does not deserve to be president

[Kronos1965]

Originally Posted by BLBJBranch

Here's the reality as I see it:

1. Our economy is based on a global market and yes, oil is involved in this issue. There is an effort by several rogue nations to affect us economically by screwing with the price of oil. They can't compete with us militarily, so they'll undermine us by manipulating the price and availability of oil. To combat this, Republicans want to open more drilling in the U.S., but the Dems won't allow it because some furry mouse may have to move 20 feet west, or some d**khead senator may have to look at a platform from one of his numerous summer homes.
2. Muslim extremists are INTENT on making Islam a world religion. They will not stop until the entire world has converted. It's one of their core beliefs. They will attempt to do this through the use of terrorism and slow expansion and anyone that gets in their way is subject to destruction. History is full of examples of this behavior. Unfortunately, our country has accepted the religion with open arms and the law allows them to prostelitise all they want here (although a Christian can be executed in the middle east for it). So instead of a threat from Islam from our borders, the threat will come from within.

That's the reality as I see it. Now for some feedback to some of the other points:

1. Bin Laden's main beef with America had little to do with American policies in the middle east. He was pissed because we had a military presence in Saudi Arabia, the holy land. He was also pissed because Saudi Arabia used our help against Saddam in the Persian Gulf war instead of his. And yes, Saddam did actually invade Saudi Arabia at that time.
2. The CIA did help the Taliban get into power, because at the time it helped stop the surge of communism. However, it was during the Clinton years that the Taliban started abusing their power, not to mention women and children. And what caused all the human rights violations...wait for it...Islamic Sharia Law. It was also during the Clinton years that the Taliban started imprisoning and executing non-muslims. Do you remember them destroying the ancient Buddhist statues? And what did the UN do about it? Nothing. So all the liberal whiners can b!tch and moan about Darfur all day long with Bush, but they didn't say sh!t to Clinton when this was going on.

Some interesting points made...

1. Bin Laden didn't really care about the US until Ayman al-Zawahiri pasted an ideology and plan on top of Bin Laden's funding stream. He wanted power to promote Islam.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1560834.stm

2. Christians promote religion all the time-same as Muslims. That both can do it in the US and one cannot do it in other countries does not make that country or that religion evil.

If this was such an issue, why haven't voters-Christians voted in their religion into the government long before now? It's because Christian-based religions in the US would fracture because each wanted their own beliefs to be put into place. Tell a Baptist, a Protestant, a Catholic, etc. that the other flavor of Christianity will rule the laws of the country and you would have quite a fun time sorting it out...

3. The UN is an ineffective force and not under the control of the Democrats. If you're so interested, blame Republicans as well for failing to promote their arrival to Iraq, Liberia (oops, I'm mentioning a nation that had numerous civil wars that went unchecked even after repeated requests by that nation during Republican controlled eras...)

4. The CIA being used to stop the spread of communism has never worked anywhere! The cultural clash, the logistics to hold it, the gains all don't match up. A few hundred operatives providing arms and instructions to the Aphgani people and to the Taliban hardly would make a difference. The Soviet Union could never hope to hold that territory and went bankrupt trying...

5. No rogue nation is screwing with the price of oil. However political unrest anywhere that threatens the supply panics the markets even when no panic should exist.

Our problem is not with production, it is with refinement.

[oldasdirt78]

Originally Posted by yamatitan

wow yea, to tell you the truth all the top contenders for this election scare me to death. Its a lose lose situation imo.

whats wrong with mccain?

[chunko]

Originally Posted by oldasdirt78

whats wrong with mccain?

Other than he thinks things are okay in Iraq, and it's cool if we have to stay there a hundred years...

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by Kronos1965

People who seem to be on the right are using the political trick of tying name-recollection and thereby making people link
Saddam Hussein and Hussein Obama...

Now the above would be "name calling" because Barrack's name is conveniently dropped to be much closer to Saddam's known name.
There's no "name calling" in metioning Barrack's full name: Barrack Hussein Obama.
Like I said earlier, NO ONE complained when Bill was introduced as William Jefferson Clinton when he was sworn into office. Some group of people are getting thin skinned lately.

