Romney's Claim that Hillary/Obama Votes=Terrorism

No, what you presented was not a plan. A plan includes details. What you provided is an overview or summary of a plan. To clarify the point, why do you think the rapid pullout described by Obama would work? If you have to go to another site to answer the question, it is because the summary that Obama has provided is not a plan.
 
Romney can go back to his 12 wives now.
I would like to know what Obama and Clinton will do to fight terrorism, not how they will continue Bush's Folly in Iraq. They will have to extricate us from there somehow, and conduct a campaign against the actual terrorists that want to attack the U.S.
 
These kinds of comments is what makes people turned off politics. The repubs have (successfully I might add) been practicing the politics of slash and burn for too long now.

What Romney said by extension insults all the voters that vote either for Hillary or Obama by insunuating that they are somehow "terrorist sympathizers" and so on. That is why I echo a previous posters comment that Mr. Romney can go sex himself.
hookem.gif
 
Roger, You can stick with juvenile name calling. Just remember that what goes around comes around. And though I won't stoop to similar weak-minded and childish behavior I will call you out on it and you should not be surprised if others do lower themselves to your level.

It isn't very difficult to see the Dem candidates, Clinton, Edwards, and Obamal use slash and burn tactics against (1) the wealthy (2) blacks and whites and (3) supporters of the war. You should be equally appalled by their actions.


As for those sleazy Republicans,
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
The invasion of Iraq was based on flimsy and possibly manufactured evidence. However, the real tragedy was the lack of a plan for the occupation. There was considerable testimony from Pentagon brass and from Colin Powell that the Rumsfeld's war plans would lead to disaster. These dissenters were either ignored or punished.

The lack of a plan for an occupation, after the Iraq army and the Republican Guard were defeated, coupled with too small an occupation force, disbanding the army and debaathification being the most egregious errors, doomed any subsequent actions. The Powell Doctrine that if you break it, you own it only works in so far as you can afford to buy it. We can't afford to continue this war with an army whose operational resources are exhausted.

It is this reality that has enabled the terrorist; not withdrawing from Iraq regardless of when and how. The failure of the occupation in its earliest days and months led to Al-Quedas move to Iraq and empowered the Sunni/Shiite civil unrest. It is too late to reach any of the goals of the ever evolving Bush Doctrine. Risking more lives and treasure makes no sense. Continuing the present course only recalls other former empires' dying struggles when they over extended their resources.

The biggest fallacy is that failure in Iraq means that the terrorist win. This war with radical Islam will be fought for decades. It is a war that cannot be fought unilaterally. This brings me to why I am supporting Barack Obama for president. He is upfront about the need and his will to begin a dialog with all the players in the Middle East. His name and background alone changes the paradigm needed to deal with the many different factions in the region. This war with the terrorist will be a long war of attrition which will require new methods; the most important of which will be diplomatic alliances. It is imperative to change the "face' the world sees when it looks to the United States. Clinton and McCain will be the same old face.

Thank goodness Mitt Romney dropped out. His comments show he's about as aware of how the world works as Mr. Bush.
 
The idea that Iraq would be become a safe haven for Al Qaeda if the country collapses is crazy. Al Qaeda has tons of enemies in the region, all of their own making. The Kurds hate them. Iraqi Shiites hate them. Iran hates them. Saudi Arabia hates them. All those groups are on Al Qaeda in Iraq's target list and would be hit before they hit us because they are so much closer and easier targets. Thus all those groups would not stand Al Qaeda in Iraq's presence.
 
A couple of thoughts. I am convinced that the White House is NOT the right place to run a war. LBJ was WRONG for dictating what we would and wouldn't do in Vietnam, and it is clear that no matter where you stand on the issue of Iraq, it is wrong when the White House tries to run the war.
It is clear that in the past the White House refused to listen to dissenters from Rumsfeld and whatever he and Bush came up with. It also appears that Bush has corrected this mistake at least in part by listening to Patreaus and implementing the surge strategy.
What do Obama and HRC know about running a war? As much as Bush, would be my answer. NONE of them know anything. I will say that while McCain might not have the high level of strategic planning experience that is needed, he will listen to the militaries top brass and I believe he would carry out the best advice he can glean from them. When I hear Obama talking about dictating when troops would come home and at what rate that pisses me off as much as it does that Bush didn't listen to the right military commanders when he went into Iraq.

