• 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!

New York trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind

I wonder, what if McSame had actually tried to distance himself from Bush's actions? Would he be doing better than Obama thus far? I mean, he wouldn't have gotten nearly as much slack as Obama, but still...

thoughts?

So you didn't believe McCain when he was doing all his saber rattling against Iran, "the preeminent threat of our time" he called them.

McCain still thought everything was hunky dory after economy had collapsed, and he was opposed to health care reform.

Definitely the greater of the two evils in the majority of voters minds.
Thankfully!
 
Let's see, do I choose to believe the conservative Rand Corp's report commissioned by the Pentagon with the most extensive analysis of terrorist groups to date? Or your report?

We've sacrificed thousands of lives and spent 3 trillion dollars of taxpayer debt and there are more terrorist attacks worldwide now than there were before we started our "war on terror".

According to the Rand Report, military solutions to terrorists have been effective only 7% of the time. We cannot afford another decade of a failed approach in dealing with the terrorists.

A fool and his money are soon parted! As Bin Laden must have known.;)

LOL - you don't get it - the idea was to take it to them for what they did - and we did - which is why we haven't been attacked since 9/11 - sure, there are more attacks all over - Iran's proxies have been very busy - they just blew up a slew of people during a graduation ceremony at a university in Somalia - some creepy loser deressed himself up as a woman and INTENTIONALLY took out a whole bunch of graduatiing students and their teachers - they just killed a whole bunch of people commuting between Moscow and St. Petersburg - on a train travelling for work or to visit family - none of which has anything to do with our being in Iraq and Afghanistan - we weren't in there when they blew up our embassies, the Cole, lots more all over and then 9/11 - we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan then, so what say you about the excuse we are making them worse? They are already as worse as a person can be - Nothing can make them worse - they are already terrible people who need to be wiped off the face of the earth - and they will be - they recently blew up a bunch of innocent people at a university in Pakistan - what's up with these people killing people at schools? Reminds me of Pol Pot.
Dumb, barbaric and backward animals is what they are, and all for not.

Anyway - even a very liberal leader like Obama understands - he just signed on 30,000 more crack troops - the cream of the crop - to go flush them out - and no amount of whining is ever going to stop it - the world is against them - and that is because they made it that way.
 
So you didn't believe McCain when he was doing all his saber rattling against Iran, "the preeminent threat of our time" he called them.

McCain still thought everything was hunky dory after economy had collapsed, and he was opposed to health care reform.

Definitely the greater of the two evils in the majority of voters minds.
Thankfully!

1. Sabre rattling is cheap, especially considering that the last thing McCain (or his handlers) would want would be for him to START A WAR. and even if he managed to, it wouldn't last more than 60 days unless the Democrats wanted the blood on their hands. The Republicans wouldn't be able to stop them if they REALLY wanted a War in congress, and maybe they would have wanted a War, another blow to the Republican party perhaps...but either way, it's all underhanded tactics.

2. A lot of people did, and a lot of people were. That's politics. He isn't all bad policies, you know. And even if he was, he wouldn't be the only one.

3. He is no more dangerous to this country than Obama can still turn out to be. Hindisight being 20/20 though we'll have to wait it out and then call our Woulda/Shoulda/Couldas when it's all said and done.
 
Last edited:
1. Sabre rattling is cheap, especially considering that the last thing McCain (or his handlers) would want would be for him to START A WAR. and even if he managed to, it wouldn't last more than 60 days unless the Democrats wanted the blood on their hands. The Republicans wouldn't be able to stop them if they REALLY wanted a War in congress, and maybe they would have wanted a War, another blow to the Republican party perhaps...but either way, it's all underhanded tactics.

2. A lot of people did, and a lot of people were. That's politics. He isn't all bad policies, you know. And even if he was, he wouldn't be the only one.

3. He is no more dangerous to this country than Obama can still turn out to be. Hindisight being 20/20 though we'll have to wait it out and then call our Woulda/Shoulda/Couldas when it's all said and done.

I agree - it's almost a toss between who is worse - Shiitstains McCain or Obama - I actually think McCain may have been worse - he is McLame, but he does know how to get some things done seeing he has been in there for so long, and what he would do wouldn't agree with someone like me.

Obama on the other hand wants to get re-elected more than anything - he and his family are having a ball in there - so, he will do what the majority of the people in this country want - to keep the civil world safe from the uncivilized, which is why he signed up the troops for Afghanistan despite his liberal base.
 
Last edited:
I agree - it's almost a toss between who is worse - Shiitstains McCain or Obama - I actually think McCain may have been worse - he is McLame, but he does know how to get some things done seeing he has been in there for so long, and what he would do wouldn't agree with someone like me.

2 things:

1. Might wanna fix that little typo that passed the wordfilter

2. We have to remember, when electing a President, while our own convictions and wants are important, we SHOULD think about who's a better choice, or lesser evil, for turning the country around. If we all wanted someone who did what we wanted and **** anyone who thinks differently well....well that's where we are today.
 
2 things:

1. Might wanna fix that little typo that passed the wordfilter

2. We have to remember, when electing a President, while our own convictions and wants are important, we SHOULD think about who's a better choice, or lesser evil, for turning the country around. If we all wanted someone who did what we wanted and **** anyone who thinks differently well....well that's where we are today.

1. fixed

2. Ya, I would have liked to see Romney in there, but the odds were against him - after 8 years of GOP Bush, it's no wonder Obama's slogan was change - it's was natural, and almost inevitable after 8 years of a GOPer, especially with the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Romney got to get his face out there, and I believe he has a great shot at the election for 2012 - we will really need him by then after 4 years of Obama.
 
She's surprisingly enlightened to facts, and with more balls than her husband:

By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer – 1 hr 32 mins ago

BRUSSELS – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, arriving Friday at NATO headquarters, welcomed an expected series of announcements by allied nations of additional military, civilian and financial support for the war effort in Afghanistan.

Clinton was attending a string of meetings here with allied foreign ministers and with representatives of non-NATO countries that have troops in Afghanistan, plus Russia. She sought to sell President Barack Obama's revamped war strategy, which banks on major new allied contributions, not just to escalate the combat effort but also to bolster civilian functions and provide more development aid.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, also was to attend the meeting of NATO's main political council to explain the 43-nation military mission, which he has sought to revise and reinforce since he took over command last June. He has described conditions in the fight against Taliban extremists — now in its ninth year — as serious and deteriorating.

Allied governments need to be able to sell their publics on the idea of enlarging the war, and particularly those countries in which political parties share power have to be sure "the political stars are in alignment" before they announce new commitments, Clinton said.

Clinton made the comments in an interview with reporters traveling with her from Washington. She departed the U.S. capital Thursday shortly after testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where she joined Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in defending the president's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Clinton told reporters she was pleased that allies have responded positively to the Obama plan.

"We are encouraged that they are going to — beginning (Friday) but not ending (Friday) — have a number of public announcements about additional troop commitments and additional civilian assistance and development aid, as well," she said without naming any countries.

She said she had discussed the matter with her counterparts from 20 to 25 countries over the past week.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Wednesday that the allies will contribute at least 5,000 more troops to the war effort "and probably a few thousand more."

The U.S. now has about 71,000 troops in Afghanistan, while 42 other NATO and non-NATO nations have a total of 38,000 troops there. They are fighting a far smaller collection of Taliban militants who enjoy a haven across the border in Pakistan.

European countries have been reluctant to add large numbers of soldiers to a war that often looks unwinnable and to support an Afghan government tainted by corruption and election fraud. Some leaders are waiting for an international conference on Afghanistan in London in late January before promising any more troops.

Asked about the criticism that has focused on Obama's decision to announce a date in 2011 to begin the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, Clinton said that it has been misunderstood by some and that others were simply seeking to create a controversy.

"There have been some misunderstandings about what that date meant," she said, referring to Obama's announcement that beginning in July 2011, the U.S. troop contingent would begin to be withdrawn. The administration has said the pace and scale of the withdrawal will be determined after a further assessment of conditions on the ground, starting with an administration review in December 2010.

"Some people seized on that, for whatever reason or lack of understanding, as a way to try to create a difference where I'm not sure there is one," Clinton said.

She also took a gentle stab at the Bush administration's approach to running the war. She said Afghanistan's defense chief had told her last month that for the first time he felt like a full participant in the NATO military structure, as a result of changes made by McChrystal, who was appointed to the top command by Obama several months after he took office. Referring to the more limited Afghan participation before McChrystal's arrival, she said, "That's a little bit discouraging, when one looks back."

Clinton also was scheduled to meet separately in Brussels Friday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for eleventh-hour talks on a follow-on to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that expires at midnight Friday. Both sides have said they don't expect to complete a draft agreement — let alone get it ratified by their national legislatures — before the existing treaty expires. But they hope to wrap it up by the end of December and to make arrangements for monitoring each other's nuclear arsenals in the interim.

Upon her arrival in Brussels, Clinton's aides said she had recorded earlier in the week two video messages directed at the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan to "echo the themes and messages" from Obama's West Point speech on his Afghan war plan. The Clinton videos are available via the internet in Arabic, Dari, English, Pashto and Urdu, her aides said.

___

On the Net:

Clinton message to people of Afghanistan: Message to People of Afghanistan

Clinton message to people of Pakistan: Message to People of Pakistan
 
Anyway - even a very liberal leader like Obama..........

Liberal? LOL! Kucinich was liberal. Obama was the moderate candidate.
 
He is no more dangerous to this country than Obama can still turn out to be.

Fortunately, the American voters saw the choice differently!;)
 
I know you would say the same thing had McCain been voted.....

Don't have a clue what you are trying to say there. My point was that the majority of voters picked the moderate choice.
 
Don't have a clue what you are trying to say there. My point was that the majority of voters picked the moderate choice.

I'm saying, in your infinite bi-partisaness, you would be open and happy either way, or equally disappointed, regardless of candidate.
 
I'm saying, in your infinite bi-partisaness, you would be open and happy either way, or equally disappointed, regardless of candidate.

I make my choice on which I believe will be best for the country, not the party.
 
Liberal? LOL! Kucinich was liberal. Obama was the moderate candidate.



Hussein Obama is a huge Liberal and a wannabe socialist.......Kucinich is a Soclialist........
 
Liberal? LOL! Kucinich was liberal. Obama was the moderate candidate.

LOL - you are so off the mark - Obama is a socialist liberal and Kucinich is nothing but a kook - everybody knows this but you - LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom