Jump to content

Us Super Tuesday


Harmeet1
 Share

Recommended Posts

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • was researching this and came back to this thread. Also found an older thread:    
    • Net pay after taxes. If you don't agree, think about this: If you were a trader and started off in China with silk that cost 100 rupees and came to India, and you had to pay total 800 rupees taxes at every small kingdom along the way, and then sold your goods for 1000 rupees, you'd have 100 rupees left, right? If your daswandh is on the gross, that's 100 rupees, meaning you have nothing left. Obviously, you owe only 10% of 100, not 10% of 1000. No, it's 10% before bills and other expenses. These expenses are not your expenses to earn money. They are consumption. If you are a business owner, you take out all expenses, including rent, shop electricity, cost of goods sold, advertising, and government taxes. Whatever is left is your profit and you owe 10% of that.  If you are an employee, you are also entitled to deduct the cost of earning money. That would be government taxes. Everything else is consumption.    
    • No, bro, it's simply not true that no one talks about Simran. Where did you hear that? Swingdon? The entire Sikh world talks about doing Simran, whether it's Maskeen ji, Giani Pinderpal Singh, Giani Kulwant Singh Jawaddi, or Sants. So what are you talking about? Agreed. Agreed. Well, if every bani were exactly the same, then why would Guru ji even write anything after writing Japji Sahib? We should all enjoy all the banis. No, Gurbani tells you to do Simran, but it's not just "the manual". Gurbani itself also has cleansing powers. I'm not saying not to do Simran. Do it. But Gurbani is not merely "the manual". Reading and singing Gurbani is spiritually helpful: ਪ੍ਰਭ ਬਾਣੀ ਸਬਦੁ ਸੁਭਾਖਿਆ ॥  ਗਾਵਹੁ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਪੜਹੁ ਨਿਤ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰ ਪੂਰੈ ਤੂ ਰਾਖਿਆ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The Lord's Bani and the words are the best utterances. Ever sing hear and recite them, O brother and the Perfect Guru shall save thee. Pause. p611 Here Guru ji shows the importance of both Bani and Naam: ਆਇਓ ਸੁਨਨ ਪੜਨ ਕਉ ਬਾਣੀ ॥ ਨਾਮੁ ਵਿਸਾਰਿ ਲਗਹਿ ਅਨ ਲਾਲਚਿ ਬਿਰਥਾ ਜਨਮੁ ਪਰਾਣੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ The mortal has come to hear and utter Bani. Forgetting the Name thou attached thyself to other desires. Vain is thy life, O mortal. Pause. p1219 Are there any house manuals that say to read and sing the house manual?
    • All of these are suppositions, bro. Linguists know that, generally, all the social classes of a physical area speak the same language, though some classes may use more advanced vocabulary. I'm talking about the syntax. That is, unless the King is an invader, which Porus was not. When you say Punjabi wasn't very evolved, what do you mean? The syntax must have been roughly the same. As for vocabulary, do you really think Punjabis at the time did nothing more than grunt to express their thoughts? That they had no shades of meaning? Such as hot/cold, red/yellow/blue, angry/sweet/loving/sad, etc? Why must we always have an inferiority complex?
    • I still think about that incident now and then, just haven't heard any developments regarding what happened, just like so many other things that have happened in Panjab!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use