is a tough guy and will stand up to enemies then I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't think the western world can take a declining U.S. if all the other superpowers are dictatorships. Of course I can't overlook that when threats become closer or more eminent people tend to perk up and get tough.
If by "tough guy" you mean saber rattling and preemptive wars then you'll probably remain unsatisfied.


Tough guy:

bush_mission_accomplished.jpg
 
I hope you guys are right because there are some real bad guys out there that look at the U.S. as particularly weak right now in the election cycle and look at Obama as weak. If Obama is a tough guy and will stand up to enemies then I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't think the western world can take a declining U.S. if all the other superpowers are dictatorships. Of course I can't overlook that when threats become closer or more eminent people tend to perk up and get tough.

Do you honestly think Obama is just going to roll over if the US is threatened and/or attacked?
 
Exactly.
But that's what McCain's whole campaign has been based on.
It's mind-numbing.
 
It reminds me of the people saying "thank God it was George Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore."

Because Al Gore would've surrendered?
 
Actually there is a good deal of eveidence that a response by Gore. Al Qaeda had attacked and attacked over the entire Clinton administration with a week response. 9/11, in my opinion is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the problem for eight years. This statement does not mean the Bush Admin, was not somewhat responsible as well, but I see no evidence that there would have been as decisive action due to eight years of the Clinton/Gore cupation of the White House.
 
Do you honestly think Obama is just going to roll over if the US is threatened and/or attacked?

It's an actual concern. Al Qaeda looks at the U.S. as a country that doesn't finish what it starts. I'm talking about what the enemy thinks. People on this board are expecting Iraq to fall apart into 3 countries. America may not roll over at first but they might get tired and get tempted to give up. Bosnia was the last success. Vietnam, Somalia, maybe Iraq and Afghanistan are not.

There's this sense that if the enemy keeps piling on the will of the public weakens, especially with a downbeat media. When the U.S. leaves both wars, especially if it is right away, the enemy will be enboldened. Then they will look at that as a victory and all they have to do is perservere by waiting the U.S. out. Conservatives are concerned about that. They fear Jimmy Carter the sequel.

One thing benefiting the U.S. is that the economy in the U.S. is not the only one financially distracted but it is all over the world as well. I hope that it will cool things off with Russia who relies on the high price of oil, and Iran.
 
It's an actual concern. Al Qaeda looks at the U.S. as a country that doesn't finish what it starts. I'm talking about what the enemy thinks.

Interesting. I wasn't aware you were a spokesman for Al Qaeda.

People on this board are expecting Iraq to fall apart into 3 countries.

Really? On what are you basing that rather large assumption? Or... name one person on this board who thinks that. Or... perhaps you could try staying away from telling people what their expectations are or what they think.

There's this sense that if the enemy keeps piling on the will of the public weakens, especially with a downbeat media. When the U.S. leaves both wars, especially if it is right away, the enemy will be enboldened.

I agree that if we leave right away there will be problems. However, Obama has already made it clear that he's not just going to pick up and leave - and indeed he's been one of the few leading the push for more troops in Afghanistan, so I don't quite understand where this concern comes from that we're just going to up and leave in both countries.
 
Last edited:
Actually there is a good deal of eveidence that a response by Gore. Al Qaeda had attacked and attacked over the entire Clinton administration with a week response. 9/11, in my opinion is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the problem for eight years. This statement does not mean the Bush Admin, was not somewhat responsible as well, but I see no evidence that there would have been as decisive action due to eight years of the Clinton/Gore cupation of the White House.

You're right, Al Qaeda had attacked US interests during the Clinton administration without much in the way of strong responses to Al Qaeda itself, but they didn't attack us at anywhere near the level of magnitude of 9/11.

Though we're clearly delving into some huge hypotheticals here, personally I think that any president, regardless of party, would have responded to 9/11 by going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Clinton, Gore, Hillary, Bush, McCain, etc - there's no doubt in my mind that there would have been similar operations into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden and eradicate Al Qaeda. Where the differences lie in my mind is in what would have happened concurrently with that, and what would have happened after that.
 
Actually there is a good deal of eveidence that a response by Gore. Al Qaeda had attacked and attacked over the entire Clinton administration with a week response. 9/11, in my opinion is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the problem for eight years. This statement does not mean the Bush Admin, was not somewhat responsible as well, but I see no evidence that there would have been as decisive action due to eight years of the Clinton/Gore cupation of the White House.


This kind of thing drives me up the wall, and I've been hearing it for years now.
Dread, do you know who was president of the United States on 9/11? Bill Clinton? Nope. Al Gore? Nope. Bozo the Clown? Close. But no, it was George W. Bush, who had BEEN president of the United States for a full nine months before the attack. It happened ON HIS WATCH. Even though he constantly likes to say things like "Not on my watch". Therefore, it was HIS responsibility to have prevented the attack. The buck stops here, as Reagan used to say. He was in charge. He was briefed a month before that Al Queda was a threat and was trying to use airplanes and fly them into buildings. Did the president put the country on a red alert? Nope. Did he step up the inteeligence agencies to do everything they could to find the suspects? Nope. Did Bush do ANYTHING regarding Al Queda nine months before the attack? NO.

Did Bill Clinton try to do anything about Al Queda during his presidency? Read for yourself:
t r u t h o u t | Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts

But I digress. Would ANY U.S. President roll over in a 9/11 event and do nothing. Of course not. But let me just remind you of what GWB HAS done:
Started two wars in two countries and yet has NOT CAUGHT Bin Laden.
Mission accomplished.
DO you want me to keep going on this? Because after listening to republican horse manure for the last eight years, I've got plenty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom