Madison B.
Member
+4|6081

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.
Oh give me a break .. that's exactly what a Democrat wants to do .. invade a country when he's not even sure of its capabilities and whether or not it poses a serious threat. Its obvious that he wants to boost his poll ratings. Why would he even bring Pakistan into the picture when everyone else is talking about Iran/Saudi/Etc... he wants to show that he's just what America needs because he's "thinking outside of the box" ... he wants to prove that he believes Bush made the right decision in the wrong place... but he just doesn't see how illogical it sounds.

Even if this does score him extra points and he does get elected in he won't be able to take military action anywhere without the backing of Congress  unless another serious tragedy bigger than that of 9/11 occurs...

"Shame on you if you fool me once... Shame on me if you fool me twice..."

He doesn't realize that he didn't gain anything but worldwide crit when he mindlessly said that.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


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.
Negative, you invoked Bush here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p1653554 .  Prior to me typing out that four letter word.
Touche...  Well then...  I don't know how I missed that...

Hmmm... Well, at least we can agree that border security should be next on the agenda.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

oChaos.Haze wrote:

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.
I pretty much agree, although I'd say that Carter was, for all practical purposes, the last truly liberal president (although not a very good one).
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Madison B. wrote:

Oh give me a break .. that's exactly what a Democrat wants to do .. invade a country when he's not even sure of its capabilities and whether or not it poses a serious threat.
Are you sure you aren't describing neoconservatives?

Madison B. wrote:

Its obvious that he wants to boost his poll ratings. Why would he even bring Pakistan into the picture when everyone else is talking about Iran/Saudi/Etc... he wants to show that he's just what America needs because he's "thinking outside of the box" ... he wants to prove that he believes Bush made the right decision in the wrong place... but he just doesn't see how illogical it sounds.
*shrugs*  Attacking Iran would be a lot more illogical, and this administration has been pushing for that for the last year or so.

Madison B. wrote:

Even if this does score him extra points and he does get elected in he won't be able to take military action anywhere without the backing of Congress  unless another serious tragedy bigger than that of 9/11 occurs...

"Shame on you if you fool me once... Shame on me if you fool me twice..."

He doesn't realize that he didn't gain anything but worldwide crit when he mindlessly said that.
Perhaps, but then again....  Can you say that Guiliani, McCain, Clinton, and Bloomberg sound any better with their warmongering rhetoric?

Maybe it really is time for America to fall.  If we let our system become completely consumed by lobbyists and the military industrial complex, it will be better for the world to have our government overthrown.

The only problem is that, as bad as our government is...  The Chinese and Russian governments are much worse...   What a despicable species we can be when granted power over others....
Invaderzim
Chicken wing?
+49|6419|Newcastle NSW Australia
What an idiot, you know things have gone too far when a presidential candidate says he will invade another country that has shown no hostility towards his own country just to try and win votes. I hope to god that the American people have enough sense not to vote for anyone who says something like this.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6519|San Diego, CA, USA

Invaderzim wrote:

What an idiot, you know things have gone too far when a presidential candidate says he will invade another country that has shown no hostility towards his own country just to try and win votes. I hope to god that the American people have enough sense not to vote for anyone who says something like this.
I'm not for invading Pakistan.  We should do what we can to support Marshariff.  We should cooperate with him as much as we can.

As for Iran, well at least 200 soldiers this year have been killed by Iranian weapons...how many more weapon caches do we need to find to justify destroying Iran military like we did to Iraq in 1991.  I don't want to invade Iran, but weakening it militarily wouldn't be bad.

However, I want to try supporting decedents and economic disincentives before attacking Iran.
Madison B.
Member
+4|6081

Turquoise wrote:

Madison B. wrote:

Oh give me a break .. that's exactly what a Democrat wants to do .. invade a country when he's not even sure of its capabilities and whether or not it poses a serious threat.
Are you sure you aren't describing neoconservatives?
I was being sarcastic... Demo crates usually worry about the Nation & its economy (at least the Clinton admin did) rather than the rest of the world and its politics.

Turquoise wrote:

Madison B. wrote:

Its obvious that he wants to boost his poll ratings. Why would he even bring Pakistan into the picture when everyone else is talking about Iran/Saudi/Etc... he wants to show that he's just what America needs because he's "thinking outside of the box" ... he wants to prove that he believes Bush made the right decision in the wrong place... but he just doesn't see how illogical it sounds.
*shrugs*  Attacking Iran would be a lot more illogical, and this administration has been pushing for that for the last year or so.
Yes it's been pushing for it because Iran isn't cooperating.. as opposed to Pakistan which has been fully cooperating with everything.

Turquoise wrote:

Madison B. wrote:

Even if this does score him extra points and he does get elected in he won't be able to take military action anywhere without the backing of Congress  unless another serious tragedy bigger than that of 9/11 occurs...

"Shame on you if you fool me once... Shame on me if you fool me twice..."

He doesn't realize that he didn't gain anything but worldwide crit when he mindlessly said that.
Perhaps, but then again....  Can you say that Guiliani, McCain, Clinton, and Bloomberg sound any better with their warmongering rhetoric?

Maybe it really is time for America to fall.  If we let our system become completely consumed by lobbyists and the military industrial complex, it will be better for the world to have our government overthrown.

The only problem is that, as bad as our government is...  The Chinese and Russian governments are much worse...   What a despicable species we can be when granted power over others....
America can't be overthrown for the sole reason that "if you don't like the government you elect... you can #1 take it to the courts #2 wait four more years and hope your candidate gets chosen" as said by a prof of mine. 8 years under Bush.. yeah... America really has some straighting up to do.. before ANY office gets overthrown... as history has shown.. it is first HIGHLY in debt  to other nations... and their demise starts there.. HOPEFULLY  we still have a chance to redeem ourselves by Nov.2008 lol
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Invaderzim wrote:

What an idiot, you know things have gone too far when a presidential candidate says he will invade another country that has shown no hostility towards his own country just to try and win votes. I hope to god that the American people have enough sense not to vote for anyone who says something like this.
You think he's hawkish?...  You should see some of the Republican candidates...

But yeah, just be glad you don't live here.  Even though you have a scumbag for a PM, Howard is still smart enough to limit Australia's involvement in Iraq.

You might want to make sure someone else becomes your next PM though.  It's bad enough that we have had an idiotic president for nearly 8 years, but Howard has been your PM for over 10 now.

It's time for a change in both of our countries....
Madison B.
Member
+4|6081
With that said America is as strong as the person in Office. If we elect a nutcase/idiot/redneck/liberal we shouldn't expect to last all too long.. on the contrary.. we need real social structure back and we need to stabalize our economy and focus on OURSELVES. any candidate who is actually willing to do that in the future has my vote.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Madison B. wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Perhaps, but then again....  Can you say that Guiliani, McCain, Clinton, and Bloomberg sound any better with their warmongering rhetoric?

Maybe it really is time for America to fall.  If we let our system become completely consumed by lobbyists and the military industrial complex, it will be better for the world to have our government overthrown.

The only problem is that, as bad as our government is...  The Chinese and Russian governments are much worse...   What a despicable species we can be when granted power over others....
America can't be overthrown for the sole reason that "if you don't like the government you elect... you can #1 take it to the courts #2 wait four more years and hope your candidate gets chosen" as said by a prof of mine. 8 years under Bush.. yeah... America really has some straighting up to do.. before ANY office gets overthrown... as history has shown.. it is first HIGHLY in debt  to other nations... and their demise starts there.. HOPEFULLY  we still have a chance to redeem ourselves by Nov.2008 lol
hopefully...  but it is starting to look like votes mean nothing compared to the power of political donations....

As a recent author once put it...  "America is the best democracy that money can buy...."
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Madison B. wrote:

With that said America is as strong as the person in Office. If we elect a nutcase/idiot/redneck/liberal we shouldn't expect to last all too long.. on the contrary.. we need real social structure back and we need to stabalize our economy and focus on OURSELVES. any candidate who is actually willing to do that in the future has my vote.
I'm slightly bothered by this reference to social structure you keep making...  I totally agree that we need to recenter our politics on our own nation, but I still don't want the government to bother me in my personal life.
Madison B.
Member
+4|6081

Turquoise wrote:

Madison B. wrote:

With that said America is as strong as the person in Office. If we elect a nutcase/idiot/redneck/liberal we shouldn't expect to last all too long.. on the contrary.. we need real social structure back and we need to stabalize our economy and focus on OURSELVES. any candidate who is actually willing to do that in the future has my vote.
I'm slightly bothered by this reference to social structure you keep making...  I totally agree that we need to recenter our politics on our own nation, but I still don't want the government to bother me in my personal life.
I'm a social conservative... lol. We all have our opinions.

I'm not saying it should dictate our personal lives.. I would just like to see some order..
Madison B.
Member
+4|6081

Turquoise wrote:

Madison B. wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Perhaps, but then again....  Can you say that Guiliani, McCain, Clinton, and Bloomberg sound any better with their warmongering rhetoric?

Maybe it really is time for America to fall.  If we let our system become completely consumed by lobbyists and the military industrial complex, it will be better for the world to have our government overthrown.

The only problem is that, as bad as our government is...  The Chinese and Russian governments are much worse...   What a despicable species we can be when granted power over others....
America can't be overthrown for the sole reason that "if you don't like the government you elect... you can #1 take it to the courts #2 wait four more years and hope your candidate gets chosen" as said by a prof of mine. 8 years under Bush.. yeah... America really has some straighting up to do.. before ANY office gets overthrown... as history has shown.. it is first HIGHLY in debt  to other nations... and their demise starts there.. HOPEFULLY  we still have a chance to redeem ourselves by Nov.2008 lol
hopefully...  but it is starting to look like votes mean nothing compared to the power of political donations....

As a recent author once put it...  "America is the best democracy that money can buy...."
Lol yeah I'v heard that many times...

Its sad because most democracies end up being run by those with $$ or those backing those with $$

Look at the middle east... Egypt.. Yemen.. It's sad..

Example: Yemen has had the same president since the last civil war which resulted in the north and south becoming one state. He has done nothing for the country worth the mention. Poverty is at its highest. People are leaving it daily to come to America to get jobs; those who are staying don't turn out for the best. The last presidential election was either cancelled or "won" by him (haven't kept up to news since the last pol sci class I took on the mid east). He can't control his people nor does he care to (uss cole... kidnapping..etc..)

Democracies all seem flawed... maybe it's time for a change? I doubt a direct democracy would work in a place like America.... than again it can...
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Madison B. wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Madison B. wrote:

With that said America is as strong as the person in Office. If we elect a nutcase/idiot/redneck/liberal we shouldn't expect to last all too long.. on the contrary.. we need real social structure back and we need to stabalize our economy and focus on OURSELVES. any candidate who is actually willing to do that in the future has my vote.
I'm slightly bothered by this reference to social structure you keep making...  I totally agree that we need to recenter our politics on our own nation, but I still don't want the government to bother me in my personal life.
I'm a social conservative... lol. We all have our opinions.

I'm not saying it should dictate our personal lives.. I would just like to see some order..
Hmmm...  elaborate...  I'm conservative on immigration, affirmative action, the death penalty, and border security, but I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, in favor of legalizing pot, and pro-euthanasia.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Madison B. wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Madison B. wrote:


America can't be overthrown for the sole reason that "if you don't like the government you elect... you can #1 take it to the courts #2 wait four more years and hope your candidate gets chosen" as said by a prof of mine. 8 years under Bush.. yeah... America really has some straighting up to do.. before ANY office gets overthrown... as history has shown.. it is first HIGHLY in debt  to other nations... and their demise starts there.. HOPEFULLY  we still have a chance to redeem ourselves by Nov.2008 lol
hopefully...  but it is starting to look like votes mean nothing compared to the power of political donations....

As a recent author once put it...  "America is the best democracy that money can buy...."
Lol yeah I'v heard that many times...

Its sad because most democracies end up being run by those with $$ or those backing those with $$

Look at the middle east... Egypt.. Yemen.. It's sad..

Example: Yemen has had the same president since the last civil war which resulted in the north and south becoming one state. He has done nothing for the country worth the mention. Poverty is at its highest. People are leaving it daily to come to America to get jobs; those who are staying don't turn out for the best. The last presidential election was either cancelled or "won" by him (haven't kept up to news since the last pol sci class I took on the mid east). He can't control his people nor does he care to (uss cole... kidnapping..etc..)

Democracies all seem flawed... maybe it's time for a change? I doubt a direct democracy would work in a place like America.... than again it can...
Since you're a social conservative, you should find this interesting....  Not only is lobbyism a significant contributor to governmental corruption, but so is religion.  Almost every religious government is plagued by hardliner religious fundamentalists.  Iran is a perfect example.

Yet, many social conservatives in America want Christianity to take a more dominant role in our government.  If we let people like James Dobson have their way, we'll be dealing with a Christian version of these Islamist governments.  In other words, we'll become a wealthier Christian version of Iran or Yemen.

This is why I'm not a social conservative myself -- although I'm conservative on certain social issues.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:

Is Obama Scoring Points.
Can you say uh oh? If scoring points was his intent it may have backfired on him. I'm not sure if the Pakistan remarks were reflected in that poll. It was taken last w/e.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6728|Argentina

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Is Obama Scoring Points.
Can you say uh oh? If scoring points was his intent it may have backfired on him. I'm not sure if the Pakistan remarks were reflected in that poll. It was taken last w/e.
Yeah, I saw that, maybe he is trying to score points for Hillary, lol.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-08-06 17:46:35)

Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
Its just one stupid comment.  Bush made dozens before he was elected president.

I personally dont see how bombing targets in Pakistan could be worse than invading Iraq.  The CIA has already done it, and thats supposedly the new HQ for al-Qaeda.  If anything, take the troops out of Iraq, send half to Afgahnistan, the other half back to the states.  Sounds ok to me.  (As long as we dont go barging in Rambo style, of course, like we did in Iraq)

Last edited by Spearhead (2007-08-06 19:54:38)

Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6519|San Diego, CA, USA

Spearhead wrote:

I personally dont see how bombing targets in Pakistan could be worse than invading Iraq.
Attacking Pakistan, while killing alot of Taliban and possibly capturing Bin Ladin would do the following:

  • The Extremist Muslims inside Pakistan may overthrow Marsharff.
  • If they overthrow him they will have in their control nuclear weapons.
  • Although these nuclear missiles could not reach the United States, they can reach Iraq and India.
  • If a Nuclear Missile exchange between Pakistan and India happens, possibly millions of people will die
  • The nuclear material may be used by the Taliban for 'dirty bombs' (conventional explosives with pieces of nuclear material that doesn't do more damage but causes hysteria)
  • Marsharff is an ally and is working with us to rid the Taliban from his country (he was on the Daily Show with John Stewart...so he's kewl)
  • Going into Pakistan is 4x-5x as worst than Iraq (110 million people instead of 25 million)
  • The steep mountainous-cold territory in Pakistan is much worst than the flat desert if Iraq
Plus, if Bush capture Bin Ladin then the liberals will say we should pull out of Afghanistan.  Right now, at least, they say we should redeploy our troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.If we were to leave Iraq without first making sure that the Iraqi military and police have control over that country the following may happen:
  • Alot of Iraqis are now known a supporters of the United States...if we leave they will die.
  • al-Qaeda may take root in Iraq and possibly steal oil revenues to fund larger attacks
  • Iran, Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will fight over the power vacuum in Iraq.
  • Violence would spread outside of Iraq
  • Oil prices would skyrocket to $120/barrel
  • Gas Prices would hit $5.50-$6/gallon soon thereafter.
  • A world-wide recession may happen because of the inflated gasoline prices (if not a recession then a slowdown)
  • The United State credibility would be tarnished (no country would believe we will help them when the going gets tough in the future).
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Xbone Stormsurgezz
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
I appreciate your explanation, harmor, but the honest truth is that no one knows for sure what the hell will happen if we do either things.  A lot of things you mentioned are very likely, others, not so likely.  BTW, our credibility is already tarnished.

I'm just saying, on a strategic scale, attacking the people who attacked us on 9/11 sounds like a better idea than remaining in Iraq.  You seem to forget that Bush has lead one of the most internationally hostile administrations in recent times, plus one of the worst and most ineffective foreign policies in the history of the USA.  I'm not saying a different president will suddenly make everything all peachy, but keep in mind the world might have a very different opinion of us once we pick a new, and hopefully more effective, leader.

Better attack the extremists who actually flew over here and killed us, than to occupy Iraq, is what I say.  I hate to act like a war mongerer, but the truth is, now that we've lifted the lid on the mid-east, might as well try something different.  If a showdown is coming, and I believe one is, it would be in our interest to kill the ones who attacked us on 9/11, not the extremists in Iraq bent on killing their fellow countrymen.

Last edited by Spearhead (2007-08-06 21:54:53)

Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
I've got one more thing to say.  I may end up being very wrong, and I admit, I dont know as much as kmarion about that area in Pakistan.  But, and this is just a thought -- if people like harmor had applied the same logic to Iraq as they are to Pakistan, maybe we wouldn't have such a mess on our hands. 

I just find it slightly ironic where you have certain people mentioning how we should nuke the middle-east and go after those who harbor terrorists, then when a democrat mentions doing something about known al-Qaeda hotspots -- suddenly, everyone is anti-war.  Just a thought.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Spearhead wrote:

I've got one more thing to say.  I may end up being very wrong, and I admit, I dont know as much as kmarion about that area in Pakistan.  But, and this is just a thought -- if people like harmor had applied the same logic to Iraq as they are to Pakistan, maybe we wouldn't have such a mess on our hands. 

I just find it slightly ironic where you have certain people mentioning how we should nuke the middle-east and go after those who harbor terrorists, then when a democrat mentions doing something about known al-Qaeda hotspots -- suddenly, everyone is anti-war.  Just a thought.
I'd like to think we are all anti-war and that in the end we have the same goals, security. However we begin to part ways in deciding the paths we must take to achieve those goals. Aside from the logistical and practical impossibilities of shifting operations to Pakistan, I think it would completely decimate the moral of our troops if we were to take them out of one (incomplete) situation and move them to another. We already have some politicians who participate everyday in discrediting any positive work that comes out of Iraq.  Where would the motivation be in following the same critical leaders into another operation? The same people who voted to put them in danger voted to yank the funding they needed to protect themselves. I can't imagine they would be enthusiastic with regards to starting another campaign on the orders of said leaders.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
Well, I dont think Obama would be dumb enough to order a mass exodus of Americans from Iraq just to place them in Pakistan, as you said, morale would go down the tubes.  But I think combining Spec-ops with strategic air raids on known AQ locations in Pakistan wouldn't hurt.  not an invasion, just an extension of the war in Afgahnistan.... kinda like Cambodia and Vietnam.

About the Pakistani government.  Our involvement would no doubt spark more unrest in that country, but how do we know the situation now will remain the same?  In a matter of months the gov't could be overthrown by the extremists in that country, and things could be worse with or without our involvement. 

Just my opinion though.  Bottomline, being president of the USA in 2008 would suck, big time.
keghog
Member
+2|6266
Vote Giuliani 08, Obama and Hillary suck.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard