[ETWolverine]

Over the past couple of weeks we have seen Barak Obama's lack of experience bite him on the butt.

During the so-called Democratic "debate", Barak stated that in his first year as president he would sit down with a host of rogue nation's leaders, including Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and others. Naturally, this caught a few of his supporters of guard. They may agree with him, but they never expected him to actually say it openly. And those who disagree with that stance were more than happy to use it against him.

So... Barak decided to modify his position to one in whih he could show strength instead of mealy-mouthed cowardice. The result was his speech earlier this week in which he stated that he's ready to attack PAKISTAN... an ally in the War on Terror, and a sovereign nation in its own ight. We make not like this particular ally or the ways in which they excersize sovereignty, but they are still an ally, and the fact that one of the frontrunners for the office of President of the USA would even consider attacking an ally during wartime is absolutely idiotic. If we were ever stupid enough to actually attack an ally during wartime, we'd never be able to gather an alliance for any purpose ever again. And if you think that Bush has destroyed our credibility in the international community, then imagine what attacking an ally would do to our international standing.

And, of course, this just reveals the hipocracy of Barak Obama... he would sit down with our declared enemies to talk diplomacy, because sabre-rattling is for meanies. But he would attack an actual ally.

Which brings us to his idiotic comments about nuclear weapons... First he said that he believes that using nuclear weapons in any circumstances would be a mistake. Too bad the terrorists don't seem to agree. Then he modified his position to say that he would never use nukes in "any circumstances involving civilians." Again, too bad the enemy doesn't agree. And then finally, he withdrew his entire statement... "Let me sratch that... there's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

So he won't ever use them, but he might use them if there were no civilians around, but he refuses to even discuss the possibility of using them. And he'd meet with enemies to talk and attack allies.

Is this the guy you want in charge of the "football"?

I don't think so. And I have a feeling that Obama has pretty much ended his chances of becoming President in 2008. Even if by some miracle he's able to beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination, any Republican nominee with any political skills whatsoever will destroy Obama with these comments. Obama has pretty much slit his own thoat.

Hillary must be laughing her fat A$$ off. Her number one competitor just committed political suicide in front of the whole country.

Elliot

[jrb252000]

I rather have anyone in besides Clinton she took back a cheating husband. I don't think it matters who gets in because they will make the promises the people want to hear and when they get into office it all falls apart.

[speechlesstx]

Is this the guy you want in charge of the "football"?

Not at all, and thanks for stealing my Obama Shuffle thunder, Elliot. :D

Obama's starting to look a little like John Kerry... so to speak. "I was actually against using nukes before I was kinda for using nukes before I didn't want to discuss using nukes."

[excon]

Hello El:

They ALL suck!! Ceptin for Ron Paul.

excon

[Dark_crow]

Over the past couple of weeks we have seen Barak Obama's lack of experience bite him on the butt.

During the so-called Democratic "debate", Barak stated that in his first year as president he would sit down with a host of rogue nation's leaders, including Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and others. Naturally, this caught a few of his supporters of guard. They may agree with him, but they never expected him to actually say it openly. And those who disagree with that stance were more than happy to use it against him.

So... Barak decided to modify his position to one in whih he could show strength instead of mealy-mouthed cowardice. The result was his speech earlier this week in which he stated that he's ready to attack PAKISTAN... an ally in the War on Terror, and a soverign nation in its own ight. We make not like this particular ally or the ways in which they excersize sovereignty, but they are still an ally, and the fact that one of the frontrunners for the office of President of the USA would even consider attacking an ally during wartime is absolutely idiotic. If we were ever stupid enough to actually attack an ally during wartime, we'd never be able to gather an alliance for any purpose ever again. And if you think that Bush has destroyed our credibility in the international community, then imagine what attacking an ally would do to our international standing.

And, of course, this just reveals the hipocracy of Barak Obama... he would sit down with our declared enemies to talk diplomacy, because sabre-rattling is for meanies. But he would attack an actual ally.

Which brings us to his idiotic comments about nuclear weapons... First he said that he believes that using nuclear weapons in any circumstances would be a mistake. Too bad the terrorists don't seem to agree. Then he modified his position to say that he would never use nukes in "any circumstances involving civilians." Again, too bad the enemy doesn't agree. And then finally, he withdrew his entire statement... "Let me sratch that... there's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

So he won't ever use them, but he might use them if there were no civilians around, but he refuses to even discuss the possibility of using them. And he'd meet with enemies to talk and attack allies.

Is this the guy you want in charge of the "football"?

I don't think so. And I have a feeling that Obama has pretty much ended his chances of becoming President in 2008. Even if by some miracle he's able to beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination, any Republican nominee with any political skills whatsoever will destroy Obama with these comments. Obama has pretty much slit his own thoat.

Hillary must be laughing her fat A$$ off. Her number one competitor just committed political suicide in front of the whole country.

Elliot

I think you are doing a disservice to logic itself here when you speak of Barak deciding to modify his position. It does not follow that because he wants to sit down and talk that he is weak…to not want to talk, to not look your enemy in the eye, that, is weakness. The Republicans have shown this weakness for some time. Barak is the only contender who has shown the strength to make his position clear… to move back on track in the war on Terrorism i.e. benny boy in Afghanistan.

[ScottGem]

I agree that Obama is self destructing. I've never been that comfortable with him because of his inexperience and a lack of true positioning. He should have waited for the next go round to solidify his base.

I rather have anyone in besides Clinton she took back a cheating husband.

And this disqualifes her because.. To me it shows loyalty and compassion for someone's weaknesses. Both desirable qualities.

[jrb252000]

I agree that Obama is self destructing. I've never been that comfortable with him because of his inexperience and a lack of true positioning. He should have waited for the next go round to solidify his base.



And this disqualifes her because...? To me it shows loyalty and compassion for someone's weaknesses. Both desirable qualities.

I think it showed pure weakness on her part. Not to mention she would be in charge of the military (if a military person commits adultery they get in trouble) her husband walked away with a cleaning bill. I just don't think other countries will tolerate a female president. I couldn't care less who gets in there if they can do a decent job.

[Dark_crow]

So... Barak decided to modify his position to one in whih he could show strength instead of mealy-mouthed cowardice. The result was his speech earlier this week in which he stated that he's ready to attack PAKISTAN... an ally in the War on Terror, and a soverign nation in its own ight. We make not like this particular ally or the ways in which they excersize sovereignty, but they are still an ally, and the fact that one of the frontrunners for the office of President of the USA would even consider attacking an ally during wartime is absolutely idiotic. If we were ever stupid enough to actually attack an ally during wartime, we'd never be able to gather an alliance for any purpose ever again. And if you think that Bush has destroyed our credibility in the international community, then imagine what attacking an ally would do to our international standing.



Elliot

I don’t know whether this is logic run-aground, or simply an example of partisan politics; what-ever-the-case, it is wrong. The Pakistan government, either through folly or failure has allowed its northern territory to be annexed by the Taliban, and this is unacceptable for Americas’ defense.

[ETWolverine]

It does not follow that because he wants to sit down and talk that he is weak…to not want to talk, to not look your enemy in the eye, that, is weakness.

Oh, bull!!

If you are getting mugged in the street, and you have a chance to fight back, do you say, "nah... let's meet with the mugger, sit down and have a cup of coffee to decide how best we can fix things?" Or do you kick his ? Which one is a position of weakness and which one is a position of strength, DC?

If you want to look the enemy in the eye, do so while you are sticking a knife in his gut so that you can see his expression change. Then cut out his heart and keep it as a trophy to show to anyone else who wants to attack you.

Yes, sitting down with an enemy who is determined to destroy you and with whom you have no common ground to make any sort of compromise is WEAKNESS. It isn't strength. It's an invitation to let your enemy kick your head in.

For all those who think that sitting down with your enemies is a sign of strength, I challenge you to go into the worst part of the town or city where you live, walk through a dark alley, and when a mugger or rapist comes for you, offer him a chance to talk with you to fix you differences. After he's done beating the crap out of you, you can report back to me on the results of your diplomatic initiatives and tell me whether you still believe that talking with enemies unconditionally is a sign of strength, and whether you are feeling particularly strong at that moment. If you're still alive to do so.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Oooopppps. Sorry, Steve. Didn't mean to undercut you. Apologies all around!!!

Hey, no prob buddy, as long as this gets the attention it deserves :)

[ETWolverine]

I don’t know whether this is logic run-aground, or simply an example of partisan politics; what-ever-the-case, it is wrong. The Pakistan government, either through folly or failure has allowed its northern territory to be annexed by the Taliban, and this is unacceptable for Americas’ defense.

I agree that it is very bad for America's defense. On that point we are not in dispute. Where we disagree is over Barak Obama's stated intent of what to do about it.

Unilaterally attacking Pakistan, an ally, is not a viable solution... just as attacking France because they have given up Paris' Arab quarter to Islamofascist Muslims is not a viable option. France isn't the enemy, and you can't attack them just because you don't like some of the people living there.

The appropriate solution would be to work with the Pakistani government to get rid of the terrorists. Whether that means joint operations or just logistical support, that would have to be worked out. But for the USA to unilaterally attack Pakistan's sovereign territory? Nuh uh. To borrow a line from Bush's father, "Wouldn't be prudent". They call that an act of war, and it is considered a Bad Idea under most circumstances.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

Oh, bull!!!

If you are getting mugged in the street, and you have a chance to fight back, do you say, "nah... let's meet with the mugger, sit down and have a cup of coffee to decide how best we can fix things?" Or do you kick his ? Which one is a position of weakness and which one is a position of strength, DC?

If you want to look the enemy in the eye, do so while you are sticking a knife in his gut so that you can see his expression change. Then cut out his heart and keep it as a trophy to show to anyone else who wants to attack you.

Yes, sitting down with an enemy who is determined to destroy you and with whom you have no common ground to make any sort of compromise is WEAKNESS. It isn't strength. It's an invitation to let your enemy kick your head in.

For all those who think that sitting down with your enemies is a sign of strength, I challenge you to go into the worst part of the town or city where you live, walk through a dark alley, and when a mugger or rapist comes for you, offer him a chance to talk with you to fix you differences. After he's done beating the crap out of you, you can report back to me on the results of your diplomatic initiatives and tell me whether you still believe that talking with enemies unconditionally is a sign of strength, and whether you are feeling particularly strong at that moment. If you're still alive to do so.

Elliot

Again, your analogies come from a complete lack of understanding and assumptions not in evidence. Talking to your enemy face to face and putting your cards on the table, rather than through propaganda, leaves no room for mistaken assumptions… To use one of your crude street analogies…you let your enemy save public face.

[Dark_crow]

I agree that it is very bad for America's defense. On that point we are not in dispute. Where we disagree is over Barak Obama's stated intent of what to do about it.

Unilaterally attacking Pakistan, an ally, is not a viable solution... just as attacking France because they have given up Paris' Arab quarter to Islamofascist Muslims is not a viable option. France isn't the enemy, and you can't attack them just because you don't like some of the people living there.

The appropriate solution would be to work with the Pakistani government to get rid of the terrorists. Whether that means joint operations or just logistical support, that would have to be worked out. But for the USA to unilaterally attack Pakistan's soverign territory? Nuh uh. To borrow a line from Bush's father, "Wouldn't be prudent". They call that an act of war, and it is considered a Bad Idea under most circumstances.

Elliot

Your crazy example of France leads you to terrible conclusions. Pakistan has been given more than ample time and the Taliban is growing stronger in that territory rather than weaker. When candidates for President make those kinds of statements it applies pressure, statements the others are too narrowly focused to comprehend.

[ETWolverine]

Again, your analogies come from a complete lack of understanding and assumptions not in evidence.

I disagree. I used to live in that part of the world. I have a very good understanding of the Islamic terrorist mindset and how to counter it. Diplomacy is seen as a form of weakness and invites further attack. Not just part of the time... ALWAYS. So in the Islamifascist mindset, what Barak Obama proposes is a sign of weakness... a sign that their terorist activities have driven us from the field of battle and to the bargaining table. You must not EVER show that sort of weakness to Islamofascists.

Talking to your enemy face to face and putting your cards on the table, rather than through propaganda, leaves no room for mistaken assumptions…

Do you really believe that Ahmadinejad has any mistaken assumptions about what our position is on him getting nukes? Or Kim Jong Il? Come on, DC. These guys aren't stupid. They're nuts but they're not stupid. They know exactly what our positions are. The public statements of intent on both sides have been very clear. Nobody is making any mistaken assumptions.

To use one of your crude street analogies…you let your enemy save public face.

No, no, no. Haven't you learned from history yet? We allowed Arafat to "save face" in the 1990s and it renewed his power base in the terrorist community. We allowed Saddam Hussein to "save Face" in 1992, and now look where we are. Abbas allowed Hamas to "save face" in the PA, and now look at the war going on in the PA. Israel allowed Lebanon and Hizbollah to "save face" in 2000 by pulling out of Lebanon, and look at last year's war with Hizbollah and the upsurge in Hizbollah's strength in Lebanon.

Every time we allow Islamofascists to publicly "save face" by backing down, it turns around and bites us on the . When are you going to learn?

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Your crazy example of France leads you to terrible conclusions. Pakistan has been given more than ample time and the Taliban is growing stronger in that territory rather than weaker. When candidates for President make those kinds of statements it applies pressure, statements the others are too narrowly focused to comprehend.

I fail to see how France differs from Pakistan. The Islamofascist presence in France is growing stronger, despite the fact that France has been given ample time to fix the problem... literally decades. There doesn't seem to be any real political/diplomatic difference between France and Pakistan... except that Pakistan has been a better ally in the War on Terror than France has over the past several years.

As for applying pressure, I agree that that is probably one reason that Obama said what he did. But if so, he did it without a complete understanding of the political situation in Pakistan. Pervez Musharaf's hold of the government is tenuous, and that is the reason that he is unable to take stronger action. Pressure from the USA is not going to solidify his position. And while Musharaf is an ally of the USA and willing to work with us, his political opponents are not. We need Musharaf, which means we need to EASE the pressure on him, not increase it. The alternative is an anti-USA government in Pakistan, which is something we wish to prevent. So, if Barak's intent was to put pressure on Musharaf, it's because he has no clear understanding of the political realities taking place in Pakistan today. And neither do you, if you can support such a stance.

Elliot

[Wondergirl]

When you are able to spell his name correctly, I promise to read your posts, ET.

[Dark_crow]

I disagree. I used to live in that part of the world. I have a very good understanding of the Islamic terrorist mindset and how to counter it. Diplomacy is seen as a form of weakness and invites further attack. Not just part of the time... ALWAYS. So in the Islamifascist mindset, what Barak Obama proposes is a sign of weakness... a sign that their terorist activities have driven us from the field of battle and to the bargaining table. You must not EVER show that sort of weakness to Islamofascists.



Do you really believe that Ahmadinejad has any mistaken assumptions about what our position is on him getting nukes? Or Kim Jong Il? Come on, DC. These guys aren't stupid. They're nuts but they're not stupid. They know exactly what our positions are. The public statements of intent on both sides have been very clear. Nobody is making any mistaken assumptions.



No, no, no. Haven't you learned from history yet? We allowed Arafat to "save face" in the 1990s and it renewed his power base in the terrorist community. We allowed Saddam Hussein to "save Face" in 1992, and now look where we are. Abbas allowed Hamas to "save face" in the PA, and now look at the war going on in the PA. Israel allowed Lebanon and Hizbollah to "save face" in 2000 by pulling out of Lebanon, and look at last year's war with Hizbollah and the upsurge in Hizbollah's strength in Lebanon.

Every time we allow Islamofascists to publicly "save face" by backing down, it turns around and bites us on the . When are you going to learn?

Elliot

Diplomacy…there is one of the assumptions I alluded to…did Barak Obama say he was employing diplomacy as a tactic, what leads you to believe he will not use the concept of…an eye for an eye?



Yes the, “The public statements of intent on both sides have been very clear”….typical political propaganda.


There you go again with those false analogies.

I think everyone has lost track of who it is we are with war against…bennie’s organization and the Taliban…remember them. Or have you, like so many others lost track of that.


Saddam Hussein is gone… Arafat is gone…. Abbas and Hamas is not the Taliban and Israel did not allow Lebanon and Hezbollah to "save face".

We have not allowed Islam fascists to publicly "save face," not in the sense I used the term.

We need to get back on track… the Saudis have alluded to accepting the new government and it’s time to quit Iraq and get back on a clear target.

[Dark_crow]

I fail to see how France differs from Pakistan. The Islamofascist presence in France is growing stronger, despite the fact that France has been given ample time to fix the problem... literally decades. There doesn't seem to be any real political/diplomatic difference between France and Pakistan... except that Pakistan has been a better ally in the War on Terror than France has over the past several years.

As for applying pressure, I agree that that is probably one reason that Obama said what he did. But if so, he did it without a complete understanding of the political situation in Pakistan. Pervez Musharaf's hold of the government is tenuous, and that is the reason that he is unable to take stronger action. Pressure from the USA is not going to solidify his position. And while Musharaf is an ally of the USA and willing to work with us, his political opponents are not. We need Musharaf, which means we need to EASE the pressure on him, not increase it. The alternative is an anti-USA government in Pakistan, which is something we wish to prevent. So, if Barak's intent was to put pressure on Musharaf, it's because he has no clear understanding of the political realities taking place in Pakistan today. And neither do you, if you can support such a stance.

Elliot

We need Musharaf my.. he's going down and has no power now…you appear to want to appease him so that he can continue to do nothing about the Taliban and Bennie boy…well we can do something, and it's a hop-skip-and-a- jump from Iraq to Afghanistan. WE can support the government in Afghanistan and seal off the border to Pakistan.

Your analogy to France is in only one small sense... France has a stable government and can take of its own problem.

[ScottGem]

I think it showed pure weakness on her part. Not to mention she would be in charge of the military (if a military person commits adultery they get in trouble) her husband walked away with a cleaning bill. .

You are entitled to your opinion. I see things differently.

I just don't think other countries will tolerate a female president. I could care less who gets in there if they can do a decent job.

Can you say Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir? I think other countries have clearly shown they can and will accept a female head of state. I think the problem is more with the American populace's sexism then internationally.

My opinion is that Hillary will do a decent job, maybe better than decent. He husband did a decent job, his problems had little to do with his duties as head of state. Of course anything will be an improvement over the incumbent bungler.

[jrb252000]

Yes I agree a lot of women have been in power however Americans don't have a great rep with those countries that we really need to deal with. And then they would have to deal with a woman that would add fuel to the fire.
I really think this election is going to be up to the military voters and their families. I feel Clinton does not set well with them. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan the military is fed up. In my opinion someone that has never been in the military shouldn't be in charge of them even though it has happened it the past.