What "change" would Obama actually make?

[tzor]

I'd just like to note that the entire world was behind us entering Afghanistan. No one ever questioned that war.

So? As the old saying goes, that was then, this is now. What are we in there for? Bin Laden isn't there, he's over in the next country. So are the people we kicked out of the country, just waiting until we leave before they come back in and take the place over again. What's our mission? What's our goal? We don't have one!

[PLAYER57832]

all hes gonna do is give the welfare douchebags more power

Care to provide any support for this clear and concise analysis? Or are you just a troll?

Well, I don't know about you, but I wasn't aware of any "welfare douchebags" in existence. What does he mean, people who receive welfare? By definition they have basically no power. People who...er...legislate welfare? Like, the government? A little late there...oh, does he mean the Democrats? THE DEMS!?!? Shit, it isn't like it matters...neither candidate is a big enough change, so I guess we'll just have to vote by party lines again.

He obviously means all those students who are grabbing at those federal pell grants and such ... plus all those soldiers who might possibly retire with enough to live on ... or maybe he means those politicians and ogvernment workers.

[Iliad]

So it's harder. What's less intelligent about it?

We don't have to invade a sovergein nuclear weapon armed nation to directly attack the insurgents in Iraq. In order to "win" Afganistan, we have to root out the insurgents in Pakistan, and that nation has no intention of letting us do that. Not now, not never.

So, what, you're thinking we should just leave Afghanistan just because Pakistan's giving us a little trouble? That's fine, I suppose, just answer one question for me: what, pray tell, do you plan on doing this next September 11? Planning on visiting any world trade centers?


I've heard it argued that there are no good wars. They're just empty money-pits and places for people to go kill and be killed and there's nothing good about war at all. There are, however, just wars, in which the reason for spending trillions of dollars and hundreds and even thousands of good men and women's lives is good. The war in Afghanistan is one of those wars. A militant terrorist group came into our country and killed thousands of innocent civilians, and they were based out of a country with a government that was sympathetic to their cause. To avoid another of those events and to hunt and capture those responsible and bring them to justice we went to war with that country and it's government and when we finished that job, we went about rounding up those responsible. Now, obviously, there is the Pakistan factor that is making everything difficult and will probably be solved more by diplomacy and/or indirect coercion than by military force, but to call it a stupid waste of money is telling all the families of those who died in the Pentagon and WTC bombings, "Well, we tried, but then it got too expensive, and, well, we gave up. We're sorry for your loss, but we're just gonna bring the troops home because your neighbors think that the money would be better spent elsewhere than on bringing the murderers of your husbands/wives/children to justice."

Hologram there are NO GOOD WARS.
Inevitable, yes. Just and good-no.

[DaGip]

Well, for one, he'd take away this terrible distraction we call Iraq.

And trade it for an invasion of Pakistan and a war in Darfur....WHOOPEE! I can't wait! All you kids and your kids' kids will be fighting way the f*ck half way across the fucking world forever and ever. Meanwhile, I will have died, and my grave stone will read:

Don't Blame Me...I voted for Ron Paul!

[Backglass]

All you kids and your kids' kids will be fighting way the f*ck half way across the fucking world forever and ever.

Hello? It's that way now thanks to King George. And your great grand-kids will still be paying off his bloody debt.

[Hologram]

So it's harder. What's less intelligent about it?

We don't have to invade a sovergein nuclear weapon armed nation to directly attack the insurgents in Iraq. In order to "win" Afganistan, we have to root out the insurgents in Pakistan, and that nation has no intention of letting us do that. Not now, not never.

So, what, you're thinking we should just leave Afghanistan just because Pakistan's giving us a little trouble? That's fine, I suppose, just answer one question for me: what, pray tell, do you plan on doing this next September 11? Planning on visiting any world trade centers?


I've heard it argued that there are no good wars. They're just empty money-pits and places for people to go kill and be killed and there's nothing good about war at all. There are, however, just wars, in which the reason for spending trillions of dollars and hundreds and even thousands of good men and women's lives is good. The war in Afghanistan is one of those wars. A militant terrorist group came into our country and killed thousands of innocent civilians, and they were based out of a country with a government that was sympathetic to their cause. To avoid another of those events and to hunt and capture those responsible and bring them to justice we went to war with that country and it's government and when we finished that job, we went about rounding up those responsible. Now, obviously, there is the Pakistan factor that is making everything difficult and will probably be solved more by diplomacy and/or indirect coercion than by military force, but to call it a stupid waste of money is telling all the families of those who died in the Pentagon and WTC bombings, "Well, we tried, but then it got too expensive, and, well, we gave up. We're sorry for your loss, but we're just gonna bring the troops home because your neighbors think that the money would be better spent elsewhere than on bringing the murderers of your husbands/wives/children to justice."

Hologram there are NO GOOD WARS.
Inevitable, yes. Just and good-no.

I said that there were no good wars. Though I would like to hear your argument against just wars.

[Hologram]

I'd just like to note that the entire world was behind us entering Afghanistan. No one ever questioned that war.

So? As the old saying goes, that was then, this is now. What are we in there for? Bin Laden isn't there, he's over in the next country. So are the people we kicked out of the country, just waiting until we leave before they come back in and take the place over again. What's our mission? What's our goal? We don't have one!

So what you're saying is that as soon as we run into some little diplomatic road blocks we should just give up? Throw in the towel, say, "Oh well, we tried," and just leave and let the terrorists and Taliban have their run of Afghanistan?

I would gladly keep as many forces there as possible to keep those bastards from having any free reign in future terrorist attacks, and I would gladly be part of that expeditionary force for as long as it took, even if all I got to do was stand on mountain peak on the border and yell "f*ck you, Osama!" the entire deployment.

[radiojake]

exactly. everyone loves him because he keeps saying "hope" and "change" but what the hell is he going to do? what a fraud i cant beleive hes actually beating mccain in the polls

Yes, because I'm sure Mccain will be able to offer all the changes you wan't to see take place. Two party system - same stench, same vegetable, different pronounciation. (or if you like, to-may-to - to-mah-to)

You're a deuche bag if you actually think there is a major difference between to the two parties, either way the lower to middle class is fucked

[tzor]

So what you're saying is that as soon as we run into some little diplomatic road blocks we should just give up? Throw in the towel, say, "Oh well, we tried," and just leave and let the terrorists and Taliban have their run of Afghanistan?

You realize that you can make the exact same argument for Iraq. Should be just throw in the towel and say "oh we tried" in Iraq, dispite the fact that because of the surge the government is getting its act together, the people are starting to be united and they are getting a force that can actually start to provide them with actual protection - if they only had the equipment that we posess.

I'm not saying per se we need to throw in the towel, but that we need to know where the problem is. The problem in Afganistan is a lot like the problem of illegal immigration in the US, only the people crossing the border are blowing people up as opposed to taking jobs. The problem is in Pakistan. Unless we deal somehow with that issue, this problem will never go away. No one wants to deal with Pakistan. The coalition will eventually collapse, and we will be left holding the bag and the cost again.

[Hologram]

So what you're saying is that as soon as we run into some little diplomatic road blocks we should just give up? Throw in the towel, say, "Oh well, we tried," and just leave and let the terrorists and Taliban have their run of Afghanistan?

You realize that you can make the exact same argument for Iraq. Should be just throw in the towel and say "oh we tried" in Iraq, dispite the fact that because of the surge the government is getting its act together, the people are starting to be united and they are getting a force that can actually start to provide them with actual protection - if they only had the equipment that we posess.

I'm not saying per se we need to throw in the towel, but that we need to know where the problem is. The problem in Afganistan is a lot like the problem of illegal immigration in the US, only the people crossing the border are blowing people up as opposed to taking jobs. The problem is in Pakistan. Unless we deal somehow with that issue, this problem will never go away. No one wants to deal with Pakistan. The coalition will eventually collapse, and we will be left holding the bag and the cost again.

Yes, I know that can also be said for Iraq, and that's why, even though I don't agree with the war, I don't think we should just pull out and let what happens happen.

The only differences between Afghanistan and Iraq that I see are that I agree with the reason for being in the former, and instead of insurgents A-stan has terrorists across the border. And you're right, no one wants to deal with a rogue nuclear country, but that doesn't mean we should just give up simply because it's a money pit. We should keep people there, tracking down any stragglers still inside Afghanistan and ready for an assault into Pakistan when our diplomats finally find a suitable solution with Pakistan. In my mind, a few trillion dollars in humanitarian aid from our government or lucrative trading deals highly lopsided towards Pakistan, or some weapons deals for Pakistan, or anything else that Pakistan may work out with U.S. diplomats will be worth bring Al Quaeda and the Taliban to justice for all the innocent lives they slaughtered on American soil.

[Backglass]

Should be just throw in the towel and say "oh we tried" in Iraq, dispite the fact that because of the surge the government is getting its act together, the people are starting to be united and they are getting a force that can actually start to provide them with actual protection - if they only had the equipment that we posess.

If we don't, in 10 years we will still be having this same discussion. You say "throw in the towel...I say "Cut your losses".

Which is better. 500 Billion now? Or 2 Trillion later?

[Hologram]

Should be just throw in the towel and say "oh we tried" in Iraq, dispite the fact that because of the surge the government is getting its act together, the people are starting to be united and they are getting a force that can actually start to provide them with actual protection - if they only had the equipment that we posess.

If we don't, in 10 years we will still be having this same discussion. You say "throw in the towel...I say "Cut your losses".

Which is better. 500 Billion now? Or 2 Trillion later?

Well, from the current looks of it, the job there is almost over, we just have to hang in for a few more years.

[Backglass]

Well, from the current looks of it, the job there is almost over, we just have to hang in for a few more years.

"Mission Accomplished"...right?

[Hologram]

Well, from the current looks of it, the job there is almost over, we just have to hang in for a few more years.

"Mission Accomplished"...right?

Hahaha, you could say that.

[Caleb the Cruel]

I love how everybody likes Obama because they think he'll get us out of Iraq quickly when he recently stated he would create his Iraq policy based upon input from the generals, the exact same thing Bush has been doing. Until recently the generals have been stating the troop levels should remain constant, however they also say we will need to be involoved over there until at least 2012 probably. So if Obama will listen to the generals like he said, then Obama will actually keep us in Iraq just as long as McCain. Obama is actually more of a hawk than McCain as Obama wants to send large amounts of American troops into Sudan to settle the Darfur issues while McCain would rather work with the United Nations(the entire world helping rather than doing things our way, again) to solve the Darfur genocide. Obama additionally plans to invade Pakistan to hunt al-Qaeda. How will Obama have enough troops to sustain Iraq & Afghanistan and send troops to Sudan & Pakistan? Can anyone say draft? If Obama is elected, I and those young men who were Obama supporters are off to die! Change, change, change!

[Backglass]

I love how everybody likes Obama because they think he'll get us out of Iraq quickly when he recently stated he would create his Iraq policy based upon input from the generals, the exact same thing Bush has been doing. Until recently the generals have been stating the troop levels should remain constant

I suspect it went something like this:

Bush: General, what is your recommendation?

General: Sir, we should consider a withdrawal. After all Bin Laden isnt anywhere around, the people view us as holy invaders and we arent really accomplishing anything except losing more men.

Bush: UNACCEPTABLE! Don't you ever come before me and gimme that line-o-horse shit again if you want to keep your job! Understand?

General: YES SIR! I suppose we could just keep things the way they are.

Bush: OK! I accept your recommendation! Yer doin a helluva job General!

[stlcard1521]

we shouldnt have gone to iraq but now that we did we have a responsibility to leave them with stability rather than rushing out

[Hologram]

we shouldnt have gone to iraq but now that we did we have a responsibility to leave them with stability rather than rushing out

It's not so much a responsibility than it is looking out for national interests. Last time we just rushed out and left them for themselves, Afghanistan came under the rule of the Taliban and the Arab world began hating us.

[DaGip]

Obama has changed his website in regards to Iraq and the Surge now. What a hypocritical liberal slime ball. The only CHANGE you are going to get with Obama is just his skin color. I just don't see an Obama administration doing any better than an McCain administration...geez!

[InkL0sed]

Obama has changed his website in regards to Iraq and the Surge now. What a hypocritical liberal slime ball. The only CHANGE you are going to get with Obama is just his skin color. I just don't see an Obama administration doing any better than an McCain administration...geez!

Really? McCain wants to stay in Iraq, Afghanistan... and invade Iran??

[ksslemp]

Everyone should vote for him because he belongs to a church that hates "whitey"! si se puede

[InkL0sed]

Yeah I kinda hate whitey too.

[DaGip]

I consider the term "whitey" to be offensive and I want everyone that is using it to be forum banned immediately!

[Backglass]

Everyone should vote for him because he belongs to a church that hates "whitey"! si se puede

No! Everyone should vote for the guy who dumped his wife after she had a crippling car accident for a woman half his age!

[joecoolfrog]

What the US clearly needs is more guns, more evangelical preachers and a return to legalised slavery....... the old values are the best