Barrack Obama - 1st black man to president America [Archive]

raphael123

12th February 2007, 11:06

What do people think of this guy? He certainly is adding excitement to the politics in America. But this article from the BBC worries me about his character, and maturity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6352785.stm

Whether going to war in the first place was right or wrong, you can't just abandom the country, you got to stick it through till the mess is sorted. You can't go and create chaos on the opposite side of the world, then half way through realising it was a mistake, leave it in a mess! Sort out your mess first.

And the way he has responded to Mr Howard shows a lack of maturity. I think he's just trying to cause a stir, and in America, to get voters behind you - pulling out of the war seems to be a good way of getting voters on your side.

My worry is every black person will vote for Barrack Obama simply because he is black, not necessarily because of what he stands for. I could then go on to cry racism, but that is another topic altogether.

Eki

12th February 2007, 11:14

It doesn't look like the US can fix it anyway. American troops in Iraq are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Tomi

12th February 2007, 11:17

raphael123

12th February 2007, 11:39

A bit irresponsible to claim that America should just leave Iraq. Who would police the area? It'd simply go back to the hands of the terrorist/extremist, and the idea of it becoming a democratic place would not become reality. No matter how hard it is, it would be very unfair of America to leave Iraq in the mess they've created.

Barrack stated a while back "When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world." Seems all he wants to do now is withdraw the troops, which is the popular opinion in America at the moment.

Tomi, I think that's a bit harsh, and a bit ignorant. Not all Americans are morons. Or at least not all people who voted in favour of Bush. I think the Americans would have been better off with Al Gore, but Kerry wasn't much cop.

Eki

12th February 2007, 11:46

A bit irresponsible to claim that America should just leave Iraq. Who would police the area?

In my opinion, the coalition, Iraqi government and all other parties in the conflict should try to compromise and negotiate a peace. After a compromise is achieved, all the coalition troops should leave Iraq immediately and a UN peace keeping force from non-coalition countries should be deployed to monitor the peace.

Tomi

12th February 2007, 11:48

Tomi, I think that's a bit harsh, and a bit ignorant. Not all Americans are morons. Or at least not all people who voted in favour of Bush. I think the Americans would have been better off with Al Gore, but Kerry wasn't much cop.
Not all yes, last aug in ny metro paper there was a article about that about 50% of us people still belived that Iraq was involved in the terrorattack in ny and thats the reason why us started the war, even small schoolchildren knows that its crap, i guess theese smart clever well informed people voted for bush too.

Mark

12th February 2007, 11:55

I thought David Palmer was the first black president, and Wayne Palmer is the second :D

EuroTroll

12th February 2007, 12:09

I like Barrack Obama. There's something about him, a certain Messianic quality. :) He's very green, but I think he could become a great President (and God knows the Americans need one now).

Funnily enough, though, it seems like he's not black enough for some black people, because he's not a descendant of slaves. :crazy:

raphael123

12th February 2007, 12:12

In my opinion, the coalition, Iraqi government and all other parties in the conflict should try to compromise and negotiate a peace. After a compromise is achieved, all the coalition troops should leave Iraq immediately and a UN peace keeping force from non-coalition countries should be deployed to monitor the peace.

I agree with that, but until a compromise is met, who apart from the current soldiers there would police it? There would be no chance for compromises and negotiations to take place if America withdrew its 150,000 troops ASAP as Mr Obama would like. The extremists and terrorists would simply take control and it would go back to a society like that under Saddam, and would have serious consequences else where in the middle east as Mr Howard correctly says.

I hope Americans don't get taken in by this talk, and an obsession with having a black president. He lacks political experience, and as I've said already, maturity too.

Tomi - 50% of the US, how valid are those figures? It's highly unlikely that there are 125m (almost definately wrong stat) americans who believe Iraq was where the terrorists came from who committed the 9/11 attacks. Everyone knows it's Osama Bin Laden. And he's not in Iraq, or an Iraqian.

janneppi

12th February 2007, 12:12

My worry is every black person will vote for Barrack Obama simply because he is black, not necessarily because of what he stands for. I could then go on to cry racism, but that is another topic altogether.
We have a woman president in hereaboutsnistan.
I know some women who voted for her because of her sex, and i know some men who had a difficult task to vote a woman in offece, my dad propably struggled with it a lot but i can't see him voting for the party whose candidate was against her. :)
I'd say the less media mentions the "difference", less it becomes an issue for voters.

Tomi - 50% of the US, how valid are those figures? It's highly unlikely that there are 125m (almost definately wrong stat) americans who believe Iraq was where the terrorists came from who committed the 9/11 attacks. Everyone knows it's Osama Bin Laden. And he's not in Iraq, or an Iraqian.
Here's one :)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda.

BDunnell

12th February 2007, 12:12

Mark

12th February 2007, 12:34

It's the "you're with us or against us" nonsense we've been seeing for years.

raphael123

12th February 2007, 12:40

Janneppi - that is very misleading, that article is nearly 4yrs out of date now! I'm sure if the question was asked again there would be a much lower %! It's very deceiving of you, or the other person, who claimed that, when their information is from opinions nearly 4yrs ago. To my knowledge I thought the general consensus in America was that people were against the war, and knew it was done illegally.

BDunnell

What exactly has Mr Howard said that is simplistic? Why is it nonense? Can you explain youself when making such claims? Cheers

Tomi

12th February 2007, 12:45

[quote="raphael123"]Janneppi - that is very misleading, that article is nearly 4yrs out of date now! I'm sure if the question was asked again there would be a much lower %! It's very deceiving of you, or the other person, who claimed that, when their information is from opinions nearly 4yrs ago. To my knowledge I thought the general consensus in America was that people were against the war, and knew it was done illegally.

The 50% was last year so you can see some progress, i cant unfortunatly give you any link because i did read if from a newspaper, a us newspaper, they are not very reliable but maybe in this case.

raphael123

12th February 2007, 13:02

Tomi

12th February 2007, 13:12

Do you base your opinion on that figure that 125m Americans believe Iraq was involved in 9/11? therefore making American's 'morons'?

If so I think some could argue you are the 'moron' so to speak, or at least ignorant if not a moron :)

Actually if you read the post more carefully, i dont say that all americans are morons, you made that up, i did mean all the 3 moron americans + all the smart clever well infomed who still belive Iraq did have something to do with the ny attack voted bush.

But i dont mind at all, if you want call me ignorant in this case, because actually I think I am. :)

ArrowsFA1

12th February 2007, 13:15

I think John Howard's remarks are simplistic nonsense of the highest order, and very offensive towards everybody who disagrees vehemently with the war but who are emphatically not supporters of al'Qaeda or the Iraqi insurgency.

It's the "you're with us or against us" nonsense we've been seeing for years.
:up:

In a democracy there is discussion and debate. Howard's comments reflect the use of the politics of fear that has typified what we have seen in recent years.

Barack Obama may or may not become President, but at least he is offering the American electorate an alternative, and hopefully the US will have a healthy debate on their role in the Middle East as a whole.

Storm

12th February 2007, 13:20

Janneppi - that is very misleading, that article is nearly 4yrs out of date now! I'm sure if the question was asked again there would be a much lower %! It's very deceiving of you, or the other person, who claimed that, when their information is from opinions nearly 4yrs ago. To my knowledge I thought the general consensus in America was that people were against the war, and knew it was done illegally.

They aren't that deceiving since its about the same time frame that the US went to war with Iraq, and of course it would be even more idiotic if people even now would not have realised that Iraq really didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

jim mcglinchey

12th February 2007, 14:34

Barack?..Hussein?...Obama?
crazy name, crazy guy!

millencolin

12th February 2007, 15:35

Everyone is ripping into John Howard because of what he said... but so what... he said what he thinks is right, and i tend to agree with him. Sure its over-simplistic, but politicians have to say simplistic things cause a lot of the public is... well.. simple

dont get me wrong, i am not a howard supporter, heck if i saw him i'd prolly yell at him "thanks a lot for making my wage lower you *******"... but with the Obama thing, i agree with him

BDunnell

12th February 2007, 16:38

BDunnell

12th February 2007, 16:41

What exactly has Mr Howard said that is simplistic? Why is it nonense? Can you explain youself when making such claims? Cheers

Specifically, this: that Obama winning the election 'will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory... If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.'

Eki

12th February 2007, 16:47

stevie_gerrard

12th February 2007, 23:45

From what ive seen of him on british TV, he seems a nice enough chap, i wish him good luck :up:

Hondo

13th February 2007, 01:33

I wouldn't count on seeing the man as President of the United States of America.

Hawkmoon

13th February 2007, 02:27

Specifically, this: that Obama winning the election 'will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory... If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.'

It's Obama who's being simplistic and playing politics, not Howard. Howard is 100% correct. The coalition cannot pull out of Iraq at the present time or even in the near future. The only thing that is keeping that country from decending into a bloody, anarchistic hellhole is the prescence of the coalition troops. Remove the troops and the insurgents have free reign to do as they please because the Iraqi government and armed forces are in no position to keep the peace.

The only reason that Obama is setting dates for a pullout is because he thinks that it will help him get to the White House. Howard's right. If Obama wins the presidency then all the insurgents have to do is sit on their hands and wait until Obama carries out his promise. Then it's party time.

Jaws

13th February 2007, 02:46

More of the same from Howard.

Re-inforce the link between Al-Q and Iraq
Re-inforce fear
Support GBW no matter what.

What gets me is that he is always going on that the Opposition here will have poor relations with the USA if they get into government.

Well what happens if Howard gets in later this year and the Democrats win the 2008 election? What is that going to do to Aust - USA relations?? Is he saying that Australia has been sending troops to Iraq to support a country that has elected a government that supports Al-Q???

How he gets away with such short-sighted stupidity is beyond me.

Rollo

13th February 2007, 03:12

The only thing that is keeping that country from decending into a bloody, anarchistic hellhole is the prescence of the coalition troops. Remove the troops and the insurgents have free reign to do as they please because the Iraqi government and armed forces are in no position to keep the peace.

Apart from the fact that this has been done to death - the only thing keeping the two sides from hacking each other up before, was the regime of Saddam Hussein. Now that he's gone and as predicted by Colin Powell back in 2003, it created a political vacuum but they went ahead and did it anyway.
I 100% agree with you.

With regards Mr Howard:
Foreign policy in Australia from before federation has been to do whatever Big Brother happens to tell it to do. There is not a single example (save maybe in WW2) where Australians were fighting in a theatre remotely connected to their homeland. "I fight in wars, but never start any" I think the advert went.

Essentially Obama has attacked Howard's convictions or lack thereof and that my friends is something which is blatantly obvious.

Schultz

13th February 2007, 03:51

Specifically, this: that Obama winning the election 'will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory... If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.'

Okay. Here are the two options.

a) A return to government for the republicans, the continuance of the war in Iraq and more fighting,

b) The Obama lead democrats winning the election and an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

Which is going to be the most beneficial to Iraq and which is going to see civil war and instability within the whole of the middle east? You think it would be better if they leave? Sure Iraq is a mess because of what the Americans Brits and Australians etc have done, but we are in too deep now, and we have to stay in Iraq. I think it's a weakness of Obama to set such a timeline. People, while angry about the republicans causeing this mess, must realise that if Iraq isn't stableised by the time they leave America has been defeated and that will bite them in the butt in the near future. It will be worse than Vietnam.

Having said that, what Howard said was stupid and reckless. Not because it's wrong, but because it's damaging to the relationship with America. The fool has branded the party most likely to win the next election as the terrorist party of choice. What a fool.

RJL25

13th February 2007, 04:31

With regard to Howard, i think it is the american people who are actually being overly simplistic in thinking that any decision about Iraq that the American government makes only effect Americans. Thats crap! They say he shouldn't interfere in american domestic politics, and that i would agree with, however this is FOREIGN policy not domestic policy, and its a policy that DIRECTLY effects the australian defence force, the australian government and the australian people, and therefore the australian prime minister has every right to comment.

Regardless of whether it was right or not to go to Iraq, the fact is it has happened now, and just suddenly leaving Iraq doesn't somehow magically make the fact that america was there in the first place dissapear, all it does it make sure that the damage done by the coalition is perminant and will never be repaired! Atleasts while the coalition is still there, the potential for healing is there.

And try not to prove to the world just how narrow minded americans can be, because the fact is you took your strong alia, and most staunch supporter, in australia with you to Iraq, so you cant suddenly just pull out because you feel like it without consultation with Australia. You just dont do that to your alias, you just dont do that to your friends! Its like getting in a fight at school, dragging your mate in, and then running away as soon as you get a bloody nose and leaving your friend in the dark to defend himself. Leaving the aussie troops in Iraq by themselfs will render them sitting ducks! You just dont do that to your friends...

As for "Australia should commit 20,000 troops or otherwise they lack conviction", thats also crap! Once again stop being ignorant, australia only has a population of 20 million, we dont have NEARLY as bigger defence force as america, we currently are as fully commited to Iraq as we possibly can be considering the size of our defence force as well as the fact that australian troops are also actively enguaged in other, peace keeping, deployments in the pacific region (a region of the world America politely ignores and leaves Australia to do all the work in...)

America, we luv ya! but geez we wish you weren't so self centred...

ShiftingGears

13th February 2007, 05:35

Hawkmoon

13th February 2007, 06:13

I see nothing wrong or immature about Obama's reaction. He's basically saying "Put your money where your mouth is" in response to Howards fear mongering that has served him well for all these years. You can be sure I won't be voting for Howard come election time.

So you'll vote for Kevin Rudd?

After Mark Latham called George Bush "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory" and John Howard was a "yes man to a flakey and dangerous American president" whilst the government were a "conga line of suckholes", what did Pixie Rudd say? He said "I think in our robust democracy people have freedom of speech. They can say what they like and take responsibility for what they have said".

Why is it OK for Latham to attack the current US President but it's not OK for Howard to attack a mere presidential hopeful?

Besides, Howard's right. The insurgents in Iraq will be very happy if the Democrats win and do pull the troops out. That's exactly what they want - no foreign troops getting in the way of their grab for power.

W8&C

13th February 2007, 06:27

The thing that is keeping that country from decending into a bloody, anarchistic hellhole is the prescence of the coalition troops. Remove the troops and the insurgents have free reign to do as they please because the Iraqi government and armed forces are in no position to keep the peace.

...

If Obama wins the presidency then all the insurgents have to do is sit on their hands and wait until Obama carries out his promise. Then it's party time.
When discussing that issue with some members of the moroccan upperclass – highly educated and tolerant muslims – they forced the opinion, that Saddams dictatoric way to lead the country was the only possibility to keep something like „peace“ between the three different ethnic groups (Sunna and Shia muslins and Kurds) in Irak. They´re convinced that unless Irak is splitted into three independent ethnic provinces (or you install a new dictatoric regime) you won´t have a peaceful society down there. And they´re convinced that Irak will break apart wheter there are foreign troops or not.

So if that is true it does not matter whether US troops stay there or not – and therefore they can leave immediately as well. The main problem was created already when Bush invaded the country based on public lies about chemical and nuclear weapons.

Eki

13th February 2007, 09:16

When discussing that issue with some members of the moroccan upperclass – highly educated and tolerant muslims – they forced the opinion, that Saddams dictatoric way to lead the country was the only possibility to keep something like „peace“ between the three different ethnic groups (Sunna and Shia muslins and Kurds) in Irak. They´re convinced that unless Irak is splitted into three independent ethnic provinces (or you install a new dictatoric regime) you won´t have a peaceful society down there. And they´re convinced that Irak will break apart wheter there are foreign troops or not.

So if that is true it does not matter whether US troops stay there or not – and therefore they can leave immediately as well. The main problem was created already when Bush invaded the country based on public lies about chemical and nuclear weapons.
Exactly. If the coalition is waiting for things to settle before leaving, they'll have to wait forever. Most likely is that the things won't settle until they allow the Iraqis duke it out among themselves until they get sick of it and find a solution everybody can somehow agree on.

CarlMetro

13th February 2007, 09:23

You can't go and create chaos on the opposite side of the world, then half way through realising it was a mistake, leave it in a mess!

Why not? Isn't that what USA did in Vietnam a few years ago?

My worry is every black person will vote for Barrack Obama simply because he is black, not necessarily because of what he stands for. I could then go on to cry racism, but that is another topic altogether.

Oh dear :rolleyes:

ShiftingGears

13th February 2007, 09:36

So you'll vote for Kevin Rudd?

After Mark Latham called George Bush "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory" and John Howard was a "yes man to a flakey and dangerous American president" whilst the government were a "conga line of suckholes", what did Pixie Rudd say? He said "I think in our robust democracy people have freedom of speech. They can say what they like and take responsibility for what they have said".

Why is it OK for Latham to attack the current US President but it's not OK for Howard to attack a mere presidential hopeful?

I didn't mention anything about freedom of speech there. I don't agree with what Howard is saying but I will defend to the death his (or anyone elses) right to say it.

And I think the troops should be taken out as soon as possible with UN peacekeepers put in. I think that the US and the Coalition are just prolonging the violence by staying in there.

raphael123

13th February 2007, 09:50

tomi

Actually if you read the post more carefully, i dont say that all americans are morons, you made that up, i did mean all the 3 moron americans + all the smart clever well infomed who still belive Iraq did have something to do with the ny attack voted bush.

But i dont mind at all, if you want call me ignorant in this case, because actually I think I am.

you said all morons voted for bush. i know not all americans voted for bush, but i think in the last election he won with around the 60m votes mark. anyone who classifies someone a moron for one decision is a moron themselves some would say. now your re-phrasing your words to say 'all the smart clever well infomed who still belive Iraq did have something to do with the ny attack voted bush', which is maybe more accurate. i don't think iraq or saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, but i do think the war was the right thing to do, so maybe your ignorant to the fact ppl voted for bush not just because they believed iraq was part of 9/11, but maybe because they had other reasons for agreeing with the war, or maybe they didn't see the war as their main influence for voting, and liked his domestic polices. Do you know what ignorant means? You've basically agreed of having a lack of knowledge, and being uninformed on this discussion, making it a bit pointless to even discuss when you happily admit you don't know what your talking about :) Fair play for admitting to it and not pretending you know what your talking about :)

DBunnell

Specifically, this: that Obama winning the election 'will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory... If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.'

Can you now answer the rest of the questions asked, like why do you think that is simplistic nonsense?
Also you've quoted millencollin and said 'I think you need to review that opinion', but you've not said why. Do you make a habit of making claims and then refusing to back them up?

I'm glad to see Hawkmoon talk some sense. Someone who understands the situation. Anyone who thinks that Iraq will be a country of peace and love as soon as the american and british etc troops pull out are, to say it bluntly, stupid. The troops are the only thing containing some sort of order.

W8&C and Eki, I don't think they are waiting for things to settle down. They are training Iraq troops to be the police force. Until they get the infrastructure in place to police the country, there needs to be someone policing the country. And in fairness, it was America/Britain etc which caused the current problems, so they should fix the mess.

CarlMetro

Why not? Isn't that what USA did in Vietnam a few years ago?

What's your point? When you say 'why not?' are you suggesting it's ok for a country to invade another country and leave it in a mess? I think America should learn from its mistake, rather than repeat the same mistakes. Or would you rather they created chaos in foreign countries and left it like that. To say it's been done before, so why not again is not the answer. killing someone, and then doing it again and saying 'well i done it before' is not a valid excuse.

Regarding the fact that I think black people will vote for Barrack because's he's black, which you replied with 'oh dear' - I want to clarify I'm not claiming all blacks will vote for him because he's black, but I think it's fair to say there is a much greater chance of black people voting for him, because he's black, than if he was a white man. To claim it won't make a difference is ignorance on your part.

theugsquirrel

And I think the troops should be taken out as soon as possible with UN peacekeepers put in. I think that the US and the Coalition are just prolonging the violence by staying in there.

Is this actually an option? Are UN peacekeepers prepared to step in, even though they were against the war?

ShiftingGears

13th February 2007, 10:01

I'd assume so, their job more or less is to improve messy situations created by natural disasters or wars other countries have started. Regardless of whether they were against the war.

RJL25

13th February 2007, 10:20

I didn't mention anything about freedom of speech there. I don't agree with what Howard is saying but I will defend to the death his (or anyone elses) right to say it.

And I think the troops should be taken out as soon as possible with UN peacekeepers put in. I think that the US and the Coalition are just prolonging the violence by staying in there.

UN peace keepers, without the support of coalition troops, will be sitting ducks in the hands of the terrorists.

Eki

13th February 2007, 10:38

UN peace keepers, without the support of coalition troops, will be sitting ducks in the hands of the terrorists.
Not if there's a peace to be kept. We have seen for example in Lebanon that the only ones firing at UN peacekeepers are the Israelies, not so called Hezbollah "terrorists". The coalition troops in Iraq are part of the problem, not the solution. Iraqis see them as occupiers, and don't like it.

Tomi

13th February 2007, 10:47

tomi
you said all morons voted for bush. i know not all americans voted for bush, but i think in the last election he won with around the 60m votes mark. anyone who classifies someone a moron for one decision is a moron themselves some would say. now your re-phrasing your words to say 'all the smart clever well infomed who still belive Iraq did have something to do with the ny attack voted bush', which is maybe more accurate. i don't think iraq or saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, but i do think the war was the right thing to do, so maybe your ignorant to the fact ppl voted for bush not just because they believed iraq was part of 9/11, but maybe because they had other reasons for agreeing with the war, or maybe they didn't see the war as their main influence for voting, and liked his domestic polices. Do you know what ignorant means? You've basically agreed of having a lack of knowledge, and being uninformed on this discussion, making it a bit pointless to even discuss when you happily admit you don't know what your talking about :) Fair play for admitting to it and not pretending you know what your talking about :)

Sorry for missunderstanding the word (english is my 4 language, so this happens)
What i mean is that i "ignore" (hopefully the right word) the whole us president election (the 1 with the funnier hat probaply wins), simply because what comes to Iraq i dont belive much will change, in my opinion the reason for the war still is there, what comes to us Iraq politics, more than 100000 iraqies are dead of what us says "we have made some misstakes in Iraq", that speaks for it self.

CarlMetro

13th February 2007, 13:23

CarlMetro

What's your point? When you say 'why not?' are you suggesting it's ok for a country to invade another country and leave it in a mess? I think America should learn from its mistake, rather than repeat the same mistakes. Or would you rather they created chaos in foreign countries and left it like that. To say it's been done before, so why not again is not the answer. killing someone, and then doing it again and saying 'well i done it before' is not a valid excuse.

I'm not suggesting that it's OK for another coutry to attack another, especially on such a flimsey excuse such as America used to attack Iraq, far from it in fact.

What I am saying is that with Vietnam there came a point when the deployment of American troops became pointless, there was only loss of life to be gained against an enemy who used hit and run guerilla tactics, pretty much the same as the so called Iraqi insurgents are today. The American public protested against this and, eventually, the President pulled the troops back home.

We have a similar stalemate in Iraq, with three different factions fighting a civil against each other and all the invading troops caught in the middle. There is no progress. All the American and British troops are is another target to aim at, and one which will give good publicity too.

If we could see that the presence of foreign forces was having a major effect on peace in the region then I would be happy to back those calling for them to stay. However, personally I think the American troops will only move across the border into Iran, rather than coming home, just as soon as George W Bush can think of a valid excuse to attack them instead.

Regarding the fact that I think black people will vote for Barrack because's he's black, which you replied with 'oh dear' - I want to clarify I'm not claiming all blacks will vote for him because he's black, but I think it's fair to say there is a much greater chance of black people voting for him, because he's black, than if he was a white man. To claim it won't make a difference is ignorance on your part.

I didn't say it won't make a difference, in the same way that some dumbass white people would only vote for the white candidate, rather than listening to the proposals and policies of a black candidate, but the difference being is that you won't hear the black people playing the racial card :rolleyes:

Mark in Oshawa

13th February 2007, 14:11

Not if there's a peace to be kept. We have seen for example in Lebanon that the only ones firing at UN peacekeepers are the Israelies, not so called Hezbollah "terrorists". The coalition troops in Iraq are part of the problem, not the solution. Iraqis see them as occupiers, and don't like it.

I go away for two weeks, and find Eki is still bending the truth. True, Israel did kill a Canadian Peacekeeper, but the UN is at fault there. They wouldn't allow the UN post to be abanadoned when it was clear there was a shooting war on between Hezbollah and Israel. The reason the UN post was hit, was because the UN let Hezbollah put a rocket launcher basically in the backyard of the post. Don't kid yourself, Israel screwed up, but lets face it, only the UN would be stupid enough to persevere with the fiction that there was a peace to keep, just like the naive notions some of you have that the UN could fix Iraq now. It is WAY too far gone for that.

AS for Obama, which is the point of the thread, I heard his speech from Springfield on the radio as I drove south on one of my trips, and he had a hell of a speech. Bright guy, logical, smart, but wont have a hope in hell of being elected. The dirty little secret is that it isn't that he is black that will do him in. It is he is not RADICAL enough. The kooky left wing of America is driving this bus that is called the Democratic primaries, and in the end, Barrack will not be able to be enough for the radical left that tends to sway opinion in the early going. Move-on.org and the like will turn on Barrack because he might want to pull out of Iraq, but he seems to also be somewhat logical in how he would pull them out (this likely would be a mistake anyhow, but at some point, the US has to get out). The Left of the party wants the troops on the first plane out. IT would be like Vietnam in 1975. By the way, while it was a failure for the US, it was worse for the people of Vietnam. How many more died after the troops left? 2 wars and a Cambodian invasion , plus a "small" war China before Vietnam woke up about 20 years ago and realized that capitalism might just feed everyone, because socialist rhetoric wouldn't.

Iraq is in a similar place. The US pulls out in the right way, Maliki has a chance. RIght now though, I see Iran pulling out the tops to keep the insurgency going, and Bush wont get the backing to do anything to stop Iran, and maybe that is just as well. If the people of Iraq are too stupid to see they have a chance to build a better society, then who is the US to waste the time trying to give it to them?

BDunnell

13th February 2007, 16:58

AS for Obama, which is the point of the thread, I heard his speech from Springfield on the radio as I drove south on one of my trips, and he had a hell of a speech. Bright guy, logical, smart, but wont have a hope in hell of being elected. The dirty little secret is that it isn't that he is black that will do him in. It is he is not RADICAL enough. The kooky left wing of America is driving this bus that is called the Democratic primaries, and in the end, Barrack will not be able to be enough for the radical left that tends to sway opinion in the early going. Move-on.org and the like will turn on Barrack because he might want to pull out of Iraq, but he seems to also be somewhat logical in how he would pull them out (this likely would be a mistake anyhow, but at some point, the US has to get out).

