• 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
SE102 said:
It's just something alot of people would think by reading what you write.
Click to expand...

You brought up race... until then, I simply thought that he was making fun of you for hat he percieved as idol worship, and that idol is Obama. You bringing up racism sounds more like projection than anything else...

...and the Taliban where the leading "party" group in Afghanistan, not Pakistan which has a legitimate form of government, a Republic.

The Taliban in Afghanistan - Council on Foreign Relations

The Taliban and Afghanistan

TIME.com Primer: The Taliban and Afghanistan - TIME

Government type:
federal republic

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html
 
kansaswhig said:
So what's up with the 30K troops he sent to AFG in the spring?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The war is happening now. Nothing he can do about that except finish what was started or risk giving those we are fighting a strategic advantage and a BIG boost to their moral, which could be more dangerous by itself than the strategic advantage. Put them together and we could quite possibly be screwed, blued, and tattooed.

The question of the OP is would Obama have gone to war with Afghanistan if he had been President instead of Bush at that time. Since the thread is about that we would have to discount what he has done currently in the war for the reasons I just stated.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevant. The war is happening now. Nothing he can do about that except finish what was started or risk giving those we are fighting a strategic advantage and a BIG boost to their moral, which could be more dangerous by itself than the strategic advantage. Put them together and we could quite possibly be screwed, blued, and tattooed.

The question of the OP is would Obama have gone to war with Afghanistan if he had been President instead of Bush at that time. Since the thread is about that we would have to discount what he has done currently in the war for the reasons I just stated.
Click to expand...

I cannot imagine any President, regardless of how pacifist, would not pursue a military option after 9/11. Political suicide. The country demanded retribution and would not have accepted anything less. I think even Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would have attacked in AFG after 9/11. Popular opinion is more important than ideology in politics. They will do anything to get elected.
 
kansaswhig said:
I cannot imagine any President, regardless of how pacifist, would not pursue a military option after 9/11. Political suicide. The country demanded retribution and would not have accepted anything less. I think even Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would have attacked in AFG after 9/11. Popular opinion is more important than ideology in politics. They will do anything to get elected.
Click to expand...

Obama traveled the world and applogized for our actions after he was elected.

He wouldn't have attacked anyone after 9/11 - he would have given some speach saying "We as a people should stop and think. If we're angering the world with our actions then we must ask ourselves why . . ."
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Obama traveled the world and applogized for our actions after he was elected.

He wouldn't have attacked anyone after 9/11 - he would have given some speach saying "We as a people should stop and think. If we're angering the world with our actions then we must ask ourselves why . . ."
Click to expand...

I disagree, sorry. Even Al Gore would have pursued a military option.

If Obama had done that, he would have been a one-term President.

He might be anyway...
 
kansaswhig said:
I cannot imagine any President, regardless of how pacifist, would not pursue a military option after 9/11. Political suicide. The country demanded retribution and would not have accepted anything less. I think even Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would have attacked in AFG after 9/11. Popular opinion is more important than ideology in politics. They will do anything to get elected.
Click to expand...

Think about it. The people who attacked us are terrorists who officially does not belong to any particular government. I would have no doubts that because of that Obama would have asked the ME governments to help capture them. At worst he would have called for sanctions against any country that harbored them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Think about it. The people who attacked us are terrorists who officially does not belong to any particular government. I would have no doubts that because of that Obama would have asked the ME governments to help capture them. At worst he would have called for sanctions against any country that harbored them.
Click to expand...

Exactly - he would have done everything alternative to what was done. That's been his platform, he's almost a pacifist.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Think about it. The people who attacked us are terrorists who officially does not belong to any particular government. I would have no doubts that because of that Obama would have asked the ME governments to help capture them. At worst he would have called for sanctions against any country that harbored them.
Click to expand...

I think sanctions would be pretty fruitless against AFG.

Listen, I don't have a dog in the fight, ideologically like y'all. But I would be shocked if any President didn't seek military action after 9/11. The country wouldn't have stood for it.
 
kansaswhig said:
I think sanctions would be pretty fruitless against AFG.

Listen, I don't have a dog in the fight, ideologically like y'all. But I would be shocked if any President didn't seek military action after 9/11. The country wouldn't have stood for it.
Click to expand...

Be shocked - if he's true to anything he repeats over and over then he's against how we dealt with things, period, which is why he's always shoving the blame onto Bush.

In the future (heaven's forbid ... stave a jinx) if something happens I'd be shocked if he actually chooses to fight someone or something.

The only situatioin in which I see him applying our troops is to combat issues in Africa - see post #69.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...bama-had-been-president-7.html#post1058336673
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The only situatioin in which I see him applying our troops is to combat issues in Africa
Click to expand...

This would not surprise me, but we don't have the troops right now. We set up AFRICOM for a reason.

I think before we get into Africa, we have to pull out of Iraq first.

It will have to be something he does in his 2nd term---if elected.
 
kansaswhig said:
This would not surprise me, but we don't have the troops right now. We set up AFRICOM for a reason.

I think before we get into Africa, we have to pull out of Iraq first.

It will have to be something he does in his 2nd term---if elected.
Click to expand...

Very true, here ... he might be a pacifist to some degree but he's not an idiot. . . eventhough some contend that they go hand in hand.
 
kansaswhig said:
I think sanctions would be pretty fruitless against AFG.

Listen, I don't have a dog in the fight, ideologically like y'all. But I would be shocked if any President didn't seek military action after 9/11. The country wouldn't have stood for it.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly I'm not shocked about anything our government does. No matter who is president. And I do think that the country would have stood for it. What could the country have done otherwise? Vote em out? Big whoop. By then it would have been a moot point.
 
Useless question.
 
For a response just like that, when I got out of the shower and made my coffee, yum yum.

Alright. Firstly, his foreign policy identity for a political leader was created in the aftermath of 9/11 and Bush's response to it. I would question anyone's judgment that we know sufficiently of his pre-9/11 ideology, furthermore if the man could have been seen in a decision-making capacity to begin with.

Second, history happened, and that was that, and I'm not much for science fiction.

Third, Gore would have perhaps been a better candidate for the question, but again, science fiction.
 
Fiddytree said:
Alright. Firstly, his foreign policy identity for a political leader was created in the aftermath of 9/11 and Bush's response to it. I would question anyone's judgment that we know sufficiently of his pre-9/11 ideology, furthermore if the man could have been seen in a decision-making capacity to begin with.
Click to expand...

The man he was before 9/11 is the same as the man in office today. All ya need to do is do a little bit of research.

Fiddytree said:
Second, history happened, and that was that, and I'm not much for science fiction.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Fiddytree said:
Third, Gore would have perhaps been a better candidate for the question, but again, science fiction.
Click to expand...

Gore imo would have been stupid for this question. Just like his video about GW.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The man he was before 9/11 is the same as the man in office today. All ya need to do is do a little bit of research.



Fair enough.



Gore imo would have been stupid for this question. Just like his video about GW.
Click to expand...

What basis do we have for that idea? Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate at the time, if I am not mistaken, nearly completely if not completely concentrated for domestic policy. Second of all, his foreign policy outlook only really started becoming fleshed out at around the time of the Iraq war regarding the Iraq war. Third of all, Obama was not plugged into the decision-making process with foreign affairs at around that time. Fourth, it's presumptuous to argue that once, if we even knew where he stood at such a time on what to do and to what degree (I'm skeptical), we could somehow translate that into the hypothetical situation of him being thrown into the hot seat at that moment and be able to figure out what they would do.

The most I could think of was if we wanted to look at his advisers, it is possible that a Clintonian (?) identity would flesh out, where they would limit the response to strikes. But again, was the response a given for the political environment, making it difficult to approach the reaction to 9/11 in a more traditional way of dealing with terrorism, the way the Clinton administration dealt with it? For a historical perspective, it's far too early to really begin to flesh that idea out, and from another interpretation of the study of history, it is entirely possible (an approach that I am more willing to support) that such an examination would lead scholars nowhere-leaving with their hands in the air, much more willing to accept what happened and move on.
 
Last edited:
I think so...No matter who the President in Charge in Afghanistan, I guess U.S . would still attacked them. I guess its the matter of fighting for what you believe is right :)
 
Elena said:
Conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Not really. Probably just not accurate information. At the highest echelons, I'm sure some operational plans were discussed. I'd be surprised if 9/11 was, in detail, just because of the sensitive nature of the timing necessary, etc.
 
kansaswhig said:
Not really. Probably just not accurate information. At the highest echelons, I'm sure some operational plans were discussed. I'd be surprised if 9/11 was, in detail, just because of the sensitive nature of the timing necessary, etc.
Click to expand...

Once again, 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.
 
Agent Ferris said:
You're a joke, it's not a theory it's a fact, AQ was a part of the Taliban government, you have no rebuttal for the points raised, thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

What points? What facts?

You did not have an investigation into the biggest single mass murder since 1950-s! You still have NOTHING, no evidence at all, to tie OBL or Taliban to 9/11. Have you read your official report into the crime? "Cross my heart and hope to die" from CIA and assorted Bushmen is NOT an evidence!

In fact, all we have is two conspiracy theories: one official, the other unofficial.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Once again, 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.
Click to expand...

No doubt the Taliban was as responsible as AQ for their actions. They were implicit in them because they harbored them. The only point I'm making is that AQ was ultra-secretive about 9/11 (as you can imagine) and I'd be surprised if average Joe Taliban knew about it.
 
kansaswhig said:
No doubt the Taliban was as responsible as AQ for their actions. They were implicit in them because they harbored them. The only point I'm making is that AQ was ultra-secretive about 9/11 (as you can imagine) and I'd be surprised if average Joe Taliban knew about it.
Click to expand...

Now why do the modern whigs use an owl?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom