• 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!

What should be President Barak Obama's top priority?

What should be President Barak Obama's top priority?

  • Gaining International Support

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Regulating Wall Street

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • Unemployment

    Votes: 9 27.3%
  • Health Care

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • Climate Change

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Immigration

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Silencing dissenting views

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Gay/Lesbian Rights

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The War on Terror

    Votes: 8 24.2%
  • Education

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Since I'm a US citizen, I rate the dead on citizens on September 11th with a factor of infinity over the dead citizens under terrorist/totalitarian rule.

Yes, I can see you do and that helps explain why we are losing the war on terror.

That's what OBL planned, for us to turn this into a holy war with 1.3 billion Muslims that we could not win.

But don't let that stop your hate.
 
Wrong.

I'm old enough to remember the events of September 11, 2001 personally.

I would hope so as it only happened 9 yrs ago...What are you 25 and think you are all grown up..lol I am old enough to remember 9-11..lol as if thats impressive.
 
What should be President Barak Obama's top priority?

Whatever he considers best for the USA.

I am of the opinion that most such things will end badly, but it's his presidency to screw up...or not.
 
In order of most important to least:

- Unemployment
- The War on Terror
- Health Care
- Regulating Wall Street
- Gaining International Support
- Education
- Silencing Dissenting Views
- Climate Change
- Immigration
- Gay/Lesbian Rights
 
Yes, I can see you do and that helps explain why we are losing the war on terror.

That's what OBL planned, for us to turn this into a holy war with 1.3 billion Muslims that we could not win.

But don't let that stop your hate.

Despite your obvious wisdom and intellect, our enemies have taken a complete beating since 9/11. I am very sure that Osama Bin Laden didn't want two democracies rising up in the Middle East. I am also sure that tens of thousands of his followers from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East would prefer to be breathing today. And despite your absolute absence of faith in 1.3 billion Muslims, I am sure that they do not see Osama Bin Laden's mission as being ordained by God.

The utterance that "we are losing the misnamed "War on Terror," is absolute stupidity. There is nothing to lose. They are not about to march on Washington. Not about to dictate our foriegn policies. Not about to deter the Iraqi, Afghani and Pakistani government. Not about to place Yemen in their pocket. Not about to align any government on earth to their cause. They are scavengers and they rely on ignorance, the absence of education, and chaos to exist.

However, it is clear they have your applause and cheers. They do rely on the ignorant after all.
 
our enemies have taken a complete beating since 9/11.

Yeah, I guess that is why the Generals on the ground requested more troops, because we had kicked al Qaeda's butt.

Additionally, from the 2008 Rand Report to the Pentagon:

"military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. It continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, though engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington.

Al Qa'ida's resilience should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy. Its goal of a pan-Islamic caliphate leaves little room for a negotiated political settlement with governments in the Middle East. A more effective U.S. approach would involve a two-front strategy:

* Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.
* Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.

Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors."

RAND Research Brief | How Terrorist Groups End: Implications for Countering al Qa'ida
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I guess that is why the Generals on the ground requested more troops, because we had kicked al Qaeda's butt.


Uh-oh. Look out. Next thing you know they'll be telling you all about the great Iraqi Civil War or the impossible victory of Iraq. Be careful of reports that give you the worst outlook. Often enough, they are merely

Well, this might be your problem.....you seem to be unable to think things through. Don't forget, Afghanistan has hardly been a focus for the U.S. Marines until last summer. You see, Al-Queda was based throughout the world. They have been hit hard throughout the years and they only emerge in base form as if refugees looking for sun light. Afghanistan holds a significant number of "new breed", yet they exist as **** roaches merely waiting to be slaughtered whenever they emerge. This is the culture our military has been facing and have been facing long before civilians demanded blood on 9/11.

Don't mistake numbers and existence for "losing" as you state. After all, the persistence of Nazis doesn't mean that World War II was lost. This is a long war and none of our enemies are going to come to a surrender table. Think it through. Next thing you know you'll be parading around the great Iraqi civil war or impossible victory scenarios of Iraq so many journalist fed you.
 
Last edited:
Uh-oh. Look out. Next thing you know they'll be telling you all about the great Iraqi Civil War or the impossible victory of Iraq. Be careful of reports that give you the worst outlook.

Thanks for your opinion. Now, what evidence do you have to refute both the generals on the ground and the 2008 Rand Report commissioned by the Pentagon?
 
Thanks for your opinion. Now, what evidence do you have to refute both the generals on the ground and the 2008 Rand Report commissioned by the Pentagon?

The report in no way describes us as "losing" as you stated. The Internet sleuth found his wisdom? Your kind amuse me. This Rand Report was filtered throughout the military to give us a sense of situation in Afghanistan at the time. We receive these type reports all the time. It met with much criticism and questioning by more ground and tactician Generals around the Marine Corps and Army. The "Generals on the ground" merely report SITREPS. Others put these together and portray a picture. In the end the picture is always grave and safe. The Al-Queda presence in Afghanistan has been largely left alone while our military was focused on kicking their butts in Iraq and everywhere else. And in 2008 when our focus turned towards Afghanistan, the situation is that Al-Queda continues to exist. Surprised that terrorists still live?

"We are losing" is such a stupid statement. And by the way, requesting more troops is a means to finally deal with what we were ignoring for years. Al-Queda in Afghanistan, which is made up of largely merely present day wannabes and safe in the terrain of their decrepit homeland, have been dismissed for years.

But like I stated, they were so right (or safe I should say) about Iraq year after year, certainly it's only a matter of time before Al-Queda wins and defeats America. Maybe you should seek an opinion of your own instead of regurgitating "safe" reports that prove wrong in time. If I remeber correctly, you did the same thing in regards to the "ultimate doom and failure" of Iraq. Learn to place these reports in perspective. This is precisely why we hate the public receiving anything.
 
Last edited:
Consider what kind of real job he should get next. --He sure don't know how to handle this one.---Maybe a Preacher.
 
The report in no way describes us as "losing" as you stated. The Internet sleuth found his wisdom? Your kind amuse me. This Rand Report was filtered throughout the military to give us a sense of situation in Afghanistan at the time. We receive these type reports all the time. It met with much criticism and questioning by more ground and tactician Generals around the Marine Corps and Army. The "Generals on the ground" merely report SITREPS. Others put these together and portray a picture. In the end the picture is always grave and safe. The Al-Queda presence in Afghanistan has been largely left alone while our military was focused on kicking their butts in Iraq and everywhere else. And in 2008 when our focus turned towards Afghanistan, the situation is that Al-Queda continues to exist. Surprised that terrorists still live?

"We are losing" is such a stupid statement. And by the way, requesting more troops is a means to finally deal with what we were ignoring for years. Al-Queda in Afghanistan, which is made up of largely merely present day wannabes and safe in the terrain of their decrepit homeland, have been dismissed for years.

But like I stated, they were so right (or safe I should say) about Iraq year after year, certainly it's only a matter of time before Al-Queda wins and defeats America. Maybe you should seek an opinion of your own instead of regurgitating "safe" reports that prove wrong in time. If I remeber correctly, you did the same thing in regards to the "ultimate doom and failure" of Iraq. Learn to place these reports in perspective. This is precisely why we hate the public receiving anything.


The Rand Report stated the "war on terror" has been a failure, not me. I ask for evidence to refute the 2008 Rand report to the Pentagon and I get more opinion.
 
The Rand Report stated the "war on terror" has been a failure, not me. I ask for evidence to refute the 2008 Rand report to the Pentagon and I get more opinion.

The Rand Report called for a change of tactics to deal with a changing enemy. "Failure" is your word. You declared us as losing. The Rand Report did nothing of the kind. Tap into your own common sense. You ask for evidence? I gave you facts of the situation and you dismissed because "failure and losing" seem to be comfortable words for you. You did the same thing in regards to Iraq. The inability to think these things through or process these type reports will always have you confused. But maybe you are right. It's just a matter of time before we are the United States of Al-Queda. Their victory is at hand. I mean....you know...since we are "losing."
 
Last edited:
The Rand Report called for a change of tactics to deal with a changing enemy. "Failure" is your word. You declared us as losing. The Rand Report did nothing of the kind. Tap into your own common sense. You ask for evidence? I gave you facts of the situation and you dismissed because "failure and losing" seem to be comfortable words for you. You did the same thing in regards to Iraq. The inability to think these things through or process these type reports will always have you confused. But maybe you are right. It's just a matter of time before we are the United States of Al-Queda. Their victory is at hand. I mean....you know...since we are "losing."

Here are quotes from the 2008 Rand Report to the Pentagon:

"military force has not undermined al Qa'ida."


Wasn't our goal to undermine al Qa'ida?

"As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. "

Wasn't our goal to make al Qa'ida less strong and less competent?


"It continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, though engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington."


Wasn't our goal to decrease terrorism world wide rather than to increase it?
 
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know how to interpret these reports...


"military force has not undermined al Qa'ida."


Wasn't our goal to undermine al Qa'ida?

This is a general statement and meant to portray Al-Queda a still a threat. They have been undermined since 9/11. They have met with failure over and over and over again. They did not get Iraq. They are constantly beig refused entry onto planes. The few attacks they have gotten in are inevitable. Dozens of attempts are surely going to produce one success sooner or later. This report is "safe."

Military force has not obliterated Al-Quada from the face of the earth. It's not going to and it never was. Engaging them in the Phillipines, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, and Indonesia is supposed to take how long? Is there a time limit? There are locations where they have yet to be engaged at all. And as long as they have a never ending recruitment pool, which is the uneducated Middle East, they will persist to exist and be slaughtered as they appear. And home grown terrorists in London, Germany, and France is a local problem for them to solve. Our problem is the Middle East and as long as oppression and a complete lack of general eduaction without the religious under and over tones thrown in, we will continue to encounter the Al-Quedas.


"As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. "

Wasn't our goal to make al Qa'ida less strong and less competent?

It's goal remains intact therefore we are losing? How dare they continue to believe in their God and persist to meet him in a blast of glory. Al-Queda is positioned all over the world and most of their organization is next generation wannabes anymore. Once again, the fact that they continue to exist and have dreams of victory does not equate to us "losing."

"It continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, though engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington."


Wasn't our goal to decrease terrorism world wide rather than to increase it?

Yeah...I just don't see the words "failure" or "losing" anywhere in the report.

How many terrorist attacks has Al-Queda been responsible for since 9/11 and how many wannabes merely attributed their efforts to Al-Queda's rhetorics after the fact? A couple embassies, an Air Force barracks, a Naval ship, Black Hawk Down....5 or 6 attacks prior to 9/11. How many since? Are they counting the terrorist activity inside Iraq..a war zone? Maybe a couple more, of which they didn't even plan?

"Our" goal is towards our own security and primarily focused on Al-Queda and their agents. The rest of the world will just benefit as they always do in the end. This was always a generational fight. No where should anybody get the idea that some fighting in the wastelands of Afghanistan was going to bring us utopia.

This is regional and it will take decades to correct the terror path of the Middle East. Terrorism was always going to increase at the onset. The immediate reaction of the ignorant and the uneducated will be to join their fellow Muslim brothers against thr greatest enemy of God in history. Afer enough have been slaughtered (and we are nowhere near that point) there will be a decrease.

You don't know how to interpret these reports. This is why you can read the above and create words like "failure" and "losing" so easily. Remember the "Iraqi Civil War" these type reports "safely" reported to the public in response to the media's drama? Where did that go? Did it just dissapear or was it ever as bad as the "reports" stated? Iraq is impossible. Seems just fine considering their culture to me. Again....the reports gave you "safe" information in case the worst occurred.

Don't worry about it. After thousands more are killed all over the world, the U.S. will still be here. In the mean time, learn to read these reports.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your opinion!

