• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would the U.S. attacked Afghanistan if Hussein Obama had been President?

Would the U.S. attacked Afghanistan if Hussein Obama had been President?


  • Total voters
    43
What is Hussein Obama 's middle name ? Also does he ever go by his initials President HO ?
 
That is the 64 dollar question....I personally believe he would have asked the French to do it.........

A rediculous assertion posted to stir partisan fervor, you are part of the problem on DP, my squid friend.

The REAL question would be...

What would Al Gore have done, had he been elected?

After the national outrage 9/11 caused and patriotic pride across the country, Gore would have had no choice but to pursue military action in Afghanistan. I think his plan would have looked much like Bush's (SOF w/Northern Alliance targeting AQ and eradicating Taliban). Not sure what the follow-on plan would have been, although one would have to assume that propping up some type of U.S. allied government would have made sense.
 
[I]A rediculous assertion posted to stir partisan fervor, you are part of the problem on DP, my squid friend.[/I]

The REAL question would be...

What would Al Gore have done, had he been elected?

After the national outrage 9/11 caused and patriotic pride across the country, Gore would have had no choice but to pursue military action in Afghanistan. I think his plan would have looked much like Bush's (SOF w/Northern Alliance targeting AQ and eradicating Taliban). Not sure what the follow-on plan would have been, although one would have to assume that propping up some type of U.S. allied government would have made sense.




You have noticed this is posted in the partisan forum. and if a nutcase like Gore was elected he would bow to the wishes of the left wing of the democratic party just like Obama........
 
You have noticed this is posted in the partisan forum.

No, it's clearly posted in the "polls" forum

and if a nutcase like Gore was elected he would bow to the wishes of the left wing of the democratic party just like Obama

I disagree. Inaction after 9/11 would have been political suicide for Gore. I am not even sure that those on the far left (and isolationist right) would have been happy with doing nothing.

Your premise is totally false and of course it was posted with no rational thought whatsoever, like many of the partisan trolls on this forum.

Think about it: How many promises to the "left wing" has Obama come through on? Few. He will continue to make promises, but not act because he knows not to push moderates to far with a left wing agenda.

Blind partisan rage prevents you from using your noggin, buddy. If you want to be taken seriously, don't get butt-hurt when rational thinkers make comments on your thread that was intentionally submitted to start trouble and not accomplish anything.
 
Then why did we end up in Iraq?

Saddam committed numerous acts of war against the U.S., he violated the armistice at every turn, and he was plotting with jihadists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up to the fall of Baghdad.

But hay way to shift the goal posts.
 
Saddam committed numerous acts of war against the U.S., he violated the armistice at every turn, and he was plotting with jihadists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up to the fall of Baghdad.

But hay way to shift the goal posts.

I thought this was commonly known as a lie. Did some sources come out which changed the national debate while I was asleep?
 
Why did the OP leave Obama's first name out of his title? It's distracting and shows his utter bias. Hussein Obama? Come on, you lose credibility with that. :rolleyes:
 
Navy Pride is a tool that couldn't point to Afghanistan on a map of the world.

Plus he often "cuts and runs" when he is out-debated.
 
I've wondered this.
There's no knowing.
Obama would probably say yes.
My gut instinct is no.
He probably would've taken some action short of invading Afghanistan.
 
I thought this was commonly known as a lie. Did some sources come out which changed the national debate while I was asleep?

A) He fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone on nearly a daily basis each and every one was an act of war, not to mention he attempted to assassinate former POTUS George HW Bush.

B) The Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," demonstrates that Iraq was in fact collaborating with Islamist extremists and actively working with them to attack the U.S.:


WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

A long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates."

A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view.

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."

The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.

Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties - March 14, 2008 - The New York Sun

Here's a link to the full report the pertinent information is located in the first volume of this five volume DOCEX:

Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism

Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation)


Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests. Saddam Regime was a TERRORIST REGIME and there was no other way but to destroy it after 9/11.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
End of translation of page 6

So get your ****ing facts straight before you open your face hole, and get ****ing educated before you call me a liar.
 
Afghanistan was invaded simply cos it's central and once forces are deployed there it's easier to reach places with stuff worth stealing.
 
Afghanistan was invaded simply cos it's central and once forces are deployed there it's easier to reach places with stuff worth stealing.

Hey Tel Aviv guy, we are doing the dirty work for you, so show some appreciation.
 
Need a "Voted Present" response, or at least an "I don't know". :)
 
In the next 3 years and 3 months I'm sure some situation will happen which we can debate this, again...It will be interesting and I'm betting that Obama will never begin his own campaign unless it's waged on behalf of various African Rights movements.
 
we did so because the taliban was harboring AQ and possibly bin laden.
 
In the next 3 years and 3 months I'm sure some situation will happen which we can debate this, again...It will be interesting and I'm betting that Obama will never begin his own campaign unless it's waged on behalf of various African Rights movements.
could you explain that please? african rights movements?
 
could you explain that please? african rights movements?

I didn't know what to call it since it hasn't started yet and it might not - so I coined it with something that might be appropriate since I don't think it'll take on a flavor of a war situation like in Iraq (pure opinion) maybe it will, but I don't think they'll just in army-first seeing as how that's against their platform and they've been somewhat faithful to it.

In the Democrat Party Platform that they released in 2007 they refer to their support of Africa:

The Democratic Party
(Found on page 36)


"Working for Our Common Security"
To renew american leadership in the world we will rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutoins necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. . .

We failed to address concerns about immigration and equity and economic growht. In Africa we have allowed genocide to persist for over five years in Darfur and have not done nearly enough to answer the United Nation's call for more support to stop the killing. Under Barack Obama we will rebuild our tied to our allies in Europe and Asia and strengthen our partnerships throughout the Americas and Africa.

Support Africa's Democratic Development
U.S. engagement with Africa should reflect its vital significance to the U.S. as well as its emerging role in the global economy. We recognize Africa's promise as a trade and investment partner and the importance of policies that can contribute to sustainable economic growth, job creation and poverty alleviation. We are committed to bringing the full weight of American leadership to bear in unlocking the spirit of entrepreneurship and economic independence that is sweeping across markets of Africa.

We will help strengthen Africa's democratic development and respect for human rights, while encouraging political and economic reforms that result in improvement transparency and accountability. We will defend democracy and stand up for rule of law when it is under assault, such as in Zimbabwe.

With the nation's current focus being on the situation(s) in the Middle East, naturally, this didn't really come up.
I don't consider it a bad thing, however, I feel that if we did not have the M.E. situations to deal with (either, if Obama ends it fully or if, in an alternate reality, they never existed) then we would be focusing here.

In some ways I see absolute need for us to help in Africa beyond what we're currently doing (things more along the lines of misionary work) but you never know, it's a violent and widespread problems, the corruption is vast.
 
Last edited:
Would the U.S. attacked Afghanistan if Hussein Obama had been President?

Yes!
 
booooollox!!!!!!!

Um AQ was part and parcel to the Taliban government led by Mullah Omar, they had a seat on the Taliban's ministry of defense, there was a special branch of the Taliban military known as the 055 brigade which was made up exclusively of AQ fighters, and the Taliban granted them a safe haven in which to train and from which to launch attacks. Christ, Bin Ladens son is married to Mullah Omars daughter.

When people claim that the Taliban didn't attack us it's like saying that if the CIA decided to bomb a building in; say, Saudi Arabia, that it wasn't the U.S. government attacking them. The Taliban was a co-conspirator in the 9-11 attacks and are thus just as guilty as AQ proper.
 
I've seen nothing from Obama to make me believe that he would have gone to war in Afghanistan. He apologizes and takes forever to make strategic decisions. I doubt even 9/11 would have motivated him enough to go to war. We might have but it probably would have taken until his last year of office before he did anything...and that's assuming he was actually elected twice.
 
I've seen nothing from Obama to make me believe that he would have gone to war in Afghanistan. He apologizes and takes forever to make strategic decisions. I doubt even 9/11 would have motivated him enough to go to war. We might have but it probably would have taken until his last year of office before he did anything...and that's assuming he was actually elected twice.

So what's up with the 30K troops he sent to AFG in the spring?
 
Back
Top Bottom