BF2S Forums Is Obama Scoring Points or Does He Really Think This?

Bubbalo wrote:

It'd be a hell of a lot more logical than the invasion of Iraq.

I Agree

But forget about Obama.. and any democrats..  vote Ron Paul, i think he talked about sending bounty hunters after Ben-Laden instead of sending an entire army.

sergeriver wrote:

dark110 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government.

In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, Mr Obama said General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, must do more to end terrorist operations in his country.  If not, Pakistan would risk a troop invasion and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid during an Obama presidency, the candidate said.

Who cares what you think? You can't even vote, you troublemaking asshole.

I assume the blow me karma is from you, thanks kid.

Ah good old 'inability to read and listen to viewpoints contrary to your own', can't beat it.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-08-02 08:29:05)

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I assume the blow me karma is from you, thanks kid.

Ah good old 'inability to read and listen to viewpoints contrary to your own', can't beat it.

The worst part is "who cares what you think" quoting the BBC, lol.

I've had a couple of cases of that kind of shit over my time here, most notably from Kurazoo and (T)eflon (S)hadow, made more sinister by the fact the latter sent me insults by PM.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-08-02 08:36:58)

Obama is clueless about International Affairs.

Harmor wrote:

T.Pike wrote:

Obama is clueless about International Affairs.

Hillary, with her "naive" statement, is forcing him to come out on International issues and boy did he.

I feel you are right.  He was forced to make the statement coz of Hillary.  I don't think he would invade Pakistan so freely.  It seems to me he's the best candidate.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-08-03 04:45:35)

lol @ Ralph Peters. In critiquing the senator's happy-go-lucky belligerency, I have two disadvantages: Unlike Obama, I actually served in the military and, unlike the senator, I've actually been in the stretch of Pakistan he speaks so merrily of invading.

Here's why he's nuts:

• Pakistan is a nuclear power on the brink of internal collapse. Do we really want to drive it over the edge and see loose nukes in the hands of a radicalized military faction - or terrorists?
• The mountain ranges where the terrorists are holed up are vast. The terrain is some of the toughest in the world. An invasion would suck in hundreds of thousands of troops. And a long occupation would be required.
• Even those tribesmen who don't support the Taliban or al Qaeda are proud and xenophobic to extremes - they'd rally against us. And all of the senator's bloggers couldn't stop them.
• The Pakistani military would fight us. Right now, they're cooperating, at least to some degree - but they'd fight any invader.
• President Pervez Musharraf's government would fall - probably overthrown by Islamic nationalists in the military and security services. [Welcome to your Islamofascist nuclear power, senator.
• We'd also have to occupy a big corridor through Baluchistan, Pakistan's vast southwest, since we'd lose our current overflight rights and hush-hush transit privileges on the ground.

An army at war needs a lot of fuel, ammunition, food, water, Band-Aids, replacements, etc. (not the sort of things armchair strategists bother about). Afghanistan is landlocked and surrounded by unfriendly states. Pakistan has been helping us keep our troops supplied. And you couldn't sustain Operation Obama by air. The senator hasn't even looked at a map.

• Along with giving away the game in Iraq, an invasion of Pakistan would create a terrorist-recruiting double whammy: The Middle East would mobilize against us - and what could we expect after we invaded a friendly Islamic state?
• Our troops are tired and their gear's worn out. (Obama wouldn't know, and he doesn't care.) They're fighting on in Iraq because they see progress and they have a sense of duty. But does the senator, who clearly doesn't know any soldiers and Marines, expect them to surrender Iraq - then plunge into Pakistan without a collapse in morale?
• Even setting aside the nuke issue, what would President Obama do when Pakistan, an Islamic nation of 170 million, broke into bits? Would we also occupy Karachi, Lahore and other megacities, after they turned into urban jungles where the terrorist became the king of beasts?

A general staff recruited from MoveOn.org isn't going to enhance our security.

The only thing Obama accomplished with his wild-eyed pistol-waving yesterday was to make his primary opponent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, sound like a serious wartime leader.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion, it's funny that Peters makes fun of Obama for "belligerency" when Bush is the one who invaded Iraq.

Whatever the case, I see how it is.  Forget it...  Let's just stay out of Pakistan and get the fuck out of Iraq.

Both parties have a selective sense of militarism that benefits only one group: the military industrial complex.

Maybe a revolution is the best course of action after all.  I wouldn't mind sniping a few key officials.

Is it funny because together they are a pair of idiots? Peters is critical of Bush also. He frequently points out his blunders. Of course Peters has something neither one of them can claim, real experience.

He has a point. How do you tell soldiers ..oops forget Iraq, lets try this one? Think about it from their point of view. It's not like they have any faith in politicians anyways.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion, it's funny that Peters makes fun of Obama for "belligerency" when Bush is the one who invaded Iraq.

Whatever the case, I see how it is.  Forget it...  Let's just stay out of Pakistan and get the fuck out of Iraq.

Both parties have a selective sense of militarism that benefits only one group: the military industrial complex.

Maybe a revolution is the best course of action after all.  I wouldn't mind sniping a few key officials.

Is it funny because together they are a pair of idiots? Peters is critical of Bush also. He frequently points out his blunders. Of course Peters has something neither one of them can claim, real experience.

He has a point. How do you tell soldiers ..oops forget Iraq, lets try this one? Think about it from their point of view. It's not like they have any faith in politicians anyways.

I don't see Obama as an idiot.  What blunders has he made in comparison to Bush's?

Nevertheless, I see your point, but to be honest...  trusting this government in the first place was their first mistake.

I'll say it again...  I would never willingly die for this fucked up government.

I won't defend Obama, he made a mistake.  I don't really think he would invade Pakistan, he's just showing he can fight too.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Is it funny because together they are a pair of idiots? Peters is critical of Bush also. He frequently points out his blunders. Of course Peters has something neither one of them can claim, real experience.

He has a point. How do you tell soldiers ..oops forget Iraq, lets try this one? Think about it from their point of view. It's not like they have any faith in politicians anyways.

I don't see Obama as an idiot.  What blunders has he made in comparison to Bush's?

Nevertheless, I see your point, but to be honest...  trusting this government in the first place was their first mistake.

I'll say it again...  I would never willingly die for this fucked up government.

He is not an idiot, that was an just idiotic political move. It almost sounds as if he was baited into saying it. However I don't see why you dragged Bush into a comment by Peters about Obama though.

We both agree the the political horizon for Americans looks to be dismal.

I only mentioned Bush because you mentioned him when you said that Peters criticizes Bush as well.

I am runnin to my local Quickie Mart to talk to some Paki's about this. They supported Iraq, and Afg. after 911. Let's see how patriotic to America they are.

Here we go, let's start digging up inconsequential things that are NEVER going to happen and use them as fodder against those who we feel might actually beat us. 

People knock Obama for his inexperience, but 2 points force that argument to cease. 

A)  He has the EXACT same experience as our greatest president ever.

B)  In this day and age of politics, inexperience is a huge advantage.  Less time to be corrupted by lobbies, power, and re election concerns.

Not that any of this matters.  You guys sit here debating like the person who is elected president makes a difference.  The president doesn't decide shit, and hasn't for years.   As Bill Hicks (RIP) once said, "No matter who wins the election, the winner is taken into a dark smoky room with 5 old white men.  A projector screen comes down, and video footage of who REALLY killed Kennedy plays.  Then the old men stop the video and say, 'OK this is Your agenda'".  Not serious about this, but hopefully you get my point.  In the 60's and 70's, government was taken on and beat down by a pissed off populace.  A lot of power was stripped and government was in a way made inconsequential.  But those pissed off people forgot to take on corporations, and now, ironically, we have a big brother government who is not ruled by itself, rather ruled by those with the most money...Corporations.

I love people who form conclusions without actually hearing the facts.  I bet it makes you sick to think that the last truly "liberal" president was Nixon.
Look it up, I'm not lying.

Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2007-08-04 13:23:25)