|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 23, 2008 16:14:40 GMT -5
Yeah poking at a Nuclear capable bees nest makes Waaaay more sense......sheesh
He has to be elected first.....
After that sweet he can pull the troops out and watch Iraq descend into catastrophic civil war, keeping them stuck permanently in the third world stone age. And keeping us our title as "Selfish" (YOUR Words) Americans...because the old messing up someones stuff and cutting and running idea..isn't at all selfish..like a child who helped mess another childs room and then ran home.
You and your circular want it both ways arguments make little, to no sense. Pulling out of Iraq to INVADE a FOR SURE CONFIRMED nuclear capable nation..sure makes sense to me..and again sounds VERY peaceful. So you're okay with Hussein Obama INVADING Pakistan..but not us going into Iraq? And no I am sure no American or other Civilian lives will be lost when Nukes start flying..
Wow..
And yes like BD said for him to think he will be able to pull all the troops out is insane..much like the man himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 23, 2008 19:02:44 GMT -5
One thing is for sure, Obama will be much more careful pulling out of Iraq than Bush was going in. And yes, there probably will be some chaos while Iraq restructures itself but if our alternative is to be there for 100 years (as McCain has suggested) we should get out ASAP. The fact is we were wrong on our original premise for going to war. Now, Bush is having a hell of a time trying to clean up his mess and we're just getting sucked in deeper and deeper (ala Vietnam) and going into recession in the process. We're even borrowing from China to fund the war. This is crazy! The war will end up costing us 3 trillion dollars when all is said and done. The only war that was more expensive was WWII ($15 trillion when adjusted for inflation). Many envisioned this turning into a quagmire long before the war began, even Cheney knew it in 1994. See here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY Regarding Pakistan, it's true that Obama is taking an even more aggressive stance than Bush. He wants to redeploy many of our troops to the mountains of Afghanistan and even Pakistan, with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. He said last August: "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Nukes will not "start flying" because Obama will actually talk with other foreign leaders and reach an agreement, something Bush refuses to do. So, it seems Obama has our country's safety and best interests in mind while Bush and the Republicans are trying to save face by keeping us in Iraq, trying to pull out some semblance of victory. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 23, 2008 20:10:50 GMT -5
Bolverk: "Well, you stumbled big time on this one. Just so happens, I am married to Filipina..."
Just out of curiosity, is she a member of the FACSCI?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 23, 2008 22:08:37 GMT -5
So, it seems Obama has our country's safety and best interests in mind while Bush and the Republicans are trying to save face by keeping us in Iraq, trying to pull out some semblance of victory. ahem, let's remind everyone here of just how obama plans to keep us "safe." youtube.com/watch?v=M0du8wMLzEY |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 23, 2008 22:48:34 GMT -5
Let's see if I can summarize without the video:
1.) gut the military to a thin shell
2.) cripple the american economy by pushing hysteria driven feel good anti-business legislation
3.) drive our standard of living down to about the level of sudan through a program of redistribution of wealth to other countries.
That about cover it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 23, 2008 23:47:39 GMT -5
Let's see if I can summarize without the video: 1.) gut the military to a thin shell 2.) cripple the american economy by pushing hysteria driven feel good anti-business legislation 3.) drive our standard of living down to about the level of sudan through a program of redistribution of wealth to other countries. That about cover it? I thought we were talking Obama, not George W. Bush |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 24, 2008 1:07:52 GMT -5
Lol, so true Mink for points 1 and 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 24, 2008 12:46:17 GMT -5
Pres. McCain will be happy to take B. Hussein Obama's plan under advisement.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 24, 2008 16:42:28 GMT -5
Ah, the mention of his middle name: Hussein. An irrelevant, childish swipe that the right uses because they can't attack him on much.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 24, 2008 18:06:07 GMT -5
au contraire! there is soooooo much to go after barry husseing obama for but where does one find the time?
i want to thank you saunterelle for the link to obama's "blueprint for america." i think a better name for it would be "mein marxist manifesto."
it was quite an interesting read indeed. barry outlines all his lofty dreams - none of which would ever get off the ground. he speaks as though the president would be a supreme ruler, able to effect change with a mere wave of his hand. he seems to have forgotten that the executive branch is only ONE branch of our gov't. he says he will do this and he will do that but he never once mentions "how" he will do it and he certainly never addresses "who" is going to pay for it!
a few times he even contradicts himself. he states clearly in his manifesto that he will negotiate with iran without preconditions. lately, on the campaign trail he has been backpeddling on that one. he says that he will change the face of washington. i recall another "uniter" who hoped to do the same and then realized that changing washington (congress) is like trying to trying to make rosie o'donnell look pretty. afterall, didn't the current congress promise to do sooooo many wonderful things in 2006? and all they've managed was to raise the min. wage.
what i really found amusing in this document were the "obama's record" entries. these essentially amount to his resume. talk about skimpy! as i've said before we are about to hire the CEO of our nation and it makes no sense to hire a rookie who has almost no experience at all to qualify himself for the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 24, 2008 18:54:13 GMT -5
So, as in Harry Potter; is BOH "He Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken"?
It's his name.
Is he ashamed of it?
Embarassed?
Hiding it?
Why can we not speak it?
Why do you freak out when you hear it?
Should we wait until Chief Justice Roberts says " Do you, Barack Hussein Obama swear to..." before the American people learn this inconvenient truth?
Free speech applies only to favored groups, it seems.
Rodham; Hussein; Sydney.
Such scaredy cats on the left!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on May 26, 2008 0:42:42 GMT -5
No one is "scared" on the left. How often do we use candidates middle names anyway?
It is so convenient that Obama's middle name happens to be the same as Saddam's last name? Doesn't it occur to you by using Obama's middle name, one may encourage some fear into the same people who may still be somewhat influenced by Bush's pre-emptive war in Iraq?
|
|
