Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Aug 01, 2007, 09:06 AM
Alarm Bells Continuing!
Big Foot 48's Avatar
Arizona
Joined Oct 2001
276 Posts
Discussion
Obama Would Invade Sovereign Country

Thought this guy was a Peacenik, and now we find out he would invade another country based on "intelligence". Haven't we learned how reliable "intelligence" is?
Quote:
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/...ma_terrorism_7
Big Foot 48 is online now Find More Posts by Big Foot 48
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 09:30 AM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,892 Posts
Obama had good reasons for staying out of Iraq and has good reasons for being more aggressvie in finding Bin laden. I agree with his positons on both matters based on my understanding of the facts.

Your characterization of him as a 'peacenik' -do you have any support for that? I have found his analysis of Iraq and non-support of the war to be based on an excellent factual analysis, he's written and spoken about it extensively.

As far as your comment on 'how reliable' intel is - it always depends. Intel can be good or bad. It can also be spun. To say "all intel is unreliable' is a useless generalization.
4 Scale is online now Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 09:38 AM
Against it with you
Sprydle's Avatar
Houston, TX
Joined Feb 2006
80 Posts
All peacenicks are lefties, Obama is a lefty therefore he must be a peacenick.

See how easy it all is?
Sprydle is offline Find More Posts by Sprydle
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 09:47 AM
God is good
Viper Pilot's Avatar
Banjul
Joined Jan 2001
4,246 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Smith
. . . . As far as your comment on 'how reliable' intel is - it always depends. Intel can be good or bad. It can also be spun. To say "all intel is unreliable' is a useless generalization.
Talking in circles, there, Greg. If, as you say "Intel can be good or bad. It can also be spun." then it is useless information. In that case, your statement ""all intel is unreliable' is a useless generalization." is a true statement.

Which one is it?
Viper Pilot is offline Find More Posts by Viper Pilot
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 09:56 AM
Alarm Bells Continuing!
Big Foot 48's Avatar
Arizona
Joined Oct 2001
276 Posts
Quote:
Your characterization of him as a 'peacenik' -do you have any support for that?
Just my general impression. Obviously mistaken from his desire to invade other countries willy-nilly.
Big Foot 48 is online now Find More Posts by Big Foot 48
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 10:10 AM
Build/Fly/Crash/Repeat
United States, HI, Kapalua
Joined Jan 2002
1,198 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Foot 48
Just my general impression. Obviously mistaken from his desire to invade other countries willy-nilly.
Willy-Nilly? If GWB had concentrated on capturing Bin Laden & other terrorists instead of invading a country that was completely unrelated to that goal we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

Instead, here we are years later, still with troops in both countries, young men & women dying daily, no Bin Laden and we've created more terrorists than ever existed before.

That's the definition of willy-nilly.

The more I learn of Obama, the more convinced I become he may be the right man at the right time. I doubt America is ready for him, however.
CoastalFlyer is offline Find More Posts by CoastalFlyer
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 10:48 AM
Alarm Bells Continuing!
Big Foot 48's Avatar
Arizona
Joined Oct 2001
276 Posts
I thought you didn't want to talk about prior Presidents Coastal? We're talking about Obama as President, and you're bringing up Bush. MoveOn.please
Big Foot 48 is online now Find More Posts by Big Foot 48
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 10:53 AM
Eye Drather Beef Lying
ElectRick's Avatar
Jacksonville, FL
Joined Aug 2002
2,696 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoastalFlyer
I doubt America is ready for him, however.
Why do you say that?

I'd wager that there would be more Americans willing to accept him, than who'd accept another 4 or even 8 years of the Clintons. If it's gotta be a Democrat who lands in the WH, I'd take Obama any day over Hillary. Let's not forget, Hillary brings along her own 'Dick Cheney', in the form of Bill.

At least Obama would be 'new blood', which is what the USA needs right now, and the Billary team would be just more of the same-old same-old. Almost everyone I've talked to on the subject has become very tired of both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

Rick
ElectRick is offline Find More Posts by ElectRick
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 11:17 AM
Alarm Bells Continuing!
Big Foot 48's Avatar
Arizona
Joined Oct 2001
276 Posts
I'd vote for Obama over Hillary. He'd be a barrel of laughs while Hildebeast would be endless drudgery.
Big Foot 48 is online now Find More Posts by Big Foot 48
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 11:21 AM
Suspended Account
Bilbobaker's Avatar
United States, UT, Salina
Joined Apr 2003
3,117 Posts
I'm sure thinking Obama is far better a choice than that HillBilly team option.
But it's best if we elect a repuplican president for a balance of our government I think.
Bilbobaker is offline Find More Posts by Bilbobaker
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 11:29 AM
Radix malorum est cupiditas
radix2's Avatar
Joined Jul 2000
460 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectRick
Why do you say that?

I'd wager that there would be more Americans willing to accept him, than who'd accept another 4 or even 8 years of the Clintons. If it's gotta be a Democrat who lands in the WH, I'd take Obama any day over Hillary. Let's not forget, Hillary brings along her own 'Dick Cheney', in the form of Bill.

At least Obama would be 'new blood', which is what the USA needs right now, and the Billary team would be just more of the same-old same-old. Almost everyone I've talked to on the subject has become very tired of both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

Rick
I think this is a big point - 20 years of these same crews is enough!

So far I would vote BHO in the Dem. primary over the other 2 - and Edwards over Clinton.
radix2 is offline Find More Posts by radix2
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 11:42 AM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,892 Posts
I am with CF on Obama. There is still a strong pocket of folks in this country that while they are not openly hostile to blacks as in the old days, there is a discomfort. I am not saying such people are racist, I am saying that for president they will not vote for someone when there is a hint of discomfort. Especially vs. one who is self-made and brilliant and moderate like Obama.

However he has a chance. The polls show either he or Hil beat any Repub. Of course the calander shows that it's still a long time to the election, we shall see. But with nobody from either party having a lock on the nomination, this is shaping up as the wildest presidential election in our lifetimes.
4 Scale is online now Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 12:02 PM
Suspended Account
sarge's Avatar
Fayetteville, NC
Joined Dec 2002
2,239 Posts
I don't have research to back it up, but I suspect that Hillary has a tougher row to hoe in overcoming bias than does Obama - at least in the primaries. All else being equal, I think that Democrats that vote will more likely vote for a black man than a white woman. In the general election, Hillary has infinately more baggage than does Obama, and Obama as an opponent is considerably less likely to motivate Republicans to get out and vote. In both the primary and the general election, Obama is the more viable candidate. America needs a moderate, so I hope a better candidate than either of them from either party wins. It be nice to have a real choice in '08.
sarge is offline Find More Posts by sarge
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 12:29 PM
Trampling out the vintage
Joined Feb 2002
1,892 Posts
Sarge I think your analysis is very good. However I disagree that Obama is not a moderate. I think that while he personally is fairly liberal, he is pragmatic and is philosopically opposed to the "appease the base" politics currently being played by Bush, Reid and Pelosi.

It is beginning to look like no Repub has a chance for 2008. Of the Dems, I would handicap the field as Clinton in the lead with Obama and Edwards about even. Edwards should be on the ticket somewhere and probably will be. Hil and Obama will not share a ticket, that's just too much too fast for the voters.
4 Scale is online now Find More Posts by 4 Scale
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 01, 2007, 12:40 PM
Suspended Account
Joined May 2000
8,535 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg
It is beginning to look like no Repub has a chance for 2008.
A more open minded person would say it looked like nobody, D or R has a chance for 2008. The sad part is that one of them, out of the big group of worthless choices, will win in 2008.

I too would vote for Obama over Clinton... but wouldn't any sane person do the same?
Arbo is offline Find More Posts by Arbo
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Reply


Thread Tools