Us Super Tuesday

[smartsingh24]

Guy, there isn't any hype. Obama is a good man that knows what he is doing. He doesn't vote based on what looks good, he votes with sound moral and ethical decisions. Clinton and McCain are virtually the same and that's utterly useless. For the past 28 years there has been either a Clinton or a Bush in the white house, do you really expect us to keep that going? Furthermore, McCain has all but promised that he won't bring an end to the Iraq war, and is even threatening to close in on Iran. Our economy is lagging, the dollar is depreciating, and the U.S. in the global spotlight is suffering. What you keep suggesting is irresponsible, because neither of these two candidates are doing enough to help America as a whole. McCain is a warhawk that will cause the death of millions more people if he gets elected, and Hillary is too caught up in a power struggle to look at what she's become. It's sad that McCain practically has the republican nomination now, but there is no way he can be allowed to win.

Stop thinking neo-con, start thinking progress. http://thinkprogress.org/

[proactive]

It is hype when you can promise the Earth knowing full well the policies simply aren't for the real world. Maybe I am giving Obama too much credit for his intelligence and maybe he is just as naive as the most of the people who support him. Sometimes I think that maybe he should win and after he fails miserably which is a given, then maybe the people who support him might get a bit more realistic next time around.

Let's look at his foreign policy. He say he will remove the troops from Iraq in 18 months. Do you think that this will suddenly force Al Qaeda to give up and go home. It will embolden them because they know that if they carry out spectacular attacks prior to the withdrawal they can claim to have forced the world's only superpower out of Iraq. Do you think Obama will rethink his plan in this situation, the answer is no because the nut jobs of the anti-war movement will never let him change his policy. No matter how his government will spin the withdrawal, any withdrawal by the US without having dealt with Al Qaeda effectively will be a defeat, simple as that. You are not dealing with a Vietnam here, where the Vietnamese got back to developing their country the terrorists will follow you back home. The withdrawal will enbolden any potential Muslim terrorist and Al Qaeda will get their biggest recruitment than after 9/11. Obama also says that he will bomb any places in Iraq if he believes that Al Qaeda are re-grouping there. This shows his naivette, do you think that Al Qaeda will stay rooted to one place just allowing themselves to be bombed. Any bombing by Obama will result in another bout of 'injured and dying' civilians being wheeled out and then imagine the outrage amongst the anti-war idiots!

If it weren't so dangerous maybe Obama should be allowed to win and we can all see what an <banned word filter activated> he is.

[smartsingh24]

It is hype when you can promise the Earth knowing full well the policies simply aren't for the real world. Maybe I am giving Obama too much credit for his intelligence and maybe he is just as naive as the most of the people who support him. Sometimes I think that maybe he should win and after he fails miserably which is a given, then maybe the people who support him might get a bit more realistic next time around.

Let's look at his foreign policy. He say he will remove the troops from Iraq in 18 months. Do you think that this will suddenly force Al Qaeda to give up and go home. It will embolden them because they know that if they carry out spectacular attacks prior to the withdrawal they can claim to have forced the world's only superpower out of Iraq. Do you think Obama will rethink his plan in this situation, the answer is no because the nut jobs of the anti-war movement will never let him change his policy. No matter how his government will spin the withdrawal, any withdrawal by the US without having dealt with Al Qaeda effectively will be a defeat, simple as that. You are not dealing with a Vietnam here, where the Vietnamese got back to developing their country the terrorists will follow you back home. The withdrawal will enbolden any potential Muslim terrorist and Al Qaeda will get their biggest recruitment than after 9/11. Obama also says that he will bomb any places in Iraq if he believes that Al Qaeda are re-grouping there. This shows his naivette, do you think that Al Qaeda will stay rooted to one place just allowing themselves to be bombed. Any bombing by Obama will result in another bout of 'injured and dying' civilians being wheeled out and then imagine the outrage amongst the anti-war idiots!

If it weren't so dangerous maybe Obama should be allowed to win and we can all see what an <banned word filter activated> he is.

I don't think you understand the problem with Iraq. There might be al Qaeda in Iraq, but that sure as hell isn't the reason we went in, and like it or not, us being there isn't doing anything to stop them. When we should be chasing down people like Osama Bin Laden, we end up killing innocent Iraqis. We are not dealing with Vietnam here, but we are not fighting a conventional war here. What's happening here is that we are invading a foreign country, messing it up, and killing many innocent people, the same conditions under which Osama was created, and many of the members of al Qaeda. If you want to make a man a terrorist, you don't give him something to fight for, you take away what he has to live for, and so far, we've been doing a great job of that. And before you think he's going to go on and on with cluster bombing, you should read articles and actually learn something about his policies, rather than writing him off as just an anti-war liberal wingnut.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/c...st_b_84811.html

[proactive]

So when Obama says that upon withdrawing he will bomb any place in Iraq should Al Qaeda be regrouping there, he really means that he won't be using cluster bombs. Well any type of bombing, even the smart bombs can cause a lot of colateral damage. Do you remember the Israel-Hazbollah war a few years ago? Don't you think that Al Qaeda won't be able to set up in civilian areas and use that cover for their activities. How will the press react to a bombing that kills lots of civilian given that they were taken in by Hazbollah propaganda.

[smartsingh24]

where is this quote of obama saying he'd bomb any place with al Qaeda? This sounds suspicious and you have yet to offer any proof. Furthermore, we're causing more damage being there every day because of our genius neo-con president, and he's managed to con you into thinking that al Qaeda is around every corner. The fact remains that the Iraq war is too taxing on the American people, and we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place, and now we are starting to pay for it through our economy.

Staying in Iraq is stupid, and using civilian lives as an excuse is pathetic. The Iraqi people can protect themselves, much as the Israeli people can, and they do not need us to help them. You want to talk about Collateral Damage? Then Talk about this-

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

[proactive]

It's from Obama's own website!

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

You can see the inconsistency in his statement, he says he will remove ALL troops from Iraq, then he says if Al Qaeda attempts to build bases in Iraq he will keep troops in Iraq! He is hardly consistent on Iraq. Maybe you should read up on Obama's policies before singing his praises!

His announcement of a full withdrawal date will be a disaster. After the US leaves, there will probably be a bloodbath between Sunnis and Shias, which if it is serious enough will draw in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[SunSingh]

Vote Ron Paul. He has a track record of keeping all his promises. Google him for more info.

[smartsingh24]

It's from Obama's own website!

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

You can see the inconsistency in his statement, he says he will remove ALL troops from Iraq, then he says if Al Qaeda attempts to build bases in Iraq he will keep troops in Iraq! He is hardly consistent on Iraq. Maybe you should read up on Obama's policies before singing his praises!

His announcement of a full withdrawal date will be a disaster. After the US leaves, there will probably be a bloodbath between Sunnis and Shias, which if it is serious enough will draw in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The quote you provided just proves my point, he's going to remove the troops from Iraq, but in no way does that compare to McCain's plan of keeping troops there permanently stationed like they are in South Korea. Furthermore, there's no mention of bombings, there's tactical strikes. In addition, you couldn't be further from the truth about withdrawl, and it's clear that you haven't actually read any of the news or done any homework on withdrawl, or you would have found out that when the british withdrew from Basra, violence went down. Link to the news article here- http://www.theseminal.com/2008/01/29/basra...drawal-working/

Vote Ron Paul. He has a track record of keeping all his promises. Google him for more info.

I am a huge fan of Ron Paul's policies, but he is no longer viable, and rumors coming out of New York are saying that he's getting ready to drop his campaign and is not seeking an independent run at the white house, which is a shame because this country would have prospered under him.

[proactive]

What's a tactical strike if not a bombing, unless you think that he would be foolish enough to send special forces into a country which he has just withdrawn from and which in all likelihood would be in turmoil.

The British withdrawal has resulted in a takeover by Shia Muslim extremists of Basra where women who refuse to wear a veil have been murdered. Here's what the withdrawal has resulted in-;

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/spip.php?article2616

[smartsingh24]

yes, horrible things are still happening, but the violence over all is at 1/10th of the level that it was before withdrawl. Horrible things will continue to happen, but right now there is nothing we can do without inciting more violence. You seem to think that the only way to solve the problems in Iraq is by using military force, but that's what got us in the mess we're in right now. There is nothing left for us to do from a military standpoint. We haven't found any of the WMD's that the Bush Administration told us we would, and further more, we haven't even caught Osama, so why are we still in Iraq? Because it sure isn't to keep the peace.