What debate advice would you give the candidates?

[WillowTree]

McCain should just look Obamalama in the eye, wink, and say "We'll call ya if we need ya."

 

[doeton]

I want my surgeon, pilot, and President to have at least 20/20 vision, not be senile and on the verge of death...

 

[Silence]

You are. And an idiot, besides. You think life is worthless and enjoy freedom on the blood of others, while pretending that freedom isn't something worth fighting for.

Drop you down in the middle of Afghanistan for a year, and I imagine your concept of what's worth fighting for and what isn't would change, you sheltered anti-American piece of shit.

you are one of those morons who thinks that going to war makes us more free....that's kind of pathetic albeit amusing at the same time.

we aren't fighting in Afghanistan the way we should be you retarded douchebag...THAT is Obama's point! of course you miss that you just made Obama's case for him I suppose

 

[busara]

He doesn't have to back it up, I did it. If you want private conversation, get his e-mail or pm him.

Who gives a shit about UN thugs?
Besides which, we said we'd go in without their support, but they supported us in the end.

Honestly, read up. Start with my post right above your post where our reasons for going into war are listed pretty coherently.

try doing some reading comprehension. i said i was seeing if he had any real answers. he was stupidly repeating "they had nukes. obama is against all wars." so i was showing holes to see if he was able to actually answer. due to his lack of response, it doesnt look like he can. and i didnt say he still needed to answer. just complained that you answered for him. get it?

and our first time in iraq we went with the UN. but who cares, right?

 

[Navy1960]

When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards’ votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’


“On Iraq, on paper, there’s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]


“the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff’s desire to continually provide fresh news clips.” Obama in 2007 about his website making reference to his 2002 anit-war speech.

"a premature troop withdrawal as a "slap in the face to the troops fighting there" which could make Iraq "an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity." Barack Obama 2004

"America cannot afford to withdraw immediately" Barack Obama 2004

"Given the situation on the ground, I think if we had our troops out in four years, that would be an extraordinary accomplishment," Barack Obama 2007

You want me to keep going? , Barack Obama is constantly portrayed as this man who after his speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago in 2002 uttered his belief that to invade Iraq would be wrong , even though it tool some convincing from the organizers to get him to make that commitment. However, what people don't seem to understand here is Barack Obama was a NOT in the US congress at the time and the vote on the War was supported by all these now so called democratic members who deny their own votes on the Joint Resolution to go to War. However, Barack Obama as I have shown is less than consistant on this topic to be sure, his position has changed so many times its hard to keep up with it. It was 2008, back in 2006, then it was 2009, Now its I am giving my commanders a new mission to get out of Iraq but it depends on the situation on the ground, the last one sounds familier.

 

[Missourian]

We know because he tested them on his own people.

This requires repeating. Saddam had showed zero restraint in using chemical weapons on both enemy and civilian populations.

Plus Iraq had been in a constant state of war for nearly a decade.

Then Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait with no provocation.

The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period March 16–17, 1988, during the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons (CW) were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja, killing thousands of people, most of them civilians (3,200-5,000 dead on the spot and 7,000-10,000 injured[1]). Thousands more died of horrific complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[2]

The incident, which Human Rights Watch (HRW) defined as an act of genocide, was as of 2008 the largest-scale chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.

 

[jillian]

This requires repeating. Saddam had showed zero restraint in using chemical weapons on both enemy and civilian populations.

Plus Iraq had been in a constant state of war for nearly a decade.

Then Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait with no provocation.

Has anyone ever said Saddam was a good guy.

And guess who gave him the chemicals...

 

[AllieBaba]

And after we thrashed him, he agreed to allow inspections, he agreed to halt and desist aggressive action, he agreed to NOT develop nuclear and WMD.

Then he wouldn't let us inspect, and said he'd shoot down planes flying over Iraq.

Iraq is a more stable place today, it's own people are safer and happier, we're safer and happier...and they will prove INVALUABLE to cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan.

Which may or may not be cleaned up, depending on how interested Russia still is in Afghanistan.

 

[Silence]

Has anyone ever said Saddam was a good guy.

And guess who gave him the chemicals...

 

[AllieBaba]

Has anyone ever said Saddam was a good guy.

And guess who gave him the chemicals...

Nice way to try to derail the thread, but the discussion wasn't about what sort of guy Saddam was but whether or not we should go to war.

You think we should have just let him run rampant....

But obviously he was a threat and the war was justified, and our maintained presence there is justified until Iraq actually wants us to go and feels strong enough to stand alone. Except now they will be our ally, and we will be theirs...so they will never be alone again.

 

[jillian]

Nice way to try to derail the thread, but the discussion wasn't about what sort of guy Saddam was but whether or not we should go to war.

You think we should have just let him run rampant....

But obviously he was a threat and the war was justified, and our maintained presence there is justified until Iraq actually wants us to go and feels strong enough to stand alone. Except now they will be our ally, and we will be theirs...so they will never be alone again.

You're the thread police now?

This WAS the topic, genius.

Now, please... go whine again.

 

[Shogun]

It's not derailing the thread to respond to criticisms of Obama regarding attacking Iran in light of the last time we heard the same bullshit. You silly bastards still have a blck eye for your phantom WMDs. Indeed, let THAT topic come up tonight....

 

[Missourian]

Has anyone ever said Saddam was a good guy.

And guess who gave him the chemicals...

Do you have a link to support that?

 

[WillowTree]

I want my surgeon, pilot, and President to have at least 20/20 vision, not be senile and on the verge of death...

you are so obviously stupid. No way you can guarantee Obama will live any more than you can gurantee that McCain would die.

 

[user_name_guest]

People are forgetting the Saddam didn't play by the rules that he signed after the first Persian Gulf Wars. Why kick out the weapons inspectors? He didn't have that authority. He lost the war. He didn't win so he doesn't get any kind of leverage. By kicking out the weapons inspectors, by failing to leave the country when asked by Bush, by giving the impression that he has it and the United States won't attack, Saddam was one ego that couldn't let go. Now he's dead. We shouldn't never occupied Iraq. Are job was to get rid of Saddam and his government. Not install a government with protection of our troops. Maybe we can send Bush as an ambassador to Iraq after he's kicked out of the White House.

 

[busara]

Maybe we can send Bush as an ambassador to Iraq after he's kicked out of the White House.

haha, that thought made me chuckle

 

[Shogun]

you are so obviously stupid. No way you can guarantee Obama will live any more than you can gurantee that McCain would die.

oh I know.. men in their 70s generally do keel off more than dudes in their 40s!

 

[Silence]

you are so obviously stupid. No way you can guarantee Obama will live any more than you can gurantee that McCain would die.

you're right willow...but if Obama dies we get Joe Biden a man with many years of experience and chairman of the Foreign relations committee as President...if McCain dies we get Sarah Palin, moose hunter and gov of a state smaller than my county...

I think that makes the choice much more obvious....

 

[KittenKoder]

Since tonight's debate