Moderator: Community Team
Because, they are pretty much neck and neck, and if one of them can get all 12 delegates, then it will give them a much needed boost.Snorri1234 wrote:...
They're not actually going to Wyoming to receive votes for becoming the president, they're going there to receive votes to get an actual shot at becoming president. They both need the democratic delegates from Wyoming to become the nominee for the democratic party.
Seriously, how is that desperate? They don't actually depend on Wyoming to give them much in the general election...
Napoleon Ier wrote:What I found interesting was watching the campaigning in Ohio where they competed for Industrial votes by playing my favorite "How many free trade agreements can we pledge to renege on in a day?" game. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
McCain-Huckabee 2008!
luns101 wrote:You should be able to convert a soul from 500 yards away armed only with a Gideon New Testament that you found at a Holiday Inn!!!!
muy_thaiguy wrote:Sir! Permission to do 50 push-ups with the Ark of the Covenant on my back?
GabonX wrote:Actualy Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. The Army Rangers did battle with them in the northern regions of Iraq close to the start of the war.
For a period of time after the invasion the number of Al Qaeda members was much greater than it was before the international presence, but now that the Petraeus strategy (that McCain had supported the whole time) is being pursued instead of the Rumsefeld strategy, Al Qaeda is on the verge of colapse in Iraq.
Lets not forget that the reason for engaging Iraq wasn't to fight Al Qaeda, it was to ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction and to rid the country of Saddam. Both of those objectives have been accomplished.
Not any opinion opposed to mine is drivel, but opinions based on things that aren't true (the untrue statement that there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before the international presence) are.F1fth wrote:GabonX wrote:Actualy Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. The Army Rangers did battle with them in the northern regions of Iraq close to the start of the war.
For a period of time after the invasion the number of Al Qaeda members was much greater than it was before the international presence, but now that the Petraeus strategy (that McCain had supported the whole time) is being pursued instead of the Rumsefeld strategy, Al Qaeda is on the verge of colapse in Iraq.
Lets not forget that the reason for engaging Iraq wasn't to fight Al Qaeda, it was to ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction and to rid the country of Saddam. Both of those objectives have been accomplished.
Well, I like how you assume that any opinion opposed to yours is drivel -- that's a nice sentiment -- but let me first pose the question: what's ties did the Al-Queda have with the Iraqi government?
And as for your reasons: ensuring that a country has no WMDs is not a valid excuse for invading that country. You had better know or be DAMN WELL SURE a country has those weapons before going in. Is it unreasonable that we be sure about something as important as WMDs before taking action? Because we certainly weren't. It cost us.
Secondly, was killing Saddam -- as bad as he was -- worth $500 billion and counting? Just ask yourself that. Was it worth the cost?
GabonX wrote:Regarding the price of the war I would argue that it is worth the cost to do the moral and upright thing, which is to remove sociopathic leaders from positions of power. Quite frankly I have seen no change in the quality of my life and neither has anyone else as a result of this war...
F1fth wrote:Secondly, was killing Saddam -- as bad as he was -- worth $500 billion and counting? Just ask yourself that. Was it worth the cost?
unriggable wrote:GabonX, saying that there is no Al Qaeda in Iraq now is about as dumb as that thing Ahmadinedjad said about there not being gays in his country. Neither of them are true. There are terrorists in Iraq - the number is very low but they are there. We don't need to be there to stop them since they are dormant at this point.
GabonX wrote:What else is new?
The fact that different states award delegates differently makes the whole thing kind of a joke too. If Texas and Ohio were awarded in full to the winner Hillary would be doing much better right now. Either all states should split the delegates or none of them should. The way it is now makes it look like there is an objective standard when it's much more chaotic in reality.
unriggable wrote:GabonX, saying that there is no Al Qaeda in Iraq now is about as dumb as that thing Ahmadinedjad said about there not being gays in his country. Neither of them are true. There are terrorists in Iraq - the number is very low but they are there. We don't need to be there to stop them since they are dormant at this point.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users