NationStates Jolt Archive

Obama hit back at a rally in Columbus, Ohio, saying McCain had joined with President George W Bush in supporting a war "that should have never been authorised and should have never been waged."

"I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq," he said to cheers.

He mocked McCain for his oft-repeated remark that he will get al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden if he has to follow him to the "gates of hell."

"So far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq," Obama said.
.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501161&objectid=10495103

I love it :D

this election was getting boring..

if MacCain wants to go to the gates of hell.. I say let him go alone (or with his supporters). If we are lucky he should decide to stay 100 years :cool:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-McCain-Iraq.html?ex=1204779600&en=54f56e8ec4bfa1fa&ei=5070&emc=eta1

*McCain Mocks Obama's Iraq Views*

TYLER, Texas (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Democrat Barack Obama on Wednesday for saying he would take action as president ''if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq.''

''When you examine that statement, it's pretty remarkable,'' McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas.

''I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaida in Iraq,''' McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama's expense.

Obama quickly answered back, telling a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus, ''I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq.''

''So I have some news for John McCain,'' he added, saying there was no al-Qaida presence in Iraq until President Bush invaded the country.

(True, but not the point McCain was making...McCain was ridiculing that Obama said he'd go there if Al Qaida was in Iraq....)

Noting that McCain likes to tell audiences that he'd follow Osama bin Laden to the ''gates of hell'' to catch him, Obama taunted: ''All he (McCain) has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq.''

McCain said he had not watched the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night but was told of Obama's response when asked if as president he would reserve the right to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to quell an insurrection or civil war.

Obama did not say whether he'd send troops but responded: ''As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.''

Throughout the primary season, McCain has repeatedly attacked Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for saying they would withdraw troops from Iraq.

''And my friends, if we left, they (al-Qaida) wouldn't be establishing a base,'' McCain said Wednesday. ''They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaida.''

He said that withdrawing troops would be ''waving the white flag.''

:rolleyes::rolleyes:In the debate, Clinton did not answer the question about re-invasion of Iraq on grounds it contained ''lots of different hypothetical assessments.'':rolleyes::rolleyes:

Part of me still likes McCain, and I'd love it if he'd attack Obama on his Iraq war views. That way, Obama can shape up his views on Iraq (which in my opinion are....somewhat flawed), so he can figure out the best course of action before he becomes president.

And I'd love it if he appointed McCain Sec. of Def.

And my friends, if we left, they (al-Qaida) wouldn't be establishing a base,'' McCain said Wednesday. ''They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaida.

Thank you my friend. Thank you.

*McCain Mocks Obama's Iraq Views* :)

Hey Atlantian...

Wouldn't you just love to have a colored President? ... I mean.. I would think so specially after reading your thread about how Africans should the thankful for colonialism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549781)

so, This is just for you:

OBAMA 08 !!!
viva el Obama!! , si se puede!! si se puede!!!!

Part of me still likes McCain, so Id like for him to lay off the personal attacks. It doesnt become him.


And Im not suprised Hillary didnt answer the question. In fact TAI, thank you for posting this. Next time one of the Hillarites on here says that Obama "speaks in generalities" Im going to direct them to this thread or point out her refusal to answer the damn question.

Thats not a personal attack. Thats an attack on policy. His policy on Iraq is contractory. He says he will take the troops out of Iraq but will put them back if Al Quida has a base in Iraq. Al Quida does have bases in Iraq. So will he take them out and then put them back in? Leave them in? Or take them out? Hes trying to double talk his way through policy and its only going to work if people start thinking that personality and policy are the same thing. In this case hes just changing the argument because he knows his policy is bunk and pointing the finger at President Bush will get a knee jerk reaction from his followers.

In fact TAI, thank you for posting this.
Just doing my job, sir. ;)

Use it on CanuckHeaven, his denying reality has been annoying the shit out of NSG recently...:)
:)

Hey Atlantian...

Wouldn't you just love to have a colored President, I mean.. we all know how you are open to races and stuff :D :D ;) :D

This is just for you:

OBAMA 08 !!!
viva el Obama!! , si se puede!! si se puede!!!!
Hey Ocean....queres saber uno secreto? Me gusta Obama y pienso que el es muy amiable y tiene su virtud ..la problema es que solomente creo que el gobiereno tiene que existir para otros razones....En realidad creimos en gobiernos diferentes.
Entiendes? Y ahora tenog una pregunta para ti....;) de donde eres? Porque puedes hablar Espanol?

.....


If only Ron Paul could see one of his supporters speaking Spanish....he'd flip.



;)

Hey Ocean....queres saber uno secreto? Me gusta Obama y pienso que el es muy amiable y tiene su virtud ..la problema es que solomente creo que el gobiereno tiene que existir para otros razones....En realidad creimos en gobiernos diferentes.
Entiendes? Y ahora tenog una pregunta para ti....;) de donde eres? Porque puedes hablar Espanol?
Translation I secretely love Obama, where are you from

I secretely love Obama,
where are you from

I am from the Land of Hollywood , home of the Big Mac. (just like you.. you are one of US too.. rigth?)

wha...?
You secretly love Obama?

WoW... If someone like you secretly loves Obama.. then MacCain does NOT have an snowball chance in hell. :D

WoW.



World of Warcraft?

TYLER, Texas (AP) -- Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Democrat Barack Obama on Wednesday for saying he would take action as president ''if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq.''
And Al Qaida wouldn't be forming a base in Iraq if we hadn't...

Actually...it's the advice of the founders (but I can't for the life of me remember which one).

Something like:

"It's a boon for a person to be multi-lingual and multi-cultural, but it is the downfall of a state to be."

That's how I live my life. I happy to love Spanish..parts of Latin-America, Spain and alot of latin-American food and dance..I just don't think it just change the demographics of America and I see that happening in the border states.....and it's not looking like a good future will come out of it, but rather a balkanization process....:(
That's rather odd coming from someone who admires the Swiss, is it not?

World of Warcraft?yeah, it kicks the Llama's ass. :D

http://www.wowguru.com/gallery/view/1572.jpg

.....


If only Ron Paul could see one of his supporters speaking Spanish....he'd flip.



;)
Actually...it's the advice of the founders (but I can't for the life of me remember which one).

Something like:

"It's a boon for a person to be multi-lingual and multi-cultural, but it is the downfall of a state to be."

That's how I live my life. I happy to love Spanish..parts of Latin-America, Spain and alot of latin-American food and dance..I just don't think it just change the demographics of America and I see that happening in the border states.....and it's not looking like a good future will come out of it, but rather a balkanization process....:(
I am from the Land of Hollywood , home of the Big Mac. (just like you.. you are one of US too.. rigth?)
Si soy Americano...donde vives? In generalmente....La ciudad cerca de ti esta bien...no tengo que saber tu pueblo exactamente ;).

wha...?
You secretly love Obama?
No..that's not what I said. If you're going to translate what I said...say it correctly.

WoW... If someone like you secretly loves Obama.. then MacCain does NOT have an snowball chance in hell. :D
Again..don't misquote me...if you want to bring that conversation into English...do so correctly and bring it all over.

That's rather odd coming from someone who admires the Swiss, is it not?
Not really. Those 4 cultures have grown up together...and formed the nation together.....It's what IS Switzerland. Also....their differences arn't as astouding as a real multi-cultural society, like say...South Africa. Not to mention...that no matter how many differences there were...none of them consider themselves Germans, or French or Italians, they are Swiss.....but I can't say the same for the issue with Latinos in America.

I would use the example of Austria-Hungary as what happens when countries become too mulitcultural and multilingual....

.
if MacCain wants to go to the gates of hell.. I say let him go alone (or with his supporters). If we are lucky he should decide to stay 100 years :cool:

In McCain's defense, the eternally damned vote will play a big part in the election. He's probably just campaigning there.

Again..don't misquote me...if you want to bring that conversation into English.alors.. tu laimes? ou tu laimes pas? decide toi une fois pour toutes.

Not really. Those 4 cultures have grown up together...and formed the nation together.....It's what IS Switzerland. Also....their differences arn't as astouding as a real multi-cultural society, like say...South Africa. Not to mention...that no matter how many differences there were...none of them consider themselves Germans, or French or Italians, they are Swiss.....but I can't say the same for the issue with Latinos in America. Si se puede! SI se puede !!! ;)

Si se puede! SI se puede !!! ;)

alors.. tu laimes? ou tu laimes pas? decide toi une fois pour toutes.

How old are you, actually?

You didn't even respond to anything....you just tried to be annoying....

How old are you, actually?
I am legal and I am on msn too, mostly available Thursday evenings :D

Bah I'll just translate it before I go out....

Don't want Ocean twisting my words.


"Hey Ocean...you want to know a secret....I like Obama and I think that he's really likeable and he has his virtues. The problem is just that I believe that government exists for different reasons. Actually we just believe in different types of governmentes."

"Hey Ocean...you want to know a secret....I like Obama and I think that he's really likeable and he has his virtues. The problem is just that I believe that government exists for different reasons. Actually we just believe in different types of governmentes."Would you vote for someone who says "its OK to stay in Iraq for 100 years" ??? , Would you believe in that kind of governmentes?

.....


If only Ron Paul could see one of his supporters speaking Spanish....he'd flip.



;)

Why?

Part of me still likes McCain, and I'd love it if he'd attack Obama on his Iraq war views. That way, Obama can shape up his views on Iraq (which in my opinion are....somewhat flawed), so he can figure out the best course of action before he becomes president.

And I'd love it if he appointed McCain Sec. of Def.
Long as that sycophant isn't president.

Just doing my job, sir. ;)

Use it on CanuckHeaven, his denying reality has been annoying the shit out of NSG recently...:)

Hey Ocean....queres saber uno secreto? Me gusta Obama y pienso que el es muy amiable y tiene su virtud ..la problema es que solomente creo que el gobiereno tiene que existir para otros razones....En realidad creimos en gobiernos diferentes.
Entiendes? Y ahora tenog una pregunta para ti....;) de donde eres? Porque puedes hablar Espanol?

Please, you think linking to this thread is going to stop CH or his new incarnation of Canuck Utopia? Trust me, he'll continue to trot out the same shite and claim that we are all too stupid to understand his wonderful argument. Color me wicked pissed with CH and the female version we now see.

si se puede

Yes, it can? I think you're looking for

"Sí, podemos."

Or, if we want to venture to more languages...

"Ja können wir"

"да, мы можем"

"はい、私達はできる"

Would you vote for someone who says "its OK to stay in Iraq for 100 years" ??? , Would you believe in that kind of governmentes?

Actually, just an FYI, the full quote reads "Its OK to stay in Iraq for 100 years as long as people aren't being tourtured and killed there. We have bases all over that reigion. Why not Iraq?"

yeah, it kicks the Llama's ass. :D

http://www.wowguru.com/gallery/view/1572.jpg

That is strangely sexy...

That is strangely sexy...

Lol, I wonder who had enough free time to take this picture.

Come on, let's vote for Barack Saddam Hussein Osama! :p

Come on, let's vote for Barack Saddam Hussein Osama! :p

because we've never heard that one before...

And certainly not from McCain's campaign people.
McCain's plan is see-through. He gets his campaign to slander and disparage Obama (Clinton isn't worth the time) and then he comes out and apologizes and disconnects himself from those attacks to make himself look like a good guy. But of course he never stops the attacks.

What a douchebag, eh?

because we've never heard that one before...
And certainly not from McCain's campaign people.
McCain's plan is see-through. He gets his campaign to slander and disparage Obama (Clinton isn't worth the time) and then he comes out and apologizes and disconnects himself from those attacks to make himself look like a good guy. But of course he never stops the attacks.

Part of me still likes McCain, so Id like for him to lay off the personal attacks. It doesnt become him.
There will be lots more....it is called politics US style.

And Im not suprised Hillary didnt answer the question. In fact TAI, thank you for posting this. Next time one of the Hillarites on here says that Obama "speaks in generalities" Im going to direct them to this thread or point out her refusal to answer the damn question.
I think Hillary offered the better answer. Blurting out an answer to a hypothetical question can be dangerous.

There will be lots more....it is called politics US style.

Sorry, but Canadian politics isn't much better. I've seen some political ads from Canada that were pretty bad. :p

I think Hillary offered the better answer. Blurting out an answer to a hypothetical question can be dangerous.I'm not sure you understand what the word hypothetical means. Any substantive question on a candidate's Iraq position is going to be hypothetical. e.g. "What will you do in Iraq if things go well/badly/etc."

Sorry, but Canadian politics isn't much better. I've seen some political ads from Canada that were pretty bad. :p
The good thing about Canadian politics is that the election campaign is usually 6 to 8 weeks long, not a long drawn out affair like they have in the US.

And although there is negative ads in Canadian politics, they seem to pale by US standards....thank God.

The good thing about Canadian politics is that the election campaign is usually 6 to 8 weeks long, not a long drawn out affair like they have in the US.

And although there is negative ads in Canadian politics, they seem to pale by US standards....thank God.

What about the Liberal Party's ad about Stephen Harper putting military forces in the cities? "We're not making this up...we're not allowed to make this stuff up."

And the Conservative Party isn't much better.

I think Hillary offered the better answer. Blurting out an answer to a hypothetical question can be dangerous.

Recorded. If you ever raise issue with Obama over "generalities", you will be marked as a hypocrite.

I'm not sure you understand what the word hypothetical means. Any substantive question on a candidate's Iraq position is going to be hypothetical. e.g. "What will you do in Iraq if things go well/badly/etc."
Like I said before....I prefer Hillary's answer. Blurting out an answer to a hypothetical question can be dangerous. Especially if the hypothetical question is poorly or loosely framed.

Recorded. If you ever raise issue with Obama over "generalities", you will be marked as a hypocrite.
Why? On this one particular issue, I agree with Hillary's response. Another time, I might disagree. It really depends on the situation?

Besides, I did cover myself by saying that "Blurting out an answer to a hypothetical question can be dangerous". I didn't say that it is always dangerous.

I prefer Hillary's answer.No no no, Hillary didn't answer, remember? Because it was TOO DANGEROUS!!! Hey let's ask presidential candidates what they're plans are for Iraq so we make sure we don't put the wrong person in the oval office - nononono TOO DANGEROUS! We must GUESS instead. That would be the safest option, because if we so much as discuss foreign policy the terrorists win!

No no no, Hillary didn't answer, remember? Because it was TOO DANGEROUS!!! Hey let's ask presidential candidates what they're plans are for Iraq so we make sure we don't put the wrong person in the oval office - nononono TOO DANGEROUS! We must GUESS instead. That would be the safest option, because if we so much as discuss foreign policy the terrorists win!
Kind of like we can't talk about our interrogation techniques because then they'll learn to defend against simulated drowning?

No no no, Hillary didn't answer, remember?
Rightly so.

Because it was TOO DANGEROUS!!!
It was for Obama?

Hey let's ask presidential candidates what they're plans are for Iraq so we make sure we don't put the wrong person in the oval office - nononono TOO DANGEROUS!
We both know that their plans are to withdraw US troops ....no surprise there.

We must GUESS instead.
You are guessing that Obama is the best candidate for the job? You could be wrong. Perhaps you haven't taken time to weigh all the variables?

How many Americans will go to the ballot box and not vote for Hillary because she is a woman or Obama because he is black, or McCain because he is religious. How many women will go and vote for whoever their husband tells them who they should vote for?

How many Americans voted for Bush last time because they were afraid of terrorists?

And so on and so forth. And Obama's answer was really a non answer?

Obama did not say whether he'd send troops but responded: ''As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests.
Does that make you feel any safer? It was an extremely poor answer.

That would be the safest option, because if we so much as discuss foreign policy the terrorists win!
Discussing foreign policy is one thing, hastily blurting out answers is another.

Part of me still likes McCain,... snip ... I'd love it if he appointed McCain Sec. of Def.

oddly enough, that's the one possition McCain MIGHT actually be good for.
he DOES seem to have the experince and background for THAT job.
(which is as much as i'll grant him, or anyone who shares what he's expressed as some of his other views)

=^^=
.../\...

Why? On this one particular issue, I agree with Hillary's response. Another time, I might disagree. It really depends on the situation?

Besides, I did cover myself by saying that "Blurting out an answer to a hypothetical question can be dangerous". I didn't say that it is always dangerous.

Attempted dodge noted.

Clinton's generalizing "can" be excused. Non-application of the same principle to Barrack Obama's case will contradict stated stance, identifying you as a hypocrite.

Yes, it can? I think you're looking for

"Sí, podemos."


Yeah, I noticed that too. Most newspapers don't even accent the "i" in Sí, which makes for a meaningless sentence fragment.

We both know that their plans are to withdraw US troops ....no surprise there.Not exactly. They say they want to withdraw troops, but reserve the right to stay should anything really bad happen. At least Barack Obama gives a timetable and says no permanent bases. We also know he won't have the wool pulled over his eyes by the warmongers. Clinton for all we know may spend her entire presidency "withdrawing troops" and putting them back in because she's more accountable to lobbyists and special interests than the American public.

You are guessing that Obama is the best candidate for the job? You could be wrong. Perhaps you haven't taken time to weigh all the variables?I KNOW that Barack Obama is the best candidate for the job because his positions are reasonably consistent and he tells the truth, so I can be reasonably certain that he will keep his positions, which I agree with. Clinton is the wild card. I know that she would be worse than Obama, but how much I don't know because her positions on important issues either are hard to pin down or shift like the sands of the Sahara and the fact that she doesn't answer "hypotheticals" only serves to make her candidacy more opaque.

How many Americans will go to the ballot box and not vote for Hillary because she is a woman or Obama because he is black, or McCain because he is religious. How many women will go and vote for whoever their husband tells them who they should vote for?The polls, which haven't been as far off as everybody would like to think, indicate that Barack Obama has a decided advantage.

Does that make you feel any safer? It was an extremely poor answer.I'm not voting for who's going to give me the most warm fuzzies. The only reason you think that it's a poor answer is because Obama said it, and you're probably taking it out of detailed context (or even made it up). Hillary says stuff like nonstop, although usually even more vague. Maybe you have a problem with the commander in chief looking out for American interests?

Discussing foreign policy is one thing, hastily blurting out answers is another.Yeah I get it. In your mind "Discussing foreign policy" is what Clinton does and "hastily blurting out answers" is what Barack does. Even though in reality Barack never blurts anything out, but usually says something long-winded prefaced with a "look" or a "ya know", and Clinton never engages in substantive discussion of foreign policy, except when she does something stupid like rant and rave against a foreign leader who controls thousands of nukes because he insulted her for being female. That "tough talk" against Putin is going to start another cold war all because Clinton can't control her temper.

Actually Obama is largely correct, 'al Qaeda' was only a very less known name and barely used at all in Islamist circles until the US starting playing it up as an vast international organization, which Bin Laden and his group quickly took advantage of. Al Qaeda is largely these days a 'franchise', groups fighting the US or pro-US regimes use it to draw attention and simply to make the movement look this massive organization. Obama is correct that al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq before the invasion, Saddam as people will know was no friend of the Islamist revival, and crushed all such groups.

'Al qaeda' in Iraq in made up of sacked former soldiers and civil servants, Baathists and nationalists, the US military actually accepts this. So what I am saying is that 'Al Qaeda' McCain talks about, this monolithic centralized entity, does not exist. The 'Al Qaeda' in Iraq has no contact or orders to some centralized command HQ or something. Groups, just like 'Al Qaeda in Algeria', 'Al Qaeda in Somalia' etc just like using the names, before 9/11 these groups were just tribal, sectarian or nationalist groups.

It's a shame so many buy into this 'global terrorist' conspiracy theory, in reality the 'war on terror' is nothing different that decades previous, that is people fighting other people for local bits of dirt.

Not exactly. They say they want to withdraw troops, but reserve the right to stay should anything really bad happen.
The politically correct answer.

At least Barack Obama gives a timetable and says no permanent bases.
Clinton doesn't have a timetable?

Obama has an established timetable?

I think it would be rather naive to believe that there will not be any permanent bases in Iraq.

We also know he won't have the wool pulled over his eyes by the warmongers.
As far as I can see, Obama is a warmonger himself. He has pledged a "war that we must win", and the battlefield will be "in Afghanistan and Pakistan".

Clinton for all we know may spend her entire presidency "withdrawing troops" and putting them back in because she's more accountable to lobbyists and special interests than the American public.
You are just musing and showing your bias here.

I KNOW that Barack Obama is the best candidate for the job because his positions are reasonably consistent and he tells the truth,
They say that the proof is in the pudding. He hasn't had his hands on the controls yet, so it is rather premature to suggest that "he tells the truth"?

so I can be reasonably certain that he will keep his positions, which I agree with.
You went from a position of "he tells the truth" to "reasonably certain that he will keep his positions" within two sentences.

Clinton is the wild card. I know that she would be worse than Obama,
You seem to "know" a lot, but really, all you are doing is offering speculation.

but how much I don't know because her positions on important issues either are hard to pin down or shift like the sands of the Sahara and the fact that she doesn't answer "hypotheticals" only serves to make her candidacy more opaque.
Hillary doesn't answer hypothetical questions? Yes she has. In regards to this situation, she certainly handled it much better than Obama.

The polls, which haven't been as far off as everybody would like to think, indicate that Barack Obama has a decided advantage.
The polls are whacked.

I'm not voting for who's going to give me the most warm fuzzies.
Your posts seem to confirm that you are.

The only reason you think that it's a poor answer is because Obama said it,
It would be a poor answer if Hillary had stated the same thing.

and you're probably taking it out of detailed context (or even made it up).
The question was straight forward and so was the answer. I don't think it would be possible to take the question out of context.

Hillary says stuff like nonstop, although usually even more vague.
Showing your bias again? Any specifics you care to share?

Maybe you have a problem with the commander in chief looking out for American interests?
And yet you suggest that Hillary is "vague". That was a terrible non answer.

Yeah I get it. In your mind "Discussing foreign policy" is what Clinton does and
I do believe that Hillary is certainly more diplomatic regarding her foreign policy.

"hastily blurting out answers" is what Barack does.
He does seem to be having trouble around his foreign policy. I think it would haunt him in an election campaign.

Even though in reality Barack never blurts anything out,
Never? More bias.

but usually says something long-winded prefaced with a "look" or a "ya know",
Long winded = evasive?

and Clinton never engages in substantive discussion of foreign policy, except when she does something stupid like rant and rave against a foreign leader who controls thousands of nukes because he insulted her for being female.
Could you possible give me a link for this Hillary outburst?

That "tough talk" against Putin is going to start another cold war all because Clinton can't control her temper.
All that "tough talk" about starting a hot "war we can win" by Obama is certainly more ominous then any "cold war".

Are you hoping that if you say it enough times it will magically become true?
factcheck (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cleveland_clinkers.html)

Bombs Away!

Clinton claimed, "Last summer [Obama] basically threatened to bomb Pakistan." Obama denied that: "I never said I would bomb Pakistan."

He's right. What he really said on Aug. 1, 2007, was this: "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."

Furthermore, as Obama also noted, that's pretty much what the U.S. did recently. On Feb. 1, several news organizations quoted official sources saying that a CIA airstrike in Pakistan killed Abu Laith al-Libi, who once was 4th on the "most wanted" list of a military anti-terrorism task force. The strike, incidentally, was by a remote-controlled Predator drone using missiles, not by crewed bombers.

Obama’s War Flip-Flop?

Clinton claimed that in 2004 Obama "was saying that he basically agreed with the way George Bush was conducting the war."

She is referencing a July 27, 2004, quote in the Chicago Tribune, in which Obama did indeed say of the Iraq war that "[t]here’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage" (our emphasis). But Clinton quoted him selectively. In that same interview, Obama also reiterated that he would not have voted for the war, and he offered serious criticism of Bush’s handling of it, saying, "I don't see them having the credibility to be able to execute." And in a New York Times interview given the day before, Obama said that "from my vantage point, the case was not made" for the war, and he rebuked Democratic leaders for "the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass" on proving the case for the war.

As Clinton herself pointed out during the debate, the two candidates have identical voting records on the war since they both have been in the Senate. Furthermore, Obama's views about how to conduct the war are not significantly different from hers, and they have proposed very similar plans for ending it.

if MacCain wants to go to the gates of hell.. I say let him go alone (or with his supporters). If we are lucky he should decide to stay 100 years :cool:How hard can it be to mock a statement that basically states that if Osama bin Laden jumps off a bridge, McCain would be obliged to do the same?

Clinton doesn't have a timetable?
Obama has an established timetable?That's my understanding.
I think it would be rather naive to believe that there will not be any permanent bases in Iraq.Personally, I think it's rather naive to believe that civilization isn't going to hell in a handbasket and that humanity isn't developing a technological society that will render human will irrelevant it's direction within our lifetimes if it hasn't already, but that doesn't mean I don't still have a civic duty to vote for whoever will fight against it.
As far as I can see, Obama is a warmonger himself. He has pledged a "war that we must win", and the battlefield will be "in Afghanistan and Pakistan".Here are some George W Bush quotes for you:
"I want to be the peace president"

"America is a peaceful power..."

"Precisely because we have no territorial objectives, our gains are not measured in the losses of others. They are counted in the conflicts we avert, the prosperity we share and the peace we extend."

As far as I can see, George W Bush is a peacemonger himself!!!!

You are just musing and showing your bias here.I'm using inductive logic based on historical truth. If there is bias, you have yet to provide evidence of it.

They say that the proof is in the pudding. He hasn't had his hands on the controls yet, so it is rather premature to suggest that "he tells the truth"?Um, no. There are lots of people who I know tell the truth and none of them have been president.

You went from a position of "he tells the truth" to "reasonably certain that he will keep his positions" within two sentences.Congratulations. You can read. I believe that honest people tend more toward consistency on their positions than do dishonest people. Do you disagree?

You seem to "know" a lot, but really, all you are doing is offering speculation.I invite you to browse my post history where I offer much more than speculation.

Hillary doesn't answer hypothetical questions? Yes she has. In regards to this situation, she certainly handled it much better than Obama.What do you mean by handled? You clearly can't mean that she was more communicative, since she didn't want to answer the question. You clearly can't mean that it was the smarter political maneuver, because Obama's lead is still climbing, so what do you mean by "handled"?

The polls are whacked.Wanna bet?

Your posts seem to confirm that you are.Oh really? Did I say somewhere that I'm voting for Obama because of a gut feeling or he makes me feel good? No, I didn't. You're just saying that because it's your belief (or your online persona's belief) that anybody who would vote for Obama CLEARLY must be doing it for emotional purposes, because he's a substance-less candidate, which is evidenced by the fact that all his supporters like him because they make him feel good... Yup, a perfect circle of logic there.

It would be a poor answer if Hillary had stated the same thing.You wouldn't be saying that had Hillary said it.

The question was straight forward and so was the answer. I don't think it would be possible to take the question out of context.Prove it and post the context.

Showing your bias again? Any specifics you care to share?Print out a Hillary speech. Throw a dart. Post the paragraph it hits.

And yet you suggest that Hillary is "vague".I didn't suggest. I declared.

I do believe that Hillary is certainly more diplomatic regarding her foreign policy.How so? Which foreign policy points of hers will strengthen America more than Barack's?

He does seem to be having trouble around his foreign policy. I think it would haunt him in an election campaign.You might expect indeed were he actually having any trouble at all... He seemed to have a lot less "trouble" holding a consistent and accurate position on the Iraq War than most everybody in Washington. What exactly do you mean by "trouble"? More vague, elusive words from somebody supporting a vague, elusive candidate.

Never? More bias.Oh really? Post a youtube of Barack "blurting" something out. Because I could post several of Hillary "blurting" something out. Nevermind that "blurting" is itself a biased, loaded term subject to gross subjective interpretation that you introduced to suggest a distinction where there is none.

Long winded = evasive?Try "nuanced".

Could you possible give me a link for this Hillary outburst?Sure, no problem. Here's what I found from a quick google and youtube search of Hillary Putin:

First this:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Hillary_Putin_doesnt_have_a_soul.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2008/01/hillary-putin-has-no-soul.html

Then Putin responds "At a minimum, a head of state should have a head."
http://www.pr-inside.com/at-a-valedictory-press-conference-putin-r439731.htm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fIlKAGL93qI

Then she keeps right on with the antagonistic tone:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1q0MqiZxjsA&feature=related
Obviously she's right about the facts, but somehow she doesn't understand that it's necessary to "disagree without being disagreeable", as Obama both talks and walks, if you want to avoid starting nuclear wars. It's interesting that she contradicts herself by allowing personal relationships to get in the way of good diplomacy.

All that "tough talk" about starting a hot "war we can win" by Obama is certainly more ominous then any "cold war".More metaphorical than hot, as was made abundantly clear from the context of the speech. In any case, a winnable war is far more desirable than a cold war that is unwinnable.

~~Snip I like Obama you like Hillary one offs~~

Sure, no problem. Here's what I found from a quick google and youtube search of Hillary Putin:

Obviously she's right about the facts, but somehow she doesn't understand that it's necessary to "disagree without being disagreeable", as Obama both talks and walks, if you want to avoid starting nuclear wars.
While I do agree that Hillary was out of line with her comment, I do believe that you have overstated Hillary's comment in regards to "starting nuclear wars".

However, you have also overstated Obama's ability to "walk the walk and talk the talk". Obama threatening to bomb a nuclear country (Pakistan) without their permission certainly ratchets up the risk factor in regards to starting a nuclear war.

More metaphorical than hot, as was made abundantly clear from the context of the speech.
The context of his speech made it "abundantly clear" to me that Obama has a dangerous agenda, and if he is a "walk the walk and talk the talk" kinda guy that you say he is, then we all need to be concerned.

In any case, a winnable war is far more desirable than a cold war that is unwinnable.
Fighting a "War We Need to Win" reeks of desperation and a win at all cost situation. Some of the words in his speech reflect that.

I thought Dems were sick of fighting wars?

CH, do you just troll around looking for threads with Obama in the tag line so you can come in and parrot the exact same crap thats been debunked several times, hoping that none of the people who have already debunked you will come in and crush your pitiful arguement again?



I think you do.

CH, do you just troll around looking for threads with Obama in the tag line so you can come in and parrot the exact same crap thats been debunked several times, hoping that none of the people who have already debunked you will come in and crush your pitiful arguement again?

I think you do.
Do you just follow me around, throwing out insults whilst adding nothing further to the debate?

Why yes....that is exactly what you are doing.

Methinks thou art the troll. Get thee gone!! :p

Do you just follow me around, throwing out insults whilst adding nothing further to the debate?

Why yes....that is exactly what you are doing.

Methinks thou art the troll. Get thee gone!! :p

If you'll notice, I was here talking about the issue before you were.


Why dont you respond to the fact check link posted just above us about how your alligations that Obama would invade Pakistan are a load of crap? You have yet to do that, yet keep parroting that he will.

If you'll notice, I was here talking about the issue before you were.
And that entitles to some sort of special privelege that I am unaware of? You are cracking me up.

Why dont you respond to the fact check link posted just above us about how your alligations that Obama would invade Pakistan are a load of crap? You have yet to do that, yet keep parroting that he will.
I responded to that in another thread.

Now be gone or at least try and post on topic.

Oh, and cutting down on the personal attacks might also improve the debate.

And that entitles to some sort of special privelege that I am unaware of? You are cracking me up.


I responded to that in another thread.

Now be gone or at least try and post on topic.

Oh, and cutting down on the personal attacks might also improve the debate.

You have the strangest concep of personal attacks. Saying you keep trolling and parroting the same things over and over and ignoring counter evidence to your ficticious claims is not a personal attack. If you think it is, grow thicker skin you sissy. THAT is a personal attack.

And that entitles to some sort of special privelege that I am unaware of? You are cracking me up.No, it punches a massive hole into your argument that he's following you around. It's of a similar level of absurdity as punching someone and telling them to stop touching you is.

I wonder if anyone has bothered to notice that Obama hasn't ever said how our troops will leave. In reality if doesn't matter whether al queda were in Iraq before the invasion. They are there now. Also, us being in Iraq means that our military is twenty miles from Iran. if you look at that situation, I don't think we should ever leave Iraq.

if you look at that situation, I don't think we should ever leave Iraq.


God Im glad the majority of the American public doesnt think like you.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/K/e/1/obama_tickle_me.jpg

Hehehehe! It tickles! :D

I wonder if anyone has bothered to notice that Obama hasn't ever said how our troops will leave.You're right, we're all assuming it will be by plane, but what if it's by boat!

In reality if doesn't matter whether al queda were in Iraq before the invasion. They are there now.Because we are. If we want Al Qaeda out of Iraq, all we have to is pull our military out of Iraq.
Also, us being in Iraq means that our military is twenty miles from Iran. if you look at that situation, I don't think we should ever leave Iraq.Why, because we want to provoke them into becoming a nuclear power? Seriously, if you think "we" should stay in Iraq, you're welcome to go their yourself. (Don't expect every Iraqi to take kindly to your presence though.) I'm sure you'll make Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq very happy to have a target. Just leave me, my tax money, and my flag out of it.

While I do agree that Hillary was out of line with her comment, I do believe that you have overstated Hillary's comment in regards to "starting nuclear wars".

However, you have also overstated Obama's ability to "walk the walk and talk the talk". Obama threatening to bomb a nuclear country (Pakistan) without their permission certainly ratchets up the risk factor in regards to starting a nuclear war.


The context of his speech made it "abundantly clear" to me that Obama has a dangerous agenda, and if he is a "walk the walk and talk the talk" kinda guy that you say he is, then we all need to be concerned.


Fighting a "War We Need to Win" reeks of desperation and a win at all cost situation. Some of the words in his speech reflect that.

I thought Dems were sick of fighting wars?
Since it's clear we're fighting a war of attrition here, I just want to recap for everybody reading this that CH is coupling out-of-context quotes with false claims to make it sound like he said something that is pretty much the opposite of what he did say. I would encourage anybody who is still skeptical about this fact the google "the war we need to win" and read Obama's speech for themselves.

Obama hasn't ever said how our troops will leave.In Planes,Boats and Automobiles. (we let them pick how they want to come back.. natural selection :-)

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/magazine/new/planes_trains_automobiles.jpg

I wonder if anyone has bothered to notice that...why bother?

Since it's clear we're fighting a war of attrition here, I just want to recap for everybody reading this that CH is coupling out-of-context quotes with false claims to make it sound like he said something that is pretty much the opposite of what he did say.
I totally disagree with your assessment. I think Obama clearly lays out his agenda in a "war we need to win". I do believe that his agenda is extremely dangerous and idealistic. Removing troops from Iraq, while a noble goal and I have supported for the past 4 years on this board, only to be placed on the new battlefield:

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan......

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I would encourage anybody who is still skeptical about this fact the google "the war we need to win" and read Obama's speech for themselves.
I also have encouraged others to read the text of Obama's speech and posted a link many times. I have encouraged others to read it and read it again.

I think when you take it all in, it talks about an escalation of war, that definitely includes a battlefield in Pakistan.

The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php)

After reading it, view the video (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php)

Try not to get hung up on the obligatory patriotic cliches.

Try not to get hung up on the we can save the world rhetoric.

Does Obama really believe that the people of Pakistan want to be liberated by the forces of the US? Do they want US style democracy? If you think so, just think about the results so far in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also remember that Pakistan has about 150 Million Muslims or about 6 times the population of Iraq, and they have nuclear weapons.

<SNIP repetition>

You never get tired of that do you?

I totally disagree with your assessment. I think Obama clearly lays out his agenda in a "war we need to win". I do believe that his agenda is extremely dangerous and idealistic. Removing troops from Iraq, while a noble goal and I have supported for the past 4 years on this board, only to be placed on the new battlefield:Actually, it's not a new battlefield. Also, it's not dangerous or idealistic. If one studies his agenda, it's clearly pragmatic and principled, guided by the advice of many in-the-know foreign policy advisors who recognize that he is the only candidate who can lead us out of our current morrass.

I also have encouraged others to read the text of Obama's speech and posted a link many times. I have encouraged others to read it and read it again.

I think when you take it all in, it talks about an escalation of war, that definitely includes a battlefield in Pakistan.How is a withdrawal from Iraq an escalation of war? How is an ultimate draw-down of troops in the ME an escalation? Why do you selectively read the bits that mention needed fighting, but ignore the bits that say we should not fight the unneeded fight? Do you seriously believe objective readers are going to parse the speech the same way you do? Perhaps you think it's safer to let terrorists grow in Pakistan, perhaps to take it and its nuclear arsenal over someday?

The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php)

After reading it, view the video (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php)

Try not to get hung up on the obligatory patriotic cliches.

Try not to get hung up on the we can save the world rhetoric.Perhaps you think America shouldn't help improve the world when it has no choice but to affect it? Perhaps you think a president shouldn't be patriotic or say patriotic things?

Does Obama really believe that the people of Pakistan want to be liberated by the forces of the US? Do they want US style democracy?Has Obama ever said either of these things? No, he hasn't.

If you think so, just think about the results so far in Afghanistan and Iraq.Results that Barack Obama predicted.

Also remember that Pakistan has about 150 Million Muslims or about 6 times the population of Iraq, and they have nuclear weapons.A few yes, but hardly the means to deliver them to the US. However, the longer we allow terrorist culture to foment in Pakistan, the more likely they will have developed ICBMs by the time the Pakistani Taliban have their chance to seize government.

I totally disagree with your assessment. I think Obama clearly lays out his agenda in a "war we need to win". I do believe that his agenda is extremely dangerous and idealistic. Removing troops from Iraq, while a noble goal and I have supported for the past 4 years on this board, only to be placed on the new battlefield:

Really? Are we really trying to sell people on the fact that Afghanistan, the war that has been going on longer than Iraq is new, or that there hasn't been fighting on the Pakistani boarder for just as long? Really? Really??? Even you have sited instances of the conflict on the Pakistani boarder. Why in the hell would you try to sell this notion? It's like calling Texas the 'new state.' It's just silly. Are you actively trying to undermine your argument because deep down you know you're wrong?


I also have encouraged others to read the text of Obama's speech and posted a link many times. I have encouraged others to read it and read it again.

I think when you take it all in, it talks about an escalation of war, that definitely includes a battlefield in Pakistan.

The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php)

After reading it, view the video (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php)

Try not to get hung up on the obligatory patriotic cliches.

Try not to get hung up on the we can save the world rhetoric.

Does Obama really believe that the people of Pakistan want to be liberated by the forces of the US? Do they want US style democracy? If you think so, just think about the results so far in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also remember that Pakistan has about 150 Million Muslims or about 6 times the population of Iraq, and they have nuclear weapons.
Here we go again-
Really? Lets look at the points-
The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Where we already are and have strained our resources to fight an unnecessary war. Again, we've been in Afghanistan longer than Iraq, and fighting along the Pakistani border for just as long. As you constantly ignore, we've done exactly the kind of strike at the end of January and yet none of the doom and gloom scenarios you've outlined have happened. Bringing your prediction total to, let's see...Zero.
So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.

Were you perhaps hoping to find a candidate that was going to say, "Nah, fuck it. Let's just leave 'em be and hope they go away..." I know the Republicans try and paint the Democratic position as just that, but they also try and say that Clinton is a communist, so...you know...

That is why the third step in my strategy will be drying up the rising well of support for extremism.

Lets see how he says he'll do that-
And we know what the extremists say about us. America is just an occupying Army in Muslim lands, the shadow of a shrouded figure standing on a box at Abu Ghraib, the power behind the throne of a repressive leader. They say we are at war with Islam. That is the whispered line of the extremist who has nothing to offer in this battle of ideas but blame -- blame America, blame progress, blame Jews. And often he offers something along with the hate. A sense of empowerment. Maybe an education at a madrasa, some charity for your family, some basic services in the neighborhood. And then: a mission and a gun.

We know we are not who they say we are. America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil. We are not at war with Islam. America is a compassionate nation that wants a better future for all people. The vast majority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims have no use for bin Ladin or his bankrupt ideas. But too often since 9/11, the extremists have defined us, not the other way around.

When I am President, that will change. We will author our own story.

We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show -- through deeds as well as words -- that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say -- as Secretary Rumsfeld did -- "Freedom is untidy." I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy.

I will double our annual investments to meet these challenges to $50 billion by 2012. And I will support a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter the radical madrasas -- often funded by money from within Saudi Arabia -- that have filled young minds with messages of hate. We must work for a world where every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy. And as we lead we will ask for more from our friends in Europe and Asia as well -- more support for our diplomacy, more support for multilateral peacekeeping, and more support to rebuild societies ravaged by conflict.

I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open "America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new " America's Voice Corps" we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with -- and listen to -- the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.

As President, I will lead this effort. In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence. I will speak directly to that child who looks up at that helicopter, and my message will be clear: "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."
Oh yeah, that's a plan to 'liberate' Pakistan. Except that it's not. Not even a little bit.

Refusing to support a leader who suppresses democracy in his country =/= disposing him. Striking at high value terrorist targets only on actionable intelligence which is exactly what we did in late January also =/= 'liberating' Pakistan or installing US style democracy.

Once again, No Sale.

But please. Keep saying it, maybe the 100th time it'll magically become true.

Except probably not.

I swear it just gets more absurd all the time. First, he was pretty close to the truth. He hyperbolized "invasion" at first, but he admitted it was just a threat to bomb a target if there was actionable intelligence.

The problem is that didn't really affect anyone because that's already happened. But at least what he was specifically claiming Obama would do was true, he was only wrong in claiming it was an invasion.

So how did his argument change. Suddenly it was a "new" battlefield. But that didn't really bother anyone. Of course, he could show that there would be the prospect of battles in Afghanistan and the border and possibly even a strike or two in Pakistan so it's a little more absurd since there's no way to say it's new, but it's still just a question of semantics.

So it changed again and now Obama is going to occupy Pakistan. Now, this, of course, is completely off the map. There is no support for an occupation of Pakistan or an out and out war. None. He's simply passed to utter lies.

Why do you guys indulge him? He knows he's full of crap or his argument wouldn't keep getting more and more absurd.

Why do you guys indulge him? He knows he's full of crap or his argument wouldn't keep getting more and more absurd.

Because it's kind of funny?

The annoying part is he hijacks every thread with that nonsense. And at this point they're unequivocably lies. The "new" thing was an obvious lie, but this has gotten way out there.

Obviously, ending one war and focusing on the other is starting a "new" war. That there are less wars and no new battlefields, really isn't of any consequence to him.

He also willfully ignores that he claimed that a strike of that nature would spark a war. Then he found out one happened last month. Whoops. No war.

He's batting 0 and too many to count. But, hey, he's still running around the room with his queen in his hand.

Actually, it's not a new battlefield.
A new battlefield in Pakistan. Those words exist in Obama's speech.

Also, it's not dangerous or idealistic.
It is idealistic in that he wants us to believe that the war on terror can be won. Bush told us the same thing. Dangerous to talk about invading Pakistan

If one studies his agenda, it's clearly pragmatic and principled,
It may be "pragmatic and principled" by the sellers' standards but not by the potential buyers standards.

guided by the advice of many in-the-know foreign policy advisors
Who are these "foreign policy advisors"?

who recognize that he is the only candidate who can lead us out of our current morrass.
Highly unlikely given the scope and magnitude of his undertaking.

How is a withdrawal from Iraq an escalation of war? How is an ultimate draw-down of troops in the ME an escalation?
When more troops are added to Afghanistan and the focus is on Pakistan, that spells escalation to me.

Why do you selectively read the bits that mention needed fighting, but ignore the bits that say we should not fight the unneeded fight?
I focus on the word "fight", especially when Obama sets himself an unrealistic goal......"The War We Need to Win".

Do you seriously believe objective readers are going to parse the speech the same way you do?
I have listened to it twice and read it twice. If Obama wants to accomplish his 5 step plan, then some very serious shit is going to happen

Perhaps you think it's safer to let terrorists grow in Pakistan, perhaps to take it and its nuclear arsenal over someday?
I am glad you brought that forward. So, how many terrorists or wannabes are living in Pakistan? 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000?? Perhaps it would be better to try and understand why terrorism is growing?

Here is an interesting article:

Pak 'most anti-US country': CRS (http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/19pak.htm)

Notwithstanding its cooperation with the US in the war against terrorism, Pakistan is probably the "most anti-American country" in the world right now, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The assessment of the depth of Pakistan's anti-Americanism is attributed by K Alan Kronstadt, who is in charge of analysing Asian affairs for the CRS, to a "senior expert."

Adding to US concerns about Pakistan's domestic political developments, Kronstadt says, are increasing signs of Islamisation and anti-American sentiments.
And do you think that Obama's pronouncement in regards to Pakistan is going to reduce that hatred or lack of trust?

This is the mindset in Pakistan (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2003/01/05/189802)?

MMA vice president Qazi Hussain Ahmed told demonstrators in Peshawar: "After Iraq there will be Iran, and after Iran then Pakistan and afterwards Saudi Arabia. There is a need for all Muslim countries to join hands and forge unity."
And Obama is going to resolve this by handing out school vouchers and a bowl of rice? Oh, and whip a little democracy on them too?

And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

Perhaps you think America shouldn't help improve the world when it has no choice but to affect it?
I am all for western countries helping to improve the world, but it is fairly difficult to help them when they don't want our help?

Perhaps you think a president shouldn't be patriotic or say patriotic things?
It is great, as long as it is not the precurser for sending of our sons and daughters off to fight and die in an unrealistic war and spread hate and fear amongst our fellow citizens.

Has Obama ever said either of these things? No, he hasn't.
Yeah, I do believe that Obama was dictating some conditions that would be required for him to win his "war we need to win".

Results that Barack Obama predicted.
I also predicted that. Does that make me a genius? Of course not. What will happen if/when the US does get involved with a war in Pakistan? I know what will happen:

a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.
That is what happens. Hard to win a war like that?

A few yes, but hardly the means to deliver them to the US. However, the longer we allow terrorist culture to foment in Pakistan, the more likely they will have developed ICBMs by the time the Pakistani Taliban have their chance to seize government.
A few huh?

The U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads with HEU reserves for 30-52 additional warheads.[9][10] The US Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimates that Pakistan possesses between a low of 35 and a high of 95 nuclear warheads, with a median of 60.[11]

The NRDC's and the Carnegie Foundation's estimates of approximately 50 weapons are from 2002-3 estimations. In 2000, US Military intelligence estimated that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal may be as large as 100 warheads
Those nukes don't have to travel too far to create havoc for the ME, the US, and the world?

A new battlefield in Pakistan. Those words exist in Obama's speech.

Quote please.

A new battlefield in Pakistan. Those words exist in Obama's speech.Not together and in that sequence they don't. Considering that we recently conducted an operation there to take out a senior Al Qaeda figure, and did it before telling Musharaf, I don't think it's a new battlefield at all.

It is idealistic in that he wants us to believe that the war on terror can be won. Bush told us the same thing. Dangerous to talk about invading PakistanFeel free to stop talking about it then. It's blindly fatalistic to believe that the war on terror must be lost.

It may be "pragmatic and principled" by the sellers' standards but not by the potential buyers standards.Actually, it's by factual standards. Whether Obama's policies will have their desired practical effect is a matter of falsifiable fact. Whether consistent principles are manifested in such policies is a matter of philosophical fact.

Who are these "foreign policy advisors"?
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d40a39e-8f57-4054-bd99-94bc9d19be1a
They talk about economics first and get to foreign policy about half way down.

Highly unlikely given the scope and magnitude of his undertaking.Ah, so we are to be muddied by Bush's legacy forever? So we may as well not even try to pull out but slowly let ourselves sink to the bottom?

When more troops are added to Afghanistan and the focus is on Pakistan, that spells escalation to me.You don't believe Obama will pull the troops out of Iraq?

I focus on the word "fight", especially when Obama sets himself an unrealistic goal......"The War We Need to Win".Your focus is like tunnel vision.

I have listened to it twice and read it twice. If Obama wants to accomplish his 5 step plan, then some very serious shit is going to happenWell it's serious business. Are you so naive as to think we can just stick our heads in the sand like Ron Paul?

I am glad you brought that forward. So, how many terrorists or wannabes are living in Pakistan? 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000?? Perhaps it would be better to try and understand why terrorism is growing?

Here is an interesting article:

Pak 'most anti-US country': CRS (http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/19pak.htm)


And do you think that Obama's pronouncement in regards to Pakistan is going to reduce that hatred or lack of trust?

This is the mindset in Pakistan (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2003/01/05/189802)?Note that they're protesting against the Iraq War, calling a "holocaust" of Muslims, which is arguably accurate considering the death toll. That's the fuel for their fire. And it was caused by the Bush, Clinton, and McCain. And you're ranting about Obama giving statement that barely amounts to an ultimatim telling Musharaf to get his butt into gear.

And Obama is going to resolve this by handing out school vouchers and a bowl of rice? Oh, and whip a little democracy on them too?Hey, it's "make shit up day"!

I am all for western countries helping to improve the world, but it is fairly difficult to help them when they don't want our help?1) There are millions of people worldwide who dream of America coming to their country's rescue. Seriously. 2) Millions of people in Pakistan want democracy. Does the name "Bhutto" ring a bell to you? 3) The primary foreign policy goal in Pakistan is to thwart terrorism.

It is great, as long as it is not the precurser for sending of our sons and daughters off to fight and die in an unrealistic war and spread hate and fear amongst our fellow citizens.1) What's an "unrealistic war"? Is that like a video game? 2) There are troops conducting operations in Afghanistan and strikes happening in Pakistan right now. There is no new war being started here. Only one misguided war being ended. 3) Spreading hate and fear? What are you smoking?

Yeah, I do believe that Obama was dictating some conditions that would be required for him to win his "war we need to win".That's great, but none of it was what you mentioned.

I also predicted that. Does that make me a genius? Of course not.No, it means that Clinton is even stupider than you.

What will happen if/when the US does get involved with a war in Pakistan? I know what will happen:

That is what happens. Hard to win a war like that?
Um, then it's a good thing we aren't going to war with Pakistan.

A few huh?

Those nukes don't have to travel too far to create havoc for the ME, the US, and the world?Small change compared to Clinton and McCain's tendency to let their temper provoke far stronger nuclear powers. Musharraf knows damn well we can obliterate his country from the face of the Earth if necessary. As long as he's in power, he's not going to nuke us.


We're all speculating on Canuck Heaven's motivations. I think the real issue is that he's just afraid, and understandably so. With all the emphasis on the blunders the US has committed culminating in 9/11 and Bush's venture into Iraq, it's easy to get into a defensive mindset. But when that mindset becomes so rigid that it only accepts cynicism, blanket disengagement with the world, and a general retreat away from anything that promises to bring a new positive change, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it such a strategy would simply keep us on course to disaster, even when a once-in-a-lifetime candidate emerges, we have to acknowledge that some people have just closed themselves off to the world with barriers that only strengthen as they are knocked on by the forces of truth. This isn't an attack on CH, but an observation. I suggest that we change strategies. Let's reach out and give CH a hug. An Obamahug.

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/ben-affleck-barack-obama.jpg

Don't worry, CH.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071212/capt.c5b32a727bba49edbb84b828b026c6be.obama_2008_waet103.jpg

When Obama is president, things will turn out better than you think. Trust me.

If Obama becomes president, things will probably turn out better than you think. Trust me.

Fixed

Not really. Those 4 cultures have grown up together...and formed the nation together.....It's what IS Switzerland. Also....their differences arn't as astouding as a real multi-cultural society, like say...South Africa. Not to mention...that no matter how many differences there were...none of them consider themselves Germans, or French or Italians, they are Swiss.....but I can't say the same for the issue with Latinos in America.
Well, I can't really talk for Latinos in the US, but if they're anything like immigrants to the UK, the vast majority are good citizens doing an honest job, and who consider themselves English or British just as much as their country of origin - even if they don't speak English at home or worship at the established church.

I would use the example of Austria-Hungary as what happens when countries become too mulitcultural and multilingual....
I can't see how Austria-Hungary can be in any way related to a contemporary state. A-H was a rather strange state run by a German Austrian/Magyar elite, at the expense of all the other constituent groups who wanted not to be run by Austrians and Hungarians. On the other hand, people immigrants (excepting people trafficers) to come to another state voluntarily.