I very much doubt that the Democrats will end up going for someone more left-wing. Who is there of that nature that could stand and be credible?

Mark in Oshawa

13th February 2007, 17:13

Dunnell, the most left wing candidate doesn't win, but what happens, they get enough momentum to stall the drive of more legit candidates. Only the candidate with the most money can usually take the hit as the left wing dictates early results in Iowa and New Hampshire. Last election cycle, you notice how Howard Dean got a big push by appealing to the Left. He sucked up a lot of money that might have helped other candidates. Later, as it became clear Dean was not the man, and Gore hung on, other candidates who were left by the way side by the rush to the left such as Edwards lost their money. Money fuels a presidential run, and who has the momentum will often get the money. By appealling and pandering to the left, the candidates often say things and do things that drag the party left, and often put themselves in awkward moments ( I voted for the war before I voted against it ). Obama is not on the left of the Democratic Party and he isn't the most favoured by the old money sources. Hillary has been out making and raising money for some time, so if she withstands the onslaught of the effects of the kooky left of the party, she will likely win, but I bet money Obama gets the VP nod.....

I don't agree with all his politics, but I like Obama. He strikes me as a pretty smart and intellectually interesting guy, and I think a debate with him in it would be a worthy one.

Of course, Rudy Giulani is the next President of the US. Book it.....

BrentJackson

13th February 2007, 19:18

What's happened in Iraq is something that anybody with half a brain thinking objectively could have seen. Even if Saddam did get involved with 9/11 (which considering not one of 19 terrorist were Iraqi) creating a power vacuum in a nation which is 60% Shia and 20% Sunni is just asking for trouble. If the Americans walk out it creates a massive civil war that could spread into a regional conflict. That's why the country is such a problem. Maliki's government is little more than a front group for SCIRI (who are very similar and close to Iran) and Al-Sadr's group. Both Shia, both bent on revenge for 80 years of oppression. This is the core of Obama's argument - we aren't gonna stop the civil war there, so get out of the way so that US troops don't die in numbers in the crossfire. If by horrible twist of fate the troops get a repeat of what happened in Beirut in 1983 then those troops will be back in Kuwait, Qatar and Israel quicker than you could ever believe.

As far as John Howard's comment, he's completely wrong. Al-Queda probably would be any more welcome in a Shia-dominated Iraq than in Iran. bin Laden is a Sunni, and there virtually no Shia among Al-Queda. And to make a comment to connect Obama to Al-Queda would be the same as calling Howard connected to Blood and Honour or the KKK. How would he like that?

Lebanon was a gross overuse of force on the part of the IDF, and don't think the Israelis are happy about it - the IDF's staff chief has resigned and when the next election in Israel rolls around, Olmert is history. He's having a hard time keeping his coalition together, Peres is gonna want to take a stripe off him and Netanyahu will be smelling blood in the water.

As for the UN calling things in Iraq, we know how well they did in Rwanda and Darfur - which is to say, just short of completely ****ing useless. if you are gonna send the UN to such a zone to keep the peace, they have to be able to keep the peace - meaning if one side is attacking the other, shut them down by force, without waiting for them to shoot at the peacekeepers first. But then, I'm sure Eki would have a problem with that too. :rolleyes:

Obama is gonna have tough competition within the Democrats, and the republicans hopefully have figured out if they don't get a good leader to run things they will get mauled something awful - meaning anybody involved with the Bush Administration is a no-no. My best guess as to who will be the candidate? Rudy Giuliani, probably with a moderate Republican as his running-mate. There are a few candidates for that position.

The Democrats have a crapload of candidates - Obama is one, Hilary Clinton is sure to be a contender, John Edwards is a dark horse. Biden and Dodd are dead before they even get started, and Gravel is a complete no-hoper. I can see Obama as the presidential candidate with Clinton being his VP, or the other way around.

BDunnell

13th February 2007, 20:03

The Democrats have a crapload of candidates - Obama is one, Hilary Clinton is sure to be a contender, John Edwards is a dark horse. Biden and Dodd are dead before they even get started, and Gravel is a complete no-hoper. I can see Obama as the presidential candidate with Clinton being his VP, or the other way around.

Surely the other way round!

Eki

13th February 2007, 20:40

Why is it OK for Latham to attack the current US President but it's not OK for Howard to attack a mere presidential hopeful?

Because Howard is the prime minister and Latham isn't? With power should come responsibility.

Hawkmoon

13th February 2007, 21:11

I didn't mention anything about freedom of speech there. I don't agree with what Howard is saying but I will defend to the death his (or anyone elses) right to say it.

And I think the troops should be taken out as soon as possible with UN peacekeepers put in. I think that the US and the Coalition are just prolonging the violence by staying in there.

Do you really think that the colour of the troops helmets will make any difference to the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq? All you will be doing is replacing one occupationary force with another.

Eki

13th February 2007, 21:16

Do you really think that the colour of the troops helmets will make any difference to the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq? All you will be doing is replacing one occupationary force with another.
Not if you have first negotiated with the different insurgent groups beforehand and they have agreed the UN peacekeepers being in Iraq. They'd be a part of a peace treaty.

Hawkmoon

13th February 2007, 21:17

Because Howard is the prime minister and Latham isn't? With power should come responsibility.

No Eki, it doesn't work that way. Latham was the leader of the opposition at the time. As such, he was higher up the relative political pole than Barack Obama is today. He had as much responsibility to choose his words carefully as Howard does today. Kevin Rudd didn't criticise Latham then simply becuase he was afraid to criticise the then leader of his party. He's only criticising Howard now for political gain and that stinks of hypocrisy. Not that that is surprising, coming from a politician.

Mark in Oshawa

14th February 2007, 02:10

Eki, you cannot negotiate with people who set off Car bombs in Markets. WE have had this discussion before. Anyone crazy enough to do what is happening in Iraq right now with the terror tactics are NOT ready to talk and maybe shouldn't be.

You are very typical of the left. Our leftwing NDP party in Canada has a leader that says the same pointless nonsense about our role in Afghanistan, where Canada is on combat operations trying to control the Taliban around Kandahar province. Most of Afghanistan is now back on the road to reconstrucition. Police are trained, a democracy of sorts has started, and the numbers of troops to police the nation were going down, and then the Taliban started their insurgency in the southeast. 2500 Canadian's have been sent there under NATO and the UN to keep the peace. Our Left wing NDP says we should spend more building schools and helping people. Our army went in there and started doing that, but when the troopers had 2 schools blown up, some with the civilian volunteers in it, it becomes clear negotiations with idiots is best done by not doing them. If you have someone bent on your destruction or theirs, it better be theirs. You cannot negotiate with people who support suicide bombers, who condone stoning women for reading, who support people who fly airplanes into buildings.

The really hilarious part of it is, out of all the values that that Taliban hate the most, our democratic left in this country support them all big time. The lefties who would talk themselves to death would be so hated by these thugs that we should let them go over....a little reality would do the democratic left of this world some good.

Mark in Oshawa

14th February 2007, 02:11

Rollo

14th February 2007, 05:11

What I am saying is that with Vietnam there came a point when the deployment of American troops became pointless, there was only loss of life to be gained against an enemy who used hit and run guerilla tactics, pretty much the same as the so called Iraqi insurgents are today. The American public protested against this and, eventually, the President pulled the troops back home.

I concur :up:
Big Brother USA in 2003 also told Australia in 1962 and troops were sent under conscription to yet another field of war that was not Australia's argument.

With regards Mr Howard:
Foreign policy in Australia from before federation has been to do whatever Big Brother happens to tell it to do. There is not a single example (save maybe in WW2) where Australians were fighting in a theatre remotely connected to their homeland.

Obama has in effect called John Howard spineless and considering Howard's political record, this is a rare instance of an American politician actually being right.

Eki

14th February 2007, 07:08

Eki, you cannot negotiate with people who set off Car bombs in Markets.
You should at least try. You don't know for sure without trying. It's obvious that the current strategy isn't taking you anywhere either, so it's time try something new.

Schultz

14th February 2007, 10:23

You should at least try. You don't know for sure without trying. It's obvious that the current strategy isn't taking you anywhere either, so it's time try something new.

Who says they aren't doing that? Even if they were, we would never hear about it. No US president would ever admit negotiations with groups they have already labelled 'terrorists'. That would go totally against American attitudes on people they regard as disgusting and inhumane.

Eki

14th February 2007, 10:43

Who says they aren't doing that? Even if they were, we would never hear about it. No US president would ever admit negotiations with groups they have already labelled 'terrorists'. That would go totally against American attitudes on people they regard as disgusting and inhumane.
That's possible. They've been hypocritical before, and their attitude seems to be "don't do as I do, do as I tell you to do".

Hawkmoon

14th February 2007, 11:56

Obama has in effect called John Howard spineless and considering Howard's political record, this is a rare instance of an American politician actually being right.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Howard is one of the few politicians in Australia who has the courage to stand by his convictions.

Once he chose to back the invasion of Iraq he has never waivered in his conviction to see the task done. How is that spineless?

If you think he is merely doing what Bush told him to do then you are wrong. Howard does what he believes is right (coloured, as with all politicians, with the desire to get elected) and then sticks to his guns.

Examples? Not signing the Kyoto Protocol because it is a waste of space, not giving in to the refugee lobby groups during the Tampa affair, not pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, introducing the GST and overhauling our industrial relations laws. All of these issues have brought a great deal of criticism. Whether you agree with his policies or not, you have to credit the man for having the courage of his convictions.

Schultz

14th February 2007, 12:40

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Howard is one of the few politicians in Australia who has the courage to stand by his convictions.

Once he chose to back the invasion of Iraq he has never waivered in his conviction to see the task done. How is that spineless?

If you think he is merely doing what Bush told him to do then you are wrong. Howard does what he believes is right (coloured, as with all politicians, with the desire to get elected) and then sticks to his guns.

Examples? Not signing the Kyoto Protocol because it is a waste of space, not giving in to the refugee lobby groups during the Tampa affair, not pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, introducing the GST and overhauling our industrial relations laws. All of these issues have brought a great deal of criticism. Whether you agree with his policies or not, you have to credit the man for having the courage of his convictions.

True true. But having said that, the guy has been in office since 1996, and we have not seen enough improvements to the economy. Being a neoconservative thats probably not a surprise. But the thing is we are still relying on the mining sector too much. Manufacturing is declining and declining. We pretty much have an assmbly industry and thats it. At least Rudd seems keen on taking the reliance away from mining and trying to build a sustainable manufacturing industry and overhauling our education system.

Back on topic. That Barrack Obama has not really impresssed with me in the little coverage he gets on Australian TV. Is it just me or does he seem a little slow? He doesn't quite seem like the natural speaker that you might expect. Well, might have expected before one George W Bush.

BDunnell

14th February 2007, 12:42

Eki, you cannot negotiate with people who set off Car bombs in Markets. WE have had this discussion before. Anyone crazy enough to do what is happening in Iraq right now with the terror tactics are NOT ready to talk and maybe shouldn't be.

At what point, then, would you have negotiated with the IRA to stop its terror campaign against Britain? When the British Government bit the bullet and did so, it proved successful. It was (or ought to have been) a lesson learned.

BDunnell

14th February 2007, 12:44

Whether you agree with his policies or not, you have to credit the man for having the courage of his convictions.

I disagree with that. When I don't agree with someone's views or policies, I don't see why I should respect or credit them for anything.

janneppi

14th February 2007, 14:05

Roamy

14th February 2007, 15:05

BY The way, before I am labelled some sort of neo-Con, I will say that Iam right-of-center, but not by much. I find the religious right just as stupid and short sighted, but the one thing they seem to get is that if you are in a war, you don't fight to talk to people, you fight to WIN.

Last time I looked, a dead insurgent or terrorist didn't argue back.

Great one Mark - you are sooooo correct! The problem with our warring leaders is the seldom fight to win anymore because of the collateral damage it would take for a out right victory. Isolate and gear up for the big one !! Or if the rest want to JOIN in and take out a smaller problem we could all do it. It appears that the Russians will again become our enemy so we may as well plan for that crap again.

Cut forgein aid out and pay for this war then continue. BTW I actually like Biden's plan to cut Iraq into 3 territories and seperate these idiots.

then get our ass out of there!!

sonic_roadhog

14th February 2007, 15:25

On the subject of the US election, I can't help but think that there are a lot of potential candidates who are trying to be the "first" black, woman and even on BBC the other night Morman president. Personally I couldn't give two hoots if the next president is male/female, black/white or whatever as long as they pursue some more long term world policies.

Sonic :)

raphael123

15th February 2007, 12:11

theugsquirrel

I'd assume so, their job more or less is to improve messy situations created by natural disasters or wars other countries have started. Regardless of whether they were against the war.

So basically you don't know then. Your saying 'they should do this and that etc' without knowing if it even a possibility, let alone a reality. And as it has been pointed out, if it was a possibility, it wouldn't work due to reasons already explained :)

Tomi

Sorry for missunderstanding the word (english is my 4 language, so this happens)
What i mean is that i "ignore" (hopefully the right word) the whole us president election (the 1 with the funnier hat probaply wins), simply because what comes to Iraq i dont belive much will change, in my opinion the reason for the war still is there, what comes to us Iraq politics, more than 100000 iraqies are dead of what us says "we have made some misstakes in Iraq", that speaks for it self.

Apologisies accepted. Without wanting to sound harsh, maybe discuss this on a forum with your native language? I appreciate English (I'm assuming) not being your first language, but I find it easier to discuss topics when I know what they mean, and vice versa :)

CarlMetro

I'm not suggesting that it's OK for another coutry to attack another, especially on such a flimsey excuse such as America used to attack Iraq, far from it in fact.

I said you can't create chaos in a country, and then leave it in a mess, which you replied with 'why not, they did it a few years ago'. Maybe your intentions weren't to say it was ok, but what you wrote suggested so. Glad to see you know it's not right, after initial doubt :)

What I am saying is that with Vietnam there came a point when the deployment of American troops became pointless, there was only loss of life to be gained against an enemy who used hit and run guerilla tactics, pretty much the same as the so called Iraqi insurgents are today. The American public protested against this and, eventually, the President pulled the troops back home.

We have a similar stalemate in Iraq, with three different factions fighting a civil against each other and all the invading troops caught in the middle. There is no progress. All the American and British troops are is another target to aim at, and one which will give good publicity too.

The case in Iraq I think can be improved. For the troops to leave now would result in more chaos, and the whole aim of making it a democratic country would never exist after all those deaths. Let's make the best of a bad solution, help get the countries infrastructure in place, then leave.

The British troops have done a marvellous job in Basra, which shows under good guidance and good practice the troops aren't necessarily targetted.

If we could see that the presence of foreign forces was having a major effect on peace in the region then I would be happy to back those calling for them to stay. However, personally I think the American troops will only move across the border into Iran, rather than coming home, just as soon as George W Bush can think of a valid excuse to attack them instead.

It's obvious peace is not a word many would use to describe Iraq at the moment, but that doesn't mean it would be better without the troops. It would just be even more unpeaceful! As pointed out already, after the troops left Vietnam, there were more deaths, but maybe not so publicity highlighted due to it wasn't americans.

I didn't say it won't make a difference, in the same way that some dumbass white people would only vote for the white candidate, rather than listening to the proposals and policies of a black candidate, but the difference being is that you won't hear the black people playing the racial card

You didn't say much to be honest apart from 'oh dear' and a sarcastic smilie. From that I gathered you disapproved what I had said, which was black people will be more motivated to vote for this man, than if he was white. Am I right or am I wrong? Your being ignorant if you think otherwise :)

BDunnell - I take it you don't want to back up your claims? Is that because you are too busy? Or you realise how ridiculous they were?
ps; slightly random, but do you agree with tony blair's views and policies?

sonic_roadhog - Your are in the minority I think. I would like to think I agree with you, in that I would vote someone depending on their policies, rather than their sex or race :) But I doubt the majority of the population could - in all honesty anyway.

Mark in Oshawa

15th February 2007, 15:51

It seems those who object to America being in Iraq seem to think that by the Americans leaving, everything will be hunky dory. I don't know if anyone in America, even those opposed to the war think this, but is a naive thought.

First off, Iraq has turned out to be a mistake. Not because Saddam didn't deserve to go down, he did. Without Saddam, Iraq is better off, regardless of what some of you think. He was killing 20000 people a year according to UN reports so for anyone to state Iraq was "peaceful" before is ignoring the history of Saddam's rule of Iraq. One failed war with Iran, an invasion of Kuwait and numerous attacks on the Kurd's and Shiite opponents killed more Iraqi's than anything the Coalition of the willing has inflicted on Iraq.

Obama and most of the Democrats seem to be bent on a policy of getting the troops home from Iraq, where a civil war is now out of hand, and anti Sunni Shiite bands are at war with the Anti Shiite Sunni's. Throw in "Al Quida in Iraq" killing anyone they don't like, and you have chaos. So does the US just leave Iraq to this fate? Maybe the Democrats and Obama think so, but this is to just completely ignore the moral responsibility to try to put Iraq on some sort of footing of a responsible government of some sort. Everyone deserves the benefits of freedom, it just seems a sizable minority in Iraq don't seem to appreciate that. Toss in many of you feel too bad for them. Well, the US is now trying to give Maliki one more shot at leading a united Iraq. If Iran was arming the Shiite's, maybe the country would have a chance, but I suspect this was inevitable. It was my only real objection to the Americans going in, in that they didn't have a plan or an idea of what would happen after Saddam was removed.

America has to decide how they are going to get out of this, and if Obama can put out a policy that is acceptable to those in the US who feel some sort of obligation to finish this to some sort of conclusion, then he will be a formidible politician. The problem is, no one in the Democratic party seems to have a plan other than getting out. Well, as we saw in Vietnam, the only lives saved are American, and THAT is more crass and cynical for the world then staying in Iraq.

Most of you think America is some sort of bully and is gearing up for a war against Iran. It wont happen. Bush has lost the political capital to even get 20000 more troops into Iraq without a fight, there is no way Congress will ever buy any argument to attack Iran. Iran will have to be dealt with through diplomacy, and unlike Saddam, they may be able to be dealt with in this way. Obama or whoever wins the next US election will have a lot of answers to deal with. I don't know if Obama or Hillary on the democratic side has a plan. They have no more plans other than to stick their heads in the sand, but at the same time, the Bushies have proven they have to really think of the long term problems in any foreign policy initiatives. American politicians are still forgetting sometimes they are in a long term war over decades vs Muslim extremism. A tiny majority of the Muslim world is bent on terror tactics against America, and that wont change. Whoever gets elected better have answers, because the world is always asking questions of America, and they are quick to criticize America's answers, even tho America is always held to a higher standard.

All I know, only a mad man/woman should want to be President, because no matter how benign or pro-active you are, it is a job that just wears out the reputation and stamina of anyone elected to that office. Everyone is a critic in this world it seems.

BDunnell

15th February 2007, 16:51

It seems those who object to America being in Iraq seem to think that by the Americans leaving, everything will be hunky dory. I don't know if anyone in America, even those opposed to the war think this, but is a naive thought.

Of course it won't all be OK. The huge error was embarking on the war in the first place, and thereby ignoring many people who predicted (with good reason and argument) that this would happen.

First off, Iraq has turned out to be a mistake. Not because Saddam didn't deserve to go down, he did. Without Saddam, Iraq is better off, regardless of what some of you think. He was killing 20000 people a year according to UN reports so for anyone to state Iraq was "peaceful" before is ignoring the history of Saddam's rule of Iraq. One failed war with Iran, an invasion of Kuwait and numerous attacks on the Kurd's and Shiite opponents killed more Iraqi's than anything the Coalition of the willing has inflicted on Iraq.

I really dislike the 'human rights' argument that is often used in an attempt to justify the invasion. Were you concerned about the human rights of the Iraqi population before George Bush told you that you ought to be, as a justification for going to war? I trust that you and others who suddenly realised that Iraq had an appalling human rights record are now campaigning actively for improved human rights in places such as Tibet and Zimbabwe, in order to be entirely consistent.

Obama and most of the Democrats seem to be bent on a policy of getting the troops home from Iraq, where a civil war is now out of hand, and anti Sunni Shiite bands are at war with the Anti Shiite Sunni's. Throw in "Al Quida in Iraq" killing anyone they don't like, and you have chaos. So does the US just leave Iraq to this fate? Maybe the Democrats and Obama think so, but this is to just completely ignore the moral responsibility to try to put Iraq on some sort of footing of a responsible government of some sort.

Absolutely, so long as it's not done by attempts to install a puppet US administration there.

American politicians are still forgetting sometimes they are in a long term war over decades vs Muslim extremism. A tiny majority of the Muslim world is bent on terror tactics against America, and that wont change. Whoever gets elected better have answers, because the world is always asking questions of America, and they are quick to criticize America's answers, even tho America is always held to a higher standard.

I think most people have now learnt not to 'hold America to a higher standard'. Decades of questionable foreign policy decisions, many of which have fuelled long-lasting resentment amongst one group or another, have helped see to that. So too has the current Bush administration, the nature of which has done untold damage to the USA's standing in much of the world. Surely you can see that.

BTCC Fan#1

15th February 2007, 20:43

Sadly I can't see Obama getting the nomination, which is a shame as I think he'd make a damn good president. If he fails this time round he should stand again the next time round, too long in the Senate and he'll just become another Joe Biden.

Of the other candidates it's hardly a beauty contest.. McCain is 100 times worse a 'flip-flopper' than John Kerry ever was, and both he and Hillary are willing to abandon they're principles in order to win over voters. As for Giuliani, he may be 'Americas Mayor', but he's also more than just a little bit crooked.. Of the others only John Edwards seems credible.

GruppoB

15th February 2007, 21:08

Obama will be president.

To those in Europe don't forget they're are a good portion of Americans who vehemently oppose Bush and his "Neo-Cons" or fascists what have you.

As the popular sticker says "Dont blame me I voted for Kerry"

Eki

15th February 2007, 21:27

Rollo

15th February 2007, 22:52

Examples? Not signing the Kyoto Protocol because it is a waste of space, not giving in to the refugee lobby groups during the Tampa affair, not pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, introducing the GST and overhauling our industrial relations laws. All of these issues have brought a great deal of criticism. Whether you agree with his policies or not, you have to credit the man for having the courage of his convictions.

They're not his convictions, they're other people's.

Kyoto - the only reason why Australia didn't sign a common sense document (and by the way Australia was given the easiest concessions in the world) was because we didn't want to harass Big Brother USA.
The Tampa Affair - was little more than political gain say.
Introducing the GST - Ha and Ha. In 1995 before the election campaigns this was the man who "promised" that there would never be a consumption tax if he was elected. Obviously this was a "non-core" promise eh? I find it interesting that a Liberal Party policy document of about the same era had inputs from the UK Tories.
Industrial Relations Laws - Convictions? Yeah right. Why do you think that was done? The laws were copied wholesale from the US based on "advice" from another policy document.

Politicians with convictions? The idea in principle is preposterous. In general the only impression that politicians have happens to be the butt of the last person who sat on them.

John Howard may have convictions, but they're more likely to be as the result of a driving ban.

Bebee

16th February 2007, 05:40

A tiny majority of the Muslim world is bent on terror tactics against America, and that wont change.

Mark, interesting choice of words. "A tiny majority." :rolleyes: To be honest, I just find that very harsh and offensive.

I'm totally with Brent, this is not something that outsiders can fix. You can't fix a problem you don't totally understand. This has to be something that's sorted out within the region, and not by people outside it.

I agree with BDunnell about the human rights issue. What really ****s me about this whole thing is that they're finding "lame" excuses to justify what they've done, as it's far, far from the truth. I don't like the way we've been treated by our Government either as I'm not stupid to accept whatever you're telling me at face-value. If you want to do something, at least have the guts to tell me the real reasons why - not some stupid "world peace answer that the Miss Universe contestants give." :rolleyes:

Rollo, I agree. Howard's spineless and hasn't done much solely in the interests of our nation. I actually can't think of one intelligent thing the guy's ever said.

Whatever we think is morally and ethically correct, may not be the opinion of another group, culture and/or country. I've made that statement in particular referring to the fact that the Coalition of the Willing are currently trying to ram (yes, ram!) democracy down Iraq's throat. A number of people have mentioned this before, this has to be a journey they take by themselves, with their own free-will.

As for the invasion, I was against it from the start. Stupid people get hold of flimsy "evidence" taken as gospel by the stupid, and the unabled people to think critically. :rolleyes: Stupid people given power to make stupid decisions, and because they're so stupid and narrow-minded that they obviously don't take all factors into account... and we're left with a ridiculously huge stupid mess! What a ridiculously huge vicious cycle!

R. Mears

16th February 2007, 07:35

Well Barack Hussein Obama just doesn't sound good. As far as troop withdrawl goes. Mark my word Iran and or Syria will take Iraq soon after we leave. Causing severe unrest and all out war in the middle east.
Then Bush will get the blame for this also.

Eki

16th February 2007, 08:12

You can't fix a problem you don't totally understand.
:up: And that applies to every problem, not just the ones in Iraq.

raphael123

16th February 2007, 08:33

BDunnell

16th February 2007, 11:10

It's easy for people like BDunnell to say the war was wrong in the first place, like many had predicted. But you can't change that now. You got to find a solutions. And I haven't seen one possible solution to allow for the withdrawal of troops, from here, and from Mr Barrack who is being very irresponsible. Either he's lying and saying he'll withdraw troops by March 2008, and won't do that as he knows it's wrong and unfair and irresponsible, or he will, which as I say is irresponsible and completely wrong, and would result in more deaths, maybe not americans, but iraqi's.

But it remains an important point, and I would like to be able to feel that the USA, no matter which party is in power, has learnt the lessons of Iraq. This also applies to the American public, large sections of which ought to understand better than they do now that military action isn't always the wisest option.

raphael123

16th February 2007, 12:28

BDunnell, of course it remains an important point - a point that has been made millions of times for a number of years.

However here you are saying American troops should leave, without offering a solution.

So tell me, what is the solution, to just pull out all the coalitian troops and let them get on with it?

Give me a solution!! :)

BDunnell

16th February 2007, 12:30

raphael123

16th February 2007, 13:53

imported_Karn Utz

16th February 2007, 19:54

He (Obama) won't be elected President of the US. Racism in the US at large and infighting within his own party will see to it.

BDunnell

16th February 2007, 20:13

Because you disagreed with Mr Howards comment, who was basically saying Mr Obama pledge to withdraw American troops as soon as possible is the wrong way to go about it.

