Watching the Debate ...

Watching the Debate ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 7:16:31 PM)
They are talking about Obama's plan to invade Pakistan if necessary. It occurred to me, while I was listening, how turned around things seem to get sometimes ... McCain is willing to sit down and talk with our allies ... and is willing to attack our enemies. Obama is willing to sit down and talk with our enemies ... and is willing to attack our allies. Strange. Firm

MzMia -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 8:02:20 PM)
Firmhand, you need a reply so here I am. [:D] Firmhand, just WHO are "our enemies" and WHO are "our allies" these days?

slvemike4u -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 8:12:42 PM)
So Pakistan is what passes for an ally now?Brings to mind that old saying ,you know the one that goes....with friends like these.....

FirmhandKY -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 8:22:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia Firmhand, you need a reply so here I am. [:D] Firmhand, just WHO are "our enemies" and WHO are "our allies" these days? Thanks Miz. I really was just posting in wonder, because that is exactly what Obama is saying. Pakistan might not be another Great Britain, but they have certainly assisted us in the war against terrorists. Do we have a problem with them, in that they do have a problem with the "bandit area" on their border? Yep. But, Obama's plan may well turn a reluctant ally into a party to a live fire war - and they have nukes. Yet ... he's willing to sit down with the president of Iran, and the dictator of N. Korea "without precondition"? There is something basically skewed with this thinking, and I'm not simply trying to "make points" on Obama. Firm

MzMia -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 8:24:31 PM)
What happens when Iran gets the "nukes", if they don't already have them? What about Russia? Are we only waging war and kicking ass if they don't YET have the nukes?

slvemike4u -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 8:28:30 PM)
Please Firm,McCain has been banging that drum ad infinitum,and it isn't working....no President is sitting down with the leaders of Iran or North Korea without "preconditions".And both McCain and you know it,things are not done that way despite the sound bite you and McCain keep referring too.

kdsub -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 8:43:47 PM)
Now be truthful FirmhandKY... If you as President knew conclusively the location of Ben Laden in Pakistan. And the Pakistanis refused to act...or... you were afraid asking would assure a leak and failure... would you authorize a cross-border raid? I know I would and I think McCain would too. I'm tired of our country deceiving others about our future actions.I think it is refreshing to say up front if you don't help us we will help ourselves. Maybe it will wake up the leaders of Pakistan. Bush just does as he pleases with no warning at all... our does it anyway and lies to the world and the American people. Damn enough of that crap. Butch

FirmhandKY -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 8:46:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Now be truthful FirmhandKY... If you as President knew conclusively the location of Ben Laden in Pakistan. And the Pakistanis refused to act...or... you were afraid asking would assure a leak and failure... would you authorize a cross-border raid? I know I would and I think McCain would too. I'm tired of our country deceiving others about our future actions.I think it is refreshing to say up front if you don't help us we will help ourselves. Maybe it will wake up the leaders of Pakistan. Bush just does as he pleases with no warning at all... our does it anyway and lies to the world and the American people. Damn enough of that crap. Butch Sure I would. But it would also certainly be a secret mission (unless successful), with a level of plausible deniability. Firm

kdsub -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 8:51:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Now be truthful FirmhandKY... If you as President knew conclusively the location of Ben Laden in Pakistan. And the Pakistanis refused to act...or... you were afraid asking would assure a leak and failure... would you authorize a cross-border raid? I know I would and I think McCain would too. I'm tired of our country deceiving others about our future actions.I think it is refreshing to say up front if you don't help us we will help ourselves. Maybe it will wake up the leaders of Pakistan. Bush just does as he pleases with no warning at all... our does it anyway and lies to the world and the American people. Damn enough of that crap. Butch Sure I would. But it would also certainly be a secret mission (unless successful), with a level of plausible deniability. Firm See that is what I would like to see change... the HELL with deniability… I want some one that would show integrity... if a success or failure I want a President that will stand and admit his decisions.

kdsub -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 8:58:08 PM)
It could hurt Obama if tomorrow we see thousands of marchers in Pakistan protesting his honest reply. Because I'm sure the hypocrite McCain will say "see he is naive about foreign policy". To bad though if it happens because honesty is what we need in our government not double talk. Butch

slvemike4u -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 8:58:40 PM)
Plausible deniability?...Really Firm,you would want to deny ,and or keep secret, getting Bin Laden.If I had my druthers his body would go on tour and every American who wanted would get a chance to view his rotting corpse.

MzMia -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 9:19:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Plausible deniability?...Really Firm,you would want to deny ,and or keep secret, getting Bin Laden.If I had my druthers his body would go on tour and every American who wanted would get a chance to view his rotting corpse. I recall about 7 years ago a little incident called "9/11". Who was the mastermind behind 9/11? Was his name Bin Laden? Where is Bin Laden these days Firm? Is he in Iraq? Do we even care about Bin Laden any more? I also recall the tactics that led up to our soon to be 8 years long war in Iraq. mike? Do you recall President Bush sitting down to negotiate prior to bombing Iraq? Why am I thinking another case of: pot, kettle, black here? Hummm, was our President willing to sit and wait and chat with our "friends" in the UN, prior to going to Iraq? Or do we have "friends" in the UN? Can someone explain the negotiations that took place prior to our going over to Iraq? I mean how long did President Bush sit down and talk prior to going, Firm?

slvemike4u -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 9:39:28 PM)
Has Firm abandoned his own thread.I'm confused would Firm not talking to us make us his friends or enemies?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 10:25:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Plausible deniability?...Really Firm,you would want to deny ,and or keep secret, getting Bin Laden.If I had my druthers his body would go on tour and every American who wanted would get a chance to view his rotting corpse. I recall about 7 years ago a little incident called "9/11". Who was the mastermind behind 9/11? Was his name Bin Laden? Where is Bin Laden these days Firm? Is he in Iraq? Do we even care about Bin Laden any more? I also recall the tactics that led up to our soon to be 8 years long war in Iraq. mike? Do you recall President Bush sitting down to negotiate prior to bombing Iraq? Why am I thinking another case of: pot, kettle, black here? Hummm, was our President willing to sit and wait and chat with our "friends" in the UN, prior to going to Iraq? Or do we have "friends" in the UN? Can someone explain the negotiations that took place prior to our going over to Iraq? I mean how long did President Bush sit down and talk prior to going, Firm? Bush went to the UN, and engaged the UN several times before the Iraq war. How soon we forget. Especially when it is convenient. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 10:27:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Has Firm abandoned his own thread.I'm confused would Firm not talking to us make us his friends or enemies? Mike, You are simply posturing. Kinda entertaining, but I've got better things to do right now. No one who has posted has actually made any point to refute my original comment. Firm

philosophy -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 10:55:02 PM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_el_pr/debate_fact_check_5;_ylt=AmsLlLO91WwE0b.0Wk0yERNh24cA "In an October 2007 interview with Military Times, however, McCain's position was indistinguishable from Obama's. Asked if "you'd go get him" if U.S. forces had a fix on bin Laden in Pakistan, McCain said: "Sure. Sure. We have to, and I'm sure that after the initial flurry, that whoever our friends are, wherever he is, would be relieved because, as I mentioned to you before, he's still very effective in the world, very, very effective." .......interesting link really.

BitaTruble -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/7/2008 11:16:47 PM)
~FR~ Obama's actual comment was if Bin Ladin was in our sights and Pakistan either could not or would not go after him, then we would. He never used the word invade. Tom Brokaw used it .. maybe that's where the confusion lies. The only definition of invade that I could find which would fit the OP was 'to move into' since there is no conquest or pillage/plunder involved in going after Bin Laden as far as Pakistan is concerned. As far as I can tell, Obama doesn't want to move into Pakistan. He just wants to visit, get Bin Laden then get out. And why on Earth would we be allies with a country that harbors terrorists? That's a direct violation of the Patriot Act passed by both houses and signed into law by our President. And did not our esteemed president declare we would go after the evil doers no matter where on Earth they might hide? Remember 'if you're not with us, you're against us? I thought Bush did an excellent job in the early days after 9/11. Now it's time to finish what we started, get that son-of-a-bitch and be done with it. Don't get me wrong .. I think diplomacy should be tried with Pakistan and I believe that Obama thinks that as well ... and maybe some new blood in the WH, whether that's McCain or Obama will enable some talks that will lead to a joint venture in capturing the bastard, but if not .. then we have every right (in fact I consider it a responsibility to ensure the safety of future generations) as a sovereign nation, to hunt down and capture or kill the terrorists who are responsible for the destruction and death of 9/11. ~Don't fuck with a menopausal sadist from Texas who owns guns~ [;)]

winterlight -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/8/2008 12:05:57 AM)
Promise anything to get elected and have really no clear plan on what to do for the future...

meatcleaver -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/8/2008 12:16:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY They are talking about Obama's plan to invade Pakistan if necessary. It occurred to me, while I was listening, how turned around things seem to get sometimes ... McCain is willing to sit down and talk with our allies ... and is willing to attack our enemies. Obama is willing to sit down and talk with our enemies ... and is willing to attack our allies. Strange. Firm I think America's allies would be quite surprised to have an American Republic President sit down and discuss a problem with them, usually they are told what America wants and they can like it or lump it. Take the sites in Czech and Poland, no consideration for what their allies feel there, the US just bribes both governments, doesn't give a shit about what their populations think and doesn't give a fuck what Czech and Poland's neighbours think. If 'I want to be seen as a strong man McCain' with his usual rightwing machismo sits down and actually discusses international policy with the US's allies, I think a lot of leaders will need emergency oxygen. Its not for nothing that the Republicans have become so hated and reviled in Europe.

corysub -> RE: Watching the Debate ... (10/8/2008 12:32:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Please Firm,McCain has been banging that drum ad infinitum,and it isn't working....no President is sitting down with the leaders of Iran or North Korea without "preconditions".And both McCain and you know it,things are not done that way despite the sound bite you and McCain keep referring too. I wish you were right. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's first answer to that exact question regarding his action as President in meeting with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba was "I would!". It's not me ranting, but his words! After Barack got beaten up for his naievete, he said that his response was being "mischaracterized". Unfortuneately, when you deal with foreign despots they respond to the comments of the President and don't wait for the "re-write". For example, the Soviet Unions first assesment of young Jack Kennedy was tht he was naieve, inexperienced and the typical "lets negotiate an honorable defeat" democrat that pushed them to put missiles 90 miles offshore. They "mischaracterized" his words and his determination and we found ourselves on the brink of an atomic war. Scary times not to be repeated. Joe Biden was right when he said the "Presidency is not a place for on the job training". It would be great if Obama would give any evidence that he has the skill set to actually deliver and execute on the "words" he so elequently delivers. Sorry, I don't see it... Would love to see that evidence from some of his supporters here. Obviously, Obama is a quick study and has shown a lot of "flexibility" in his stand on issues. However, the "real world" is not a debat, and the residency is not a job for on the job training! OBAMA on no preconditions: OBhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4 BIDEN on the Presidency: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAaLEJwkh9c&feature=related

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125