Another fact. As proven enough times with your eagerness to celebrate every doom and gloom story and governmental "safe" analysis in regards to Iraq.
 
Another fact. As proven enough times with your eagerness to celebrate every doom and gloom story and governmental "safe" analysis in regards to Iraq.

I don't even know what you are trying to say there.
 
I don't even know what you are trying to say there.

Well, you seem to have an awful lot of opinion on these matters, but you routinely fall back on some Internet piece of journalism or outdated report that merely offers a "safe" SITREP. From these things you use extreme words like "prop," or "losing," or "failure," etc. In the end your kind were dead wrong about every doom and gloom story in regards to Iraq and now have resorted to relying upon the last soldier to leave Iraq to make your dreams of failure (as if it would be an American failure) come true. It's almost like you have your fingers crossed. No doubt the first IED that goes off will be a signal flair to the pundits to declare it the end of the world.

And now this morbid attitude is leaking over into Afghanistan as well. If you don't know what you are talking about then why would you set yourself up to trip all over your opinions?
 
you routinely fall back on some Internet piece of journalism....

Its called backing up your opinion with facts, you should try it sometime!
 
Its called backing up your opinion with facts, you should try it sometime!

Would these be the same "facts" as reported to you by "safe" reports and journailistic freedom to create drame? Yeah...your kind do this often. You rely on journalists and "safe" reports to Congress to paint your reality and even after proven wrong you boast your "facts."

I've seen this since Somalia. The way your kind "know" exactly what is going on because of an article in a newspaper or a Blog on the Internet or a "safe" intel report which may as well be a dishonest regurgitation of unanalysed material. Let me give you a perfect latest example...

The media paraded around the "fact" of an Iraqi Civil War and the public sweared up and down that they knew better than anybody that they had ultimate wisdom above anybody that actually mattered who were countering their journailistic claims. Eventually the military came out with a report that agreed that parts of the current violence could be described as a civil war. The public took this report and ran with it as proof or evidence (your word of choice) that they were right. However, when the "civil war" simply dissapeared, the public stopped talking about it and the media simply moved onto the next drama that would sell the public some papers. And what was left? The military dealing with exactly what they knew they were facing. Our only big problem these days is not our enemy. It is when you people profess to know "exactly" what is going on and assume the ability to know "exactly" what to do.

You claiming that you are backing up your claims is a joke. You are not backing up your claims with anything of substance. You have even tried to interject your own "wisdom" with words like "losing" and "failure" which are not even in the report. You are wrong on many levels. And when the doom of Iraq eventually simply dissapears you will move onto your next "wisdom" as issued by the media.
 
Would these be the same "facts" as reported to you by "safe" reports and journailistic freedom to create drame? Yeah...your kind do this often. You rely on journalists and "safe" reports to Congress to paint your reality and even after proven wrong you boast your "facts."

I've seen this since Somalia. The way your kind "know" exactly what is going on because of an article in a newspaper or a Blog on the Internet or a "safe" intel report which may as well be a dishonest regurgitation of unanalysed material. Let me give you a perfect latest example...

The media paraded around the "fact" of an Iraqi Civil War and the public sweared up and down that they knew better than anybody that they had ultimate wisdom above anybody that actually mattered who were countering their journailistic claims. Eventually the military came out with a report that agreed that parts of the current violence could be described as a civil war. The public took this report and ran with it as proof or evidence (your word of choice) that they were right. However, when the "civil war" simply dissapeared, the public stopped talking about it and the media simply moved onto the next drama that would sell the public some papers. And what was left? The military dealing with exactly what they knew they were facing. Our only big problem these days is not our enemy. It is when you people profess to know "exactly" what is going on and assume the ability to know "exactly" what to do.

You claiming that you are backing up your claims is a joke. You are not backing up your claims with anything of substance. You have even tried to interject your own "wisdom" with words like "losing" and "failure" which are not even in the report. You are wrong on many levels. And when the doom of Iraq eventually simply dissapears you will move onto your next "wisdom" as issued by the media.

Thanks for your opinion!
 
Back
Top Bottom