Am I too assume you have had a change of heart? Or that you think American troops should stay put?

I never said that I disagree with John Howard's view that the US should not mount a sudden withdrawal. What I dislike intensely about his comments was the part where he repeated the simplistic 'you're either with us or against us' claptrap, which I find absolutely appalling, and thus suggested that anyone who is against the war in Iraq is somehow a friend of the terrorists. I stand by that view.

As it happens, I have never said that the Coalition forces should pull out of Iraq immediately. There needs to be a proper timetable.

EuroTroll

17th February 2007, 15:49

A somewhat topical song (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Vphj_fZ3Ew&mode=related&search=) ;) :D

Roamy

18th February 2007, 06:12

just what we need
"Obama Bin Laden"

ShiftingGears

18th February 2007, 06:18

You are so witty and clever by coming up with that pun, my mind fails to grasp the true genius behind it...

raphael123

19th February 2007, 09:40

BDunnell. I didn't see a quote with 'your with us or against us'. But quoting you from your earlier posts in this topic you stated;
Specifically, this: that Obama winning the election 'will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory... If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.'

However everything he says there is correct. If Obama wins, and withdraws the troops by March 2008 it will help the terrorists there terrorise basically.

If you've now had a change of heart, and are disagreeing with something else he has said, fair enough. All I can say is I'm no mind reader :)

Just one last point, when Mark in Oshawa asked you should the US leave Iraq in a civil war, and talked about the responsibility the US should have in sorting out the mess, you said 'Absolutely, so long as it's not done by attempts to install a puppet US administration there' which point were of his were you referring to? Thanks :)

BDunnell

19th February 2007, 11:48

BDunnell. I didn't see a quote with 'your with us or against us'.

I never said that he used those words. Howard was clearly reflecting this view, though.

However everything he says there is correct. If Obama wins, and withdraws the troops by March 2008 it will help the terrorists there terrorise basically.

If you've now had a change of heart, and are disagreeing with something else he has said, fair enough. All I can say is I'm no mind reader :)

It's not a change of heart. I never passed comment on the issue of when troops should be withdrawn. I don't see why you find it so difficult to understand that I think John Howard's comments in which he effectively stated that people who are against the conflict in Iraq are somehow friends of the terrorists and insurgents are insulting and simplistic, while also believing that a sudden withdrawal would not be sensible. I deeply dislike the 'with us or against us' language to which certain politicians resort.

Just one last point, when Mark in Oshawa asked you should the US leave Iraq in a civil war, and talked about the responsibility the US should have in sorting out the mess, you said 'Absolutely, so long as it's not done by attempts to install a puppet US administration there' which point were of his were you referring to? Thanks :)

I can't remember, and can't be bothered to look back.

BDunnell

19th February 2007, 11:49

just what we need
"Obama Bin Laden"

That is racist.

raphael123

19th February 2007, 12:21

BDunnell

I never said that he used those words. Howard was clearly reflecting this view, though.

According to you. That's not what I understood from it.

It's not a change of heart. I never passed comment on the issue of when troops should be withdrawn. I don't see why you find it so difficult to understand that I think John Howard's comments in which he effectively stated that people who are against the conflict in Iraq are somehow friends of the terrorists and insurgents are insulting and simplistic, while also believing that a sudden withdrawal would not be sensible. I deeply dislike the 'with us or against us' language to which certain politicians resort.

Where in that article makes you think he is calling people against the war friends of the terrorist? He simply says withdrawal of troops will be a good thing for the terrorists. And that is a fact. Maybe your just reading into it what you want to read :)

I can't remember, and can't be bothered to look back.

lol ok :)

BDunnell

19th February 2007, 12:40

BDunnell

According to you. That's not what I understood from it.

Where in that article makes you think he is calling people against the war friends of the terrorist? He simply says withdrawal of troops will be a good thing for the terrorists. And that is a fact. Maybe your just reading into it what you want to read :)

I wasn't the only person to read this into his remarks. It strikes me and others as an obvious assertion to make in relation to them.

raphael123

19th February 2007, 13:56

I wasn't the only person to read this into his remarks. It strikes me and others as an obvious assertion to make in relation to them.

Do you want to answer the question?

Where in that article makes you think he is calling people against the war friends of the terrorist? He simply says withdrawal of troops will be a good thing for the terrorists. And that is a fact.

Please answer :) Explain your reasons for saying the things you do. You failed to last time I asked you too I remember

Roamy

20th February 2007, 07:21

That is racist.

there are many black islams

But inasmuch as you said that is a racist doing no harm just exercising freedom of speech?? Is the Miss Black USA and racist beauty pageant?
Is the Black entertainment channel racist?
If we have the United Negro college fund and we have the United Caucasian College fund? Or the Navaho college recruitment program?

BDunnell

20th February 2007, 08:54

Do you want to answer the question?

Where in that article makes you think he is calling people against the war friends of the terrorist? He simply says withdrawal of troops will be a good thing for the terrorists. And that is a fact.

Please answer :) Explain your reasons for saying the things you do. You failed to last time I asked you too I remember

Again, I fail to understand what it is that I haven't answered. I have answered all the questions you've put to me to the best of my ability. If you don't understand those answers, then never mind.

BDunnell

20th February 2007, 08:54

there are many black islams

But inasmuch as you said that is a racist doing no harm just exercising freedom of speech?? Is the Miss Black USA and racist beauty pageant?
Is the Black entertainment channel racist?
If we have the United Negro college fund and we have the United Caucasian College fund? Or the Navaho college recruitment program?

I have no idea what connection you are making.

raphael123

20th February 2007, 10:53

I've asked the question a few times now.

I asked 'Where in that article makes you think he is calling people against the war friends of the terrorist?'

You replied 'I wasn't the only person to read this into his remarks. It strikes me and others as an obvious assertion to make in relation to them.'

If you could quote me what part of the article makes you think he is calling people who were/are against the war 'friends of the terrorist', and explain to me your reasoning, that'd be great :)

BDunnell

20th February 2007, 12:54

raphael123

20th February 2007, 13:38

It is obviously implied. This is my reading of his comments. I was offended by them. You may disagree. Others feel the same as me — they expressed the same views in this thread.

Fair enough, I can see you won't ever back it up, you would rather hide behind 'well others said the same' - which I haven't checked to be honest.

All I wanted was the part of the article which you believe Mr Howard implied people against the war were friends of the terrorists, and to explain how you came to that conclusion, but after 4 attempts of asking you to back up what you believe is 'so obvious' you have refused. I won't try again. Maybe one day... :)

PS:I've gone through the topic, and the only person who potentially implies that people against the war are friends of the terrorist is Mark and you, but we would need Mark to confirm by what he meant in his early post in the topic :) And don't worry DBunnel, I have given up hope of you actually backing up anything you say :) Though I'd like to be proven wrong :)

BDunnell

20th February 2007, 13:51

Fair enough, I can see you won't ever back it up, you would rather hide behind 'well others said the same' - which I haven't checked to be honest.

All I wanted was the part of the article which you believe Mr Howard implied people against the war were friends of the terrorists, and to explain how you came to that conclusion, but after 4 attempts of asking you to back up what you believe is 'so obvious' you have refused. I won't try again. Maybe one day... :)

PS:I've gone through the topic, and the only person who potentially implies that people against the war are friends of the terrorist is Mark and you, but we would need Mark to confirm by what he meant in his early post in the topic :) And don't worry DBunnel, I have given up hope of you actually backing up anything you say :) Though I'd like to be proven wrong :)

The fact that it is implied means that there isn't a direct quote saying it. Nonetheless, this is the feeling I got about Howard's comments and I stick by it. Apologies if that isn't good enough for you. I'm sure that at some point in your life you must have felt that something is implied by what somebody has said even if they didn't directly say it. Is this concept too hard to grasp?

raphael123

20th February 2007, 14:36

The fact that it is implied means that there isn't a direct quote saying it. Nonetheless, this is the feeling I got about Howard's comments and I stick by it. Apologies if that isn't good enough for you. I'm sure that at some point in your life you must have felt that something is implied by what somebody has said even if they didn't directly say it. Is this concept too hard to grasp?

Not at all. I just wanted you to explain it, which you don't seem capable of doing, which is strange considering it's what you believe, and mantain you still do. As I said 'all I wanted was the part of the article which you believe Mr Howard implied people against the war were friends of the terrorists, and to explain how you came to that conclusion. All you say is 'that is the feeling I got from it' which isn't really what I'd call explaining your reasons for thinking that. Is this too hard a concept for you to grasp I wonder :)

BDunnell

20th February 2007, 15:55

Not at all. I just wanted you to explain it, which you don't seem capable of doing, which is strange considering it's what you believe, and mantain you still do. As I said 'all I wanted was the part of the article which you believe Mr Howard implied people against the war were friends of the terrorists, and to explain how you came to that conclusion. All you say is 'that is the feeling I got from it' which isn't really what I'd call explaining your reasons for thinking that. Is this too hard a concept for you to grasp I wonder :)

This is getting silly. In saying that an Obama victory would be good for the insurgents in Iraq, Howard is in effect saying that if you support Obama because of his opposition to the war, you are helping the insurgents. This I find rather offensive to those of us who are also against the conflict in Iraq, because it tars everybody holding that view with the same brush — that we are all somehow supportive of the insurgents, and thus terrorism, because we support a politician who is not in favour of the war.

raphael123

20th February 2007, 16:05

Thank you...at last! I just wish you done it the first time I asked rather than the 5th lol! I disagree, but at least you explained to me your thinking :)

I think your reading too much into it. I don't think Mr Howard was implying anything other than what he said - which was should Barrack win, and carry out his promises, the insurgents will be the people who will be cheering more than most. I don't think he was trying to imply that people who vote for barrack are supporters of the terrorists. That's quite a silly thing to think (my opinion).

BDunnell

20th February 2007, 16:43

I don't think he was trying to imply that people who vote for barrack are supporters of the terrorists. That's quite a silly thing to think (my opinion).

To me, it seemed like this was what he was implying. It wouldn't be the first time a senior politician had made similar remarks.

Roamy

21st February 2007, 02:21

I have no idea what connection you are making.

My point you have very little idea about anything other than things you want your way

raphael123

21st February 2007, 09:00

To me, it seemed like this was what he was implying. It wouldn't be the first time a senior politician had made similar remarks.

Who? :)

BDunnell

21st February 2007, 10:42

George Bush for one.

BDunnell

21st February 2007, 10:43

My point you have very little idea about anything other than things you want your way

Maybe if you had phrased your poin a little more clearly, I would be able to understand. In fact, I don't even get what you're trying to say there.

Malbec

21st February 2007, 12:08

Maybe if you had phrased your poin a little more clearly, I would be able to understand. In fact, I don't even get what you're trying to say there.

To be fair, there will be quite a few US voters who will think the same way as Fousto.

A dark skinned Presidential candidate with one name that sounds like 'Osama' and another thats the same as a late Iraqi president who wasn't America's most favoured of late with a Muslim father will not do well in the redneck states.

That he's a Christian and a patriotic American to the core will be irrelevant as far as they're concerned.

BDunnell

21st February 2007, 12:16

To be fair, there will be quite a few US voters who will think the same way as Fousto.

A dark skinned Presidential candidate with one name that sounds like 'Osama' and another thats the same as a late Iraqi president who wasn't America's most favoured of late with a Muslim father will not do well in the redneck states.

That he's a Christian and a patriotic American to the core will be irrelevant as far as they're concerned.

I know, but that doesn't make it right, nor this view any less racist.

raphael123

21st February 2007, 13:24

I think Barrack seems like a good guy, it's just his attitude towards the war which make me wary, and the way he responded towards Howards comment I thought showed his lack of experience in politics.

I know Barrack said 'never, ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world, yet it's naiive of him to think that iraq can be a country of peace by March 2008.

He may well be a Christian and patriotic American, but he grew up without a father, took drugs such as cocaine. Maybe Cameron is right that todays society problems are due to lack of father figures afterall eh? If people think Cameron isn't fit for the PM job because he took a bit of cannabis at 15, well what about this guy!?!

Anyway, apart from his attitude to the war, and his drug taking youth, he seems pretty decent.

Rudy Tamasz

21st February 2007, 16:29

Anyway, apart from his attitude to the war, and his drug taking youth, he seems pretty decent.

He may be too inexperienced for such a high level competition. He needs more seasoning in lower formulae of American politics. A couple of spectacular passes don't make him a top performer yet.

Mark in Oshawa

21st February 2007, 17:32

Barack will succeed and fall on winning the Democratic nomination first. To do that, he will have to keep pandering to the left of the party. That said, if he wins the nomination, he has a lot of baggage to bury in a hurry.

Everyone keeps telling me that this war in Iraq is unwinnable and the US made a mistake, but I have yet to hear a really good argument for just up and pulling out like Barack is suggesting. The chaos that will go on in Iraq will be greater if the US walked out tomorrow, and for all those whiners who talked about all the suffering when the US invaded will have to just suck it up and condemn the Islamic fanatics who will keep slaughtering each other after the US leaves.

Barack has done nothing that says he doesn't have the brain and guts to be President, but he hasn't accomplished more than getting elected either. Most Senators don't know how to run anything, and Obama is no exception. There is a reason Governors of states usually end up winning nominations, they have the experience of ruinning things, and they can use that platform to trump any of the hot air exercises that go on in the US Senate. The fact that Bill Richardson is the only high profile candidate on the Democrat side who has actually run something might just make him the dark horse.....

Alexamateo

21st February 2007, 17:53

There is a reason Governors of states usually end up winning nominations, they have the experience of ruinning things,

Freudian slip or typo?? :p : :laugh:

Mark in Oshawa

22nd February 2007, 06:37

Alex..maybe so...but I still think Bush has done a better job on a lot of issues than Al Bore would have done. Not to mention that stiff Kerry, who comes out with some of the most vacuuous thoughts going. Lets face it, the Democrats always state how stupid George is, but they lost two elections to the guy. What is more, the people in the State of Tennessee should know him best, he was their senator, yet they didn't want him as president in 2000. If Al had convinced the people who knew him best that he could do the job, he wouldn't have had to put his lawyers out there whining how the intentions of Democrats in 3 democratically run counties in Florida were not smart enough to figure out the ballot. IT is THAT kind of stupidity that has allowed the level of politcal discourse in the US to be so low. The bar aint high, you just have to parrot the right shibboleths of the Right or Left to get the nomination, suck up all the money you can, and just beat one guy in a shallow campaign. That said, Americans have tradtionally elected leaders who have either led a state, ran something of note (like the Army in the case of Washington, Grant,Harrison, Teddy Roosevelt or Eisenhower)or accomplished something besides being a politician. Al Gore, Obama, Hillary and Kerry have all one thing in common. They are all Senators, they have done little to recommend they have the right stuff for the job other than they know how to manipulate the Washington Press Corps and play the game that Senators play.

You watch, before the dust settles, it will be obvious that the Pepublicans will have a shot because Romney, Giuliani and the like will at some point be obvious favourites in a lot of parts of the US because you can point to things they have actually done that make sense and have accomplished something. Giulani took over the biggest city in the country, and did what all his predecessors said couldn't be done. What is more, he did it in about 3 years, and he lead the city through the most traumatic event it its history as a lame duck mayor.

Governors, Mayors, leaders...that is what Americans tend to go to...and in the case of Bush, maybe some things he has tackled have not turned out, but at least he is unafraid to try and fail. Give me someone who will make a decision over some dithering jerk who only follows what to do by the polls....

W8&C

22nd February 2007, 18:35

...and in the case of Bush, maybe some things he has tackled have not turned out, but at least he is unafraid to try and fail.Mark, not taking offence to you personally, but isn´t that finally a really convincing justification for sacrificing 10.000s of innocent citizens already during the war itself (many more than Saddam would have killed in the same time even by the worst estimations), not to mention the 10.000s that have been killed by the terror established after the worldwide predicted destabilisation of Iraq and not to mention the 1.000s of killed allied soldiers (even his own fellow citizens)?

Sorry, Bush isn´t playing a video game here, he is gambling with human lives!

Mark in Oshawa

23rd February 2007, 01:06

w8, I dispute that Bush should wear it all for the mess that is Iraq. At what point do you not blame the Iranians for stirring up the Shiites to take control of the nation? How blame do you put at the feet of Al Quaida in Iraq, who admit they are with the Sunni insurgency. How much blame do you apportion to those Sunni's who were part of the Ba'ath party who are bent on killing Shiites and Americans for no other reason than they want things to go back to the good ole days?

See, Bush has to wear some of this, and yes people's lives are at stake, but the lives that were being lost were averaging 20000 dead a year, and no matter what you think of what is happening now, no one can put all the blame on the US for this. At some point Iraqi citizenry has to stand up and stop some of this. The Kurd's are getting on with theiir lives and have little violence. The Brits in the south are not reporting major violence either. All of this is localized violence in the Sunni Triangle. It is a fight for control of the country. The reason I think America is not winning this is because they want the Iraqi government of Maliki to take over the nation and RUN it. America has been standing back and only doing what is asked to try to contain the violence. Well, last time I looked, you want to win a war, you WIN a war by killing the enemy. Most of you don't want to hear that, and it is ugly.

What is happening there is what I felt would happen, but I cant fault Bush's good intentions but I can fault his execution of the war. That said, they cant pull out now, they have to finish this. To leave now, as Obama and other Democrats suggest would just ensure the new Iraqi government fails, and chaos would reign. America left South Vietnam twisting in the wind in 1975. Well, America was at peace, but the ongoing aftermath left many more dead in Cambodia and another war with China in the early 80's. Is America at fault for those deaths as well? I say yes, because they didn't finish what they started.

IT is one thing to start a war, it is another to bail out leaving no peace for anyone in the country you went into to save.