Also, if anyone believes that the colour of Obama's skin, or his middle name will change what other countries feel towards you US, I can hardly believe you would be that naive. It will not change how the world looks at us and it certainly won't change the opinion of Islamic extremists who are willing to kill other Muslims who don't agree with their brand of Islam, much less an American President who while having some personal experience with Islam now attends a Christian church and publically professes Christ. I find the idea that the world will change it's mind because of our president's middle name quite laughable.
It is true that the sum total of the war on Islamic extermism will not be won or lost in Iraq, but I believe it is also wrong to say that what happens in Iraq doesn't matter. That we should get out to save American lives. Getting out could in the long run end up costing us many more American lives than staying and seeing the job through.
I will state again that Obama scares the hell out of me. There were very good reasons that HRC voted to allow Bush to go into Iraq, and she is pretty sober minded towards Iraq. I think she will even listen to reason, but I believe Obama has some pie in the sky naivete with regards to the realities of international policy.
 
Austin, I agree with you about this not being something that our military can do alone, I hope it didn't sound as if I were implying that this was completely or even primarily a struggle that can be won with sheer might and military. I was speaking ONLY in reference to the situation in Iraq. (and obviously in Iraq the Iraqi government needs to step up).

Also, I don't just think we are viewed from the outside world as a bunch of old white men crusaders, I actually am ashames to say that we are.
We can disagree though on how much good having a President with darker skin will change that perspective.
 
Theu, the greatest disservice Mr. Bush did to this country actually wasn't screwing up the Iraq occupation but in not making the country understand how great a problem this rise of Islamic radicalism will be for us.

I am a democrat and there are other democrats that truly understand what a threat this is. Mr. Bush sold a scenario that all we needed to do was ride in like John Wayne and shoot a bunch of bad guys. "Bring it on." Instead we were lead to believe that all we had to do was wave the flag and support the troops. This is naive and short-sighted.

There should have been a national discussion for a draft after 9/11. An aggressive recruitment of Arab speakers in the CIA. More CIA operatives on the ground in the Middle East. A real energy policy that raises gasoline mileage standards and aggressively funding alternative forms of energy. A serious attempt to protect the ports and inspect ships and containers. But the most important aspect would have been to use the power and influence of the presidency to form alliances with foreign leaders to intelligently develop strategies to address the causes of Islamic grievances. Pick any country in the Middle East and you will find that the vast majority of the population are under 30 years old. Granted the majority are not as hate filled as Obama Bin Laden but they are getting there.
 
even with perfect planning and a perfectly running Iraqi government with the idyllic brotherhood of Sunni, Shia and Kurd -- Al Qaeda would still show up in Iraq and start blowing up random Iraqis, non random Iraqis, and US troops. Islamic fighters will show up wherever a non Islamic army has invaded, be it Afghanistan in the 1980s, Serbia-Bosnia in the 90s or Iraq now. No amount of perfection can stop this. On another thread comment, attacking the Israeli population is not bigotry, as nuking Japan was not either.
 
Peopl keep saying Obama has only suggested policy, not offered a direct action.
people say obama and hillary have ONLY calloed for a withdrawal os Some troops and who knows what their long term stratagey would be

so when Obama say sthis : "Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama this afternoon called for an immediate start to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq -- with a goal of full removal by the end of 2008
is that short term or long term?

is the use of the word " goal" fallacious demagogery or just innocent panderiing?

Romney played to Gopers using stunts dems had played to their voters
I hardly think the vitriol against a GOP candidate who has withdrawn speaks well lfor the spewers
 
Gee i just wish we could understand why many muslims want to kill anyone who isn't muslim and even kill many more who are muslim.
UMmm what could it be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top