Obama supporters. I have one question

1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2548183
?????????????????
August 1, 2007
Mr. Obama said that if elected president, he would act if he had information that terrorists were in Pakistan’s border area, thought to be a hiding place for Osama bin Laden. "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
.....
So we are to believe Obama will withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately, where we know Al Qaeda is today, yet he will attack other parts of the world to go after Al Qaeda?
Gotcha. So, Iraq is off limits, but everywhere else is fair game. Leave Iraq, where the Goverment want us to stay, to bomb a nuclear equipped ally who is fighting islamic radicals in his own government.... Sounds like a good plan and solid strategic planning to me.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2548229
...
So why is this a negative when it has already happened... He just said this is what he would do if neccessary... and the Bush Admin found it necessary... I doubt you will hear anything about this anymore..because it is no longer a negative or something he can be attacked on.
Do you see the difference? Obama is apparently too dense to understand you don't run around threatening to bomb an ally. If the need arises in Pakistan you do it; You don't give Mushareff's oponents more sound bites to use against him.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2548207
Funny I can re quote as well.
"Yet when I look on his site and look through all the policies and issues he has listed (and they are numerous) This is not mentioned."

Try a little harder: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/0...ma_the_w_1.php I gave you the date and a quote from it. It is super long and detailed.... It may lose your attention due to it's length and detail

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda."
 
shogun323

shogun323

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2548225
Let's play a game. I'll call it: Guess which webpage this quote is from
The rules of the game are simple; I'll select 10 phrases from Obama's church and from the KKK webpage. In place of the words White and Black I'll put the word "green". In place of country or continental references (Africa, Europe, etc.)I'll use the plantet "Pluto".
Players ready?
1. "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to "Green" Christian America"
2. "We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a "green" worship service and ministries which address the "green" Community.
3. "The federal government has enacted programs and laws designed for the exclusive discrimination against those of "Green" "Plutonian" ancestry.
4. "We are..... Unashamedly "Green" and Unapologetically Christian... We are a "Plutonian" people, and remain "true to our native land."
5. "Actively promote love and appreciation of our unique "Plutonian" ("Green") culture.
6. "...does not apologize for its "Green" roots."
7. "...committed to cultural education"
8. "...committed to the historical education of "Plutonian" people.."
9. "...committed to restoration"
10. "we are called to be agents of liberation"
Brilliant Analogy!! That's powerful!!!
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
gonefishcrazy;2548049 said:
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2547334
Let's get the quote straight
Obama spent 20 years in the Pews listening to wrights racist remarks. His fellow church members did as well. Trying to say Obama didn't embrace these views is like saying David Duke and Robert Byrd only joined the KKK for the religious teachings and didn't agree with the racist statements being made.
What a brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, dodo, doltish, dopy, dotterel, dull, dumb, dummy, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, irresponsible, laughable, loser, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick, thickheaded, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless comparison. How do you compare the KKK to this church OR anythng period.
All you can do is make an inmature personal attack rather than use facts to back up your case? Doesn't say much about your position or knowledge. Are you like 12?
Obama's church, just like the klan proudly makes their race the focus. Obama is a racist or he would not continue with that church.
In addition
Obama is a political extremist to the point the communist party and socialist groups have endorsed him not just now but in the past.
Obama LIED about his support about his support for a total ban on the ownership of handguns. Now it has been found he took notes on the questionaire he previously claimed he never saw.
Obama LIED about his position that he didn't think parents should be involved in abortion decisions for minor girls unless they were maybe 12 or 13. That position was stated in the same questionaire as above regarding the gun ban. The group he filled out the questionaire for says they did a in person interview with him where they discussed these issues and he never disputed any of the positions on the questionaire.
Obama associates himself with a one time member of the Weather Underground who in 2001 said he regretted he hadn't done more. So Obama hangs with a guy who regrets not doing more as a member of a domestic terrorist group?
Obama, Untested, Unqualified, Untruthful.
Click to expand...
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2548244
Try a little harder: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/0...ma_the_w_1.php I gave you the date and a quote from it. It is super long and detailed.... It may lose your attention due to it's length and detail

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda."
Again, this is from ONE speech.
Now look through the issues on his platform and tell me where Bin Laden fits into them.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2548180
That's silly.
If I call a duck a duck am I a duck?
Obama supporters, even on this thread, are trying to promote a big lie. "It's all taken out of context...", "you're trying to take 1 sermon out of 20 years...", "Obama is not responsible for his pastor...", etc.
Facts:
*Obama said about his fellow Americans who were wearing lapel pins that they were replacing "true patriotism" in doing so.
*Obama's wife has made multiple statements proving she's drunk deep from the Well of Wright's sermons
*Obama has lied about hearing the hatefilled and racist sermons. At first he said he'd never been there, then in his infamous "race speech" he admitted he had.
*"Rev" Wright was far more than a "pastor" to Obama. Obama has referred to him as a "friend" and "mentor". In addition, Wright was on staff as an Advisor.
*This is about a lot more than "one sermon". Even Obombus himslef has admitted that.
*Obombus and his church introduced race into this political race. Obombus and his supporters are saying a vote against Obombus is a vote against him because he is black.
*His pastor hates the USA, apparently supports terrorist groups, and even traveled, while pastor, to Libya with Farrakhan... Did Obama not know about that trip when he hired Wright as an Advisor?
For the record, I voted against Oboma in the Democratic Primary and I will vote against him in November. NOT because of the color of his skin; I'm voting against him because I question his judgment and patriotism, and because he is clearly an Affirmative Action Socialist with little understanding of Foreign Policy.
The trip you mention was before Obama was a member... But this is sad... We already know who you are voting for... Affirmative Action?This guy is more than qualified based on his merits... and is probably the most intelligent of the 3 candidates... it would seem in all the Foreign Policy decisions he has made... he has been accurate... Iraq and Pakistan... I can't question McCain's patriotism... but that is all he is standing on..As far as Foreign Policy... his judgement is in question... Economic Policy... judgement and knowledge is in question.. Why did you vote democratic anyway, when it seems you are a Republican?... I haven't heard you say anything about Hilary.
But it looks to me from your list above that it is centered on race... I think patriotism isn't even a valid argument and the whole lapel pin thing. His pastor doesn't hate the USA... he is frustrated with how its citizens are treated in spite of our love and service to our country.. He also was a marine who served. Hate is not a word for someone who wants a better nation who wants equal treatment.. And the criticism from his sermons are coming from 2 sermons... Obama admitted he has heard things before he disagreed with, but again you are getting your content from only 2 sermons..
But again when you suggest he is where he is based on "Affirmative Action" I have to question your motives and criticism of Obama...
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Also take a look at this and explain to me how Iraq and afghanistan are not the same in their current state. The same argument made for withdrawl from Iraq can be made for Afghanistan. so what is the difference?
Neither NATO nor US ground forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001. This was the work of the Northern Alliance, with the approval of Pakistan and help from US airpower and special forces. The US dollar, stronger then than now, played an important role in purchasing changes in loyalties. The US role depended on the collaboration of Russia. Iran and Pakistan, with the use of Uzbeki and Tajik facilities and China’s blessing. Without the ‘group of six’ – none of whom are NATO members - the whole operation would not have been possible.
A Security Council resolution in December 2001 supplied UN cover for the removal of the Taliban and endorsed the despatch of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which at first was meant to last no more than six months and to be confined to area around Kabul. The objective was destroy Al Qaeda facilities, this being a goal that China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan could all agree on. Subsequently the Karzai government requested aid from the occupiers - but then, the Karzai government was established by these same occupiers, so this only furnishes a circular justification.
The ISAF now operates under the terms of the UN Security Council 1776 (2007) which declares that its task is to ‘root out terrorism’ and that Afghanistan remains ‘a threat to world peace’. For much of the period 2002 to 2006 there was little terrorist activity and renewed Taliban attacks in the last year or two are to be explained by the protracted occupation of the country. NATO commanders are well aware that the term Taliban now covers a loose alliance of those opposed to the occupation and the government. The British and other NATO forces know full well how weakly-defined the Taliban are and have entered local agreements with the Taliban on several occasions. In 2005 Abdul Hakim Monib was on the NATO want list of Al Qaeda commanders; by 2007 he was governor of Uruzgang province.
All this being the case it has to be asked whether the mission is still valid, even on its own terms. It is striking that those with real knowledge of the country say that the NATO presence is as illegitimate by most Afghanis and has destroyed Karzai’s credibility. Rory Stewart, who has been living and working in Afghanistan for several years, explained this in Prospect magazine, published from London, in January. Sarah Chayes, a former NPR reporter who has also been living and working in Afghanistan, explained to Bill Moyers in a mid-February edition of his TV Journal, that government officials are widely seen as robbers and crooks. Stewart and Chayes are not radical critics of Western policy but, unlike Samantha Power – a liberal interventionist and one of Obama’s advisors – they have enough real knowledge of the country and region to see that the NATO mission is self-defeating. It is also wrong, as Tariq Ali and Patrick Cockburn have urged, because the Afghani people need to reach their own solutions.
Let’s return to Obama’s problem. The job he wants is that of running the US empire and in order to win it he has to run a gauntlet of demented imperialist attack dogs. What he can, and to some extent does, argue is that a US military wind down from exposed positions is very much in the US national interest. He has urged withdrawal from Iraq on these grounds and he’s right. So why not make the case for Afghan withdrawal too? The country has much less oil and many fewer terrorists than Iraq.
If the US and NATO forces were withdrawn the likelihood is that the Afghan government would need to come to a new understanding with regional and tribal militias. Some of the latter might have ties to the Taliban, but they don’t want to see it – still less Al Qaeda – running the country again. The seven million refugees who have returned since 2001 will scarcely favour the Taliban even if they would like to see a less corrupt administration.
If the Afghan government felt that it could not handle the situation it might call for help on Pakistan, Iran and Turkey – three countries with historic ties to different sections of the Afghan population. Help from this quarter would be much less compromising than accepting it from the NATO-led occupiers.
What I’m talking about here is an enlightened US policy which grasps that imperial missions breed resistance and danger in a region that has a long tradition of hostility to uninvited foreigners, especially if infidel.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2548249
Let's make this real simple;
Is Al Qaeda in Iraq today?
Let make it even more simple... were they there before we got there?
or another question...
Are we the reason why they are there?
how about another...
Is Al Qaeda in the USA, or in 50 or more countries currently?
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2471144
.... Yet after looking at his site and reading. I didn't find one single mention of chasing bin laden, capturing him. Fighting Al Qaeda/islmaic terrorist or anything similar......
BUT NOTHING ON BIN LADEN!
THIS SHOULD GIVE YOU PAUSE FOR CONCERN AS IF HE DOESN'T MENTION IT, IT ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR HIM, WHICH IS SCARY.

I just don't know, now. You said nothing on his WED SITE. I provided the link you couldn't find on HIS WEB SITE. However, you just don't see or hear it.
Open your eyes, listen with your ears. You might find it on HIS WEB SITE.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
I will conceed you found a speech. Only took a month and a half for it to be found since I posted this. But you are missing something I also stated in the original post.
" IT ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR HIM, WHICH IS SCARY."
Now, is it in his issues?
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2548296
Also take a look at this and explain to me how Iraq and afghanistan are not the same in their current state. The same argument made for withdrawl from Iraq can be made for Afghanistan. so what is the difference?
Neither NATO nor US ground forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001. This was the work of the Northern Alliance, with the approval of Pakistan and help from US airpower and special forces. The US dollar, stronger then than now, played an important role in purchasing changes in loyalties. The US role depended on the collaboration of Russia. Iran and Pakistan, with the use of Uzbeki and Tajik facilities and China’s blessing. Without the ‘group of six’ – none of whom are NATO members - the whole operation would not have been possible..............
.
I am not following... are you saying Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and China are our allies against the Taliban? So we had no role in overthrowing the Taliban gov't.. We purchased alliances or loyalties with a $ that wasn't so weak? huh

So you are telling me that McCain, who is following Bush foreign policy would be better at working with these govt's who hate Bush? That they won't see him as more of the same and a continuation of this Admin...and that a man who is known to have a temper will fair off better?
Clinton.. do you think these gov'ts will respect her? Is she going to have to wear a veil or cultural garb in their presence?..She is a woman right... we are going places who don't respect women... She is also a continuation of the old, but I think she would fair better... but she also has limited experience in foreign affairs... I think meeting with our enemies is a great tool that the previous presidents didn't take advantage of..
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Rylan, read the whole thing and don't take just one piece. I gave you an article written explaining how afghanistan fell and how the same argument that is propose3d by obama for pulling out of Iraq can be used for afghanistan which is "according to him" the war we should be fighting.
My point is Iraq pull out, afghanistan stay in.....but the situations in both are very similar at this point so why is one ok and not the other.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
I see the problem, didn' post the whole thing
Question for Barack Obama:
Why is Afghanistan the 'Right War'?
By ROBIN BLACKBURN
Barack Obama evidently needs to sharpen up his act. Probably most urgent is his need to develop a more radical economic program. But he should also reconsider his posture on the US mission in Afghanistan as fighting the right war while Iraq has been the wrong war. ‘The Iraq war’, he is quoted as saying. ‘distracted us from the fight that needed to be fought in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda’.
Remarks like this sparked exchanges with McCain over exactly when Al Qaeda established itself in Iraq. While Obama had the better of this exchange the puzzle remained: surely the Al Qaeda leadership left Afghanistan shortly after the toppling of the Taliban and there have been no Al Qaeda training camps there for many years? Al Qaeda’s leaders and bases are now in Pakistan – and are very probably some distance from the border. The fighting in Afghanistan is against a resurgent Taliban, with Al Qaeda playing a very minor role.
Following 9-11 the Bush administration vowed to destroy Al Qaeda but only succeeded in getting it to withdraw to Pakistan. Pakistani police action has been far more effective at capturing senior Al Qaeda operatives than NATO military action. Rounding up the remnant of Al Qaeda central in Waziristan – said to number just 140 fighters – is a problem for the Pakistani government and security services. A Kabul government dependent on NATO can do nothing to dissuade the Waziris from giving shelter to Al Qaeda. Quite the reverse, it makes the hospitality obligatory.
So why in the West still in Afghanistan? ‘West’ here means NATO as well as the US. Actually it’s a question that several NATO countries are beginning to ask ahead of the NATO meeting in Bucharest in April which is meant to review progress. The US and Britain urge a bigger effort while some states have contributed nothing and others, such as Germany, have insisted that their troops remain in quiet northern provinces.
Listening to Joop Scheffer, NATO’s Secretary General, justify the alliance’s presence to a Brooking audience on February 28 ‘mission’ creep was evident. The ‘war on terror’ was passed over fairly quickly with greater emphasis on building democracy, though Scheffer warned that it would be unrealistic to expect this tribal society to become a Western democracy any time soon. Warming to his theme Scheffer urged that Afghanistan was strategically vital. He reminded his audience that the country has a border with China and lies on Russia’s southern flank. In the 21st century, he insisted, we had to take the defence and control of energy resources very seriously and Afghanistan lies athwart potential transportation routes from central Asia.
While this candor about imperialist objectives is refreshing it does nothing to strengthen the legal justification for a continuing occupation.
Neither NATO nor US ground forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001. This was the work of the Northern Alliance, with the approval of Pakistan and help from US airpower and special forces. The US dollar, stronger then than now, played an important role in purchasing changes in loyalties. The US role depended on the collaboration of Russia. Iran and Pakistan, with the use of Uzbeki and Tajik facilities and China’s blessing. Without the ‘group of six’ – none of whom are NATO members - the whole operation would not have been possible.
A Security Council resolution in December 2001 supplied UN cover for the removal of the Taliban and endorsed the despatch of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which at first was meant to last no more than six months and to be confined to area around Kabul. The objective was destroy Al Qaeda facilities, this being a goal that China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan could all agree on. Subsequently the Karzai government requested aid from the occupiers - but then, the Karzai government was established by these same occupiers, so this only furnishes a circular justification.
The ISAF now operates under the terms of the UN Security Council 1776 (2007) which declares that its task is to ‘root out terrorism’ and that Afghanistan remains ‘a threat to world peace’. For much of the period 2002 to 2006 there was little terrorist activity and renewed Taliban attacks in the last year or two are to be explained by the protracted occupation of the country. NATO commanders are well aware that the term Taliban now covers a loose alliance of those opposed to the occupation and the government. The British and other NATO forces know full well how weakly-defined the Taliban are and have entered local agreements with the Taliban on several occasions. In 2005 Abdul Hakim Monib was on the NATO want list of Al Qaeda commanders; by 2007 he was governor of Uruzgang province.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
All this being the case it has to be asked whether the mission is still valid, even on its own terms. It is striking that those with real knowledge of the country say that the NATO presence is as illegitimate by most Afghanis and has destroyed Karzai’s credibility. Rory Stewart, who has been living and working in Afghanistan for several years, explained this in Prospect magazine, published from London, in January. Sarah Chayes, a former NPR reporter who has also been living and working in Afghanistan, explained to Bill Moyers in a mid-February edition of his TV Journal, that government officials are widely seen as robbers and crooks. Stewart and Chayes are not radical critics of Western policy but, unlike Samantha Power – a liberal interventionist and one of Obama’s advisors – they have enough real knowledge of the country and region to see that the NATO mission is self-defeating. It is also wrong, as Tariq Ali and Patrick Cockburn have urged, because the Afghani people need to reach their own solutions.
Let’s return to Obama’s problem. The job he wants is that of running the US empire and in order to win it he has to run a gauntlet of demented imperialist attack dogs. What he can, and to some extent does, argue is that a US military wind down from exposed positions is very much in the US national interest. He has urged withdrawal from Iraq on these grounds and he’s right. So why not make the case for Afghan withdrawal too? The country has much less oil and many fewer terrorists than Iraq.
If the US and NATO forces were withdrawn the likelihood is that the Afghan government would need to come to a new understanding with regional and tribal militias. Some of the latter might have ties to the Taliban, but they don’t want to see it – still less Al Qaeda – running the country again. The seven million refugees who have returned since 2001 will scarcely favour the Taliban even if they would like to see a less corrupt administration.
If the Afghan government felt that it could not handle the situation it might call for help on Pakistan, Iran and Turkey – three countries with historic ties to different sections of the Afghan population. Help from this quarter would be much less compromising than accepting it from the NATO-led occupiers.
What I’m talking about here is an enlightened US policy which grasps that imperial missions breed resistance and danger in a region that has a long tradition of hostility to uninvited foreigners, especially if infidel.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2548330
I will conceed you found a speech. Only took a month and a half for it to be found since I posted this.
Now, is it in his issues?
It didn't take a month - I just looked at a scooby do quote recently and it reminded me of what the original post was on.
Perhaps, I will let you make a true attempt to find it in his Issues section this time. There are tons of PDFs associated to most or addtional links at the bottom of the brief overviews. I can't do all your research for you. Failing to do a quality search for information and not finding anything quickly, doesn't mean the candidate doesn't have a position or stance on it. It's more of a reflection of the investigative abilities of the information searcher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top