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by adavis99

Gr8Titan... All would agree that Clinton dropped the ball with Bin Laden. He f*cked up by not making him a priority...and some of the stories I've heard about him not taking Osama on a silver platter make me really, really, really pissed.
But...just as not taking action was costly, so is the war in Iraq. I think we've lost more soldiers over there than all the terrorist attacks you mention, including 9/11....and it's cost us way more money too. However, the point about no attacks since 9/11 is true...although I'm not convinced that it is because we invaded IRAQ. We could have stayed the course in Afghanistan, caught Osama, and made an example of him. Instead...we have Iraq.

Clinton was wrong for not taking enough action. Bush was wrong not for taking action, but for getting us into Iraq and losing sight of our goal. Maybe the next president will get it right? I hope so.

Adavis99...We all agree that Clinton dropped the ball on OBL.
Bill's refusal of the proverbial "silver platter" is actually the beginning of this expensive war. A very expensive war that could have been prevented.

But if we sit and go back in history, OBL was the unindited co-conspirator of the first WTC bombing that occured in Clilnton's watch.

May 18, 1996 was really the start of this expensive war. One would ask: What is the significance of this day? Well, this is that day the Sudanese Government offered OBL to Bill Clinton. After he refused, OBL was expelled from Sudan to Afganistan where he started his Al Quieda training complex.

Recent events will show that invading Afganistan was a direct result of OBL training his terrorists hijackers in Afganistan. Without OBL as "Chairman of the Board", Al Quida would have taken longer to grow it's network and 9-11-01 disaster would have not occured. The Afganistan invasion was a direct result of 9-11 attacks at the WTC and Pentagon.

Now, what has Iraq to do with our war on terror?
Well, OBL is the "Slick Willie" of the Arab world. After all, he got the Sudanese to release him, got Bill to refuse him and got the Afgans to welcome him. When the Taliban government of Afganistan was deposed and OBL was on the run, which "real estate" broker did you think he wanted to deal with?
Libya's Mouammar Khadafi has his tail between his legs, Iran's Ahmadenijad is afraid of Iraq's Military and Saddam is the only bully left in the sand box (no pun intended). To allow OBL-Saddam partnership to start, will be like another OBL-Taliban partnership in the making. Pre-emptive strike has to happen.

Expensive? Sure it is. All because Clinton dropped the ball and afraid to swing the big stick when he had the chance to put shackles on Osama Bin Laden.

Like you, I hope the next president gets things right with Dignity and Honor.

[Kooshtaka]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

Why is OBL not on the list? The answer is in one phrase: "pre-emptive strike"
Saddam eventually was on the run to save his skin and being dead didn't help his prospective relationship with OBL either.

Columbus? Don't get me started about irrelevant arguments. Columbus will not prove or disprove this topic at hand. Only children do this "stuff". We're supposed to be well educated logical adults here. Modern recordings that include audio-video files of actual events are more accurate than individual written accounts of events done centuries ago. And don't even consider arguing about the "possibility of re-editing" because this holds true too for written records.

William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Roddam Clinton, Barrack Hussein Obama and George Walker Bush are called "Full Names". It is the most legal way to call a person. For some additional information, Barrack's father is also Barrack Hussein Obama and his grandmother is also a Hussein. BTW....what was the point of your curiousity?

Yes Saddam might have been on the run eventually, but there is one place he would NEVER turn to to hide. And that is Osama. Their hatred toward each other is one that legends are made of.
I am just skepticle when people tout that recorded history as beyond reprof. When i read your post i took recorded history as written history. I didn't even consider original video/voice.
I was curious because there have been a lot of people who are attempting to make a connection between Obama's middle name and terrorists. <- a very bad form of fear mongering.

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by Kooshtaka

Yes Saddam might have been on the run eventually, but there is one place he would NEVER turn to to hide. And that is Osama. Their hatred toward each other is one that legends are made of.

For what it's worth, Osama Bin Laden was the first one to be on the run. His running days started October 7, 2001 when the Multi-National Force invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban rulers.

1 year and 5 months later, Saddam Hussein decided to go underground (no pun intended) when Iraq was invaded on March 20, 2003. Saddams biggest problem was his huge ego. He was too proud to ask his neighbors for help and was eventually caught in a rathole cowering in fear.

[Kooshtaka]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

Adavis99...We all agree that Clinton dropped the ball on OBL.
Bill's refusal of the proverbial "silver platter" is actually the beginning of this expensive war. A very expensive war that could have been prevented.

But if we sit and go back in history, OBL was the unindited co-conspirator of the first WTC bombing that occured in Clilnton's watch.

May 18, 1996 was really the start of this expensive war. One would ask: What is the significance of this day? Well, this is that day the Sudanese Government offered OBL to Bill Clinton. After he refused, OBL was expelled from Sudan to Afganistan where he started his Al Quieda training complex.

Recent events will show that invading Afganistan was a direct result of OBL training his terrorists hijackers in Afganistan. Without OBL as "Chairman of the Board", Al Quida would have taken longer to grow it's network and 9-11-01 disaster would have not occured. The Afganistan invasion was a direct result of 9-11 attacks at the WTC and Pentagon.

Now, what has Iraq to do with our war on terror?
Well, OBL is the "Slick Willie" of the Arab world. After all, he got the Sudanese to release him, got Bill to refuse him and got the Afgans to welcome him. When the Taliban government of Afganistan was deposed and OBL was on the run, which "real estate" broker did you think he wanted to deal with?
Libya's Mouammar Khadafi has his tail between his legs, Iran's Ahmadenijad is afraid of Iraq's Military and Saddam is the only bully left in the sand box (no pun intended). To allow OBL-Saddam partnership to start, will be like another OBL-Taliban partnership in the making. Pre-emptive strike has to happen.

Expensive? Sure it is. All because Clinton dropped the ball and afraid to swing the big stick when he had the chance to put shackles on Osama Bin Laden.

Like you, I hope the next president gets things right with Dignity and Honor.

Why is it that you think Osama and Saddam would have teamed up? You always seem to turn back to trying to make a connection between the two. There never was a connection between the two, except for a deep rooted hatred of each other. Even Bush has quit attempting getting the American public to swallow that one. Although it appears that you have, which is unfortunate.

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by Kooshtaka

Why is it that you think Osama and Saddam would have teamed up? You always seem to turn back to trying to make a connection between the two. There never was a connection between the two, except for a deep rooted hatred of each other. Even Bush has quit attempting getting the American public to swallow that one. Although it appears that you have, which is unfortunate.

Yeah, it is unfortunate that effective foresight always has a bone of contention. On the other hand, lack of foresight always have an evident end result.

Example: Can one prove without a reasonable doubt that OBL-Saddam partnership could have happend? Answer: NEVER because one of the potential partners is dead. However, a probable cause is enough for a pre-emptive strike to prevent this possibility. BTW, the source of this link is liberal ABC News.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f9_1189985144

On the other hand, Bill Clintons lack of foresight when he refused OBL from the Sudanese has an evident result: Osama Bin Laden relocated from Sudan to Afghanistan where he established his terrorist training camp. These training camps produced the hijackers that flew the planes into the WTC.

Now what would one rather have? Foresight or the lack of one?

[LittleRam]

I get a kick out of people that really believe Bush had knowledge of the terrorist attacks before they happened. I simply find that hard to believe. as far as Bill Clinton goes, dropping the ball, I could not agree more but what would have that solved killing Osama someone would have taken his place surely. The U.S. has to look at it's foreign policy, and with that you will have your answer as to why we were attacked.

[MXtitan24]

as for the picture of Obama

its the star spangled banner and you are not required to put your hand over your heart for America's "Theme Song"

and the picture of Obama in a turbin and robe is a 2006 picture when he is on an official visit to Kenya, where he wore the traditional garments to try and gain support.

[Kooshtaka]

Originally Posted by LittleRam

I get a kick out of people that really believe Bush had knowledge of the terrorist attacks before they happened. I simply find that hard to believe. as far as Bill Clinton goes, dropping the ball, I could not agree more but what would have that solved killing Osama someone would have taken his place surely. The U.S. has to look at it's foreign policy, and with that you will have your answer as to why we were attacked.

As far as I know I don't think that anyone has said that Bush personally knew of the terrorist attacks before they happened. I do know that the INTELLIGENCE divisions- i.e. CIA & FBI did have some knowledge- the extent of that knowledge is unknown.

[Kooshtaka]

Originally Posted by gr8titan

Yeah, it is unfortunate that effective foresight always has a bone of contention. On the other hand, lack of foresight always have an evident end result.

Example: Can one prove without a reasonable doubt that OBL-Saddam partnership could have happend? Answer: NEVER because one of the potential partners is dead. However, a probable cause is enough for a pre-emptive strike to prevent this possibility. BTW, the source of this link is liberal ABC News.

On the other hand, Bill Clintons lack of foresight when he refused OBL from the Sudanese has an evident result: Osama Bin Laden relocated from Sudan to Afghanistan where he established his terrorist training camp. These training camps produced the hijackers that flew the planes into the WTC.

Now what would one rather have? Foresight or the lack of one?

I get the arguement you are attempting to make, but when you look to probable cause you need to look at the situation then and not to the future. Because if we use your definition of probable cause then Israel could invade the Gaza strip, remove the current gov't and install a puppet gov't of their own all because they had "probable cause" that there would be attacks out of Gaza. Israel has attempted occupation of Gaza but everytime they realize the hopelessness of staying there and that everytime they do they just make the resentment toward them worse. Granted that might not be the best example because of the historic cultural & religious difficulties in the area. So here is another example: The US Gov't's relationship with the Native Americans/Alaska Natives. The Gov't wont attempt to influence changes in leaderships because they realize that to do so will not help matters but just exasterbate them.

I think everyone would rather have foresight, but that's not the real question. The real question is what type of foresight it is. Bill Clinton didn't have the foresight to accept Osama when he was offered, Bush didn't have the foresight to complete operations in Afganistan before moving on, Bush also didn't have the foresight of the mess invading Iraq would cause WHILE still engaged in Afganistan.

So the question is what type of foresight would you like to have in the white house? - one that will understand the consequences of their actions/inactions, or one that does whatever they want even when they are told it would not be best to do so.

[gr8titan]

Originally Posted by Kooshtaka

I get the arguement you are attempting to make, but when you look to probable cause you need to look at the situation then and not to the future. Because if we use your definition of probable cause then Israel could invade the Gaza strip, remove the current gov't and install a puppet gov't of their own all because they had "probable cause" that there would be attacks out of Gaza. Israel has attempted occupation of Gaza but everytime they realize the hopelessness of staying there and that everytime they do they just make the resentment toward them worse. Granted that might not be the best example because of the historic cultural & religious difficulties in the area. So here is another example: The US Gov't's relationship with the Native Americans/Alaska Natives. The Gov't wont attempt to influence changes in leaderships because they realize that to do so will not help matters but just exasterbate them.

Here we go about irrelevant arguments using Israel's Gaza conflict and Native American History. These two conflicts have different circumstances compared to the present conflict we are in Period!!

I think everyone would rather have foresight, but that's not the real question. The real question is what type of foresight it is. Bill Clinton didn't have the foresight to accept Osama when he was offered, Bush didn't have the foresight to complete operations in Afganistan before moving on, Bush also didn't have the foresight of the mess invading Iraq would cause WHILE still engaged in Afganistan.

So the question is what type of foresight would you like to have in the white house? - one that will understand the consequences of their actions/inactions, or one that does whatever they want even when they are told it would not be best to do so.

According to the dictionary, Foresight is the ability to prepare wisely for the future. You seem to misunderstand American way of Government. Ever hear the Act of War by Congress? If there is blame to place around, spread it with fairness.
In Oct 11, 2002 the American Senate on a vote of 77-23 and the American Congress on a vote of 296-133 overwhelmingly approved the resolution for the USA to wage war against Saddam Hussein
In Nov 0, 2002, the United Nations Security Counci' passed a resolution that "Holds Iraq in Materials Breach in Disarmament Obligation" and approves Military consequences.
In March 20 2003 Iraq was invaded by a Multi-National force.
This chronology speaks for itself!!!

77 US Senators, 296 members of US Comgress, 15 UN Security Council Members voted in favor of the Iraq invasion. These people ARE NOT DUMMIES. They voted and decided without coersion, with dignity and the best foresight available at that time.

[gr8titan]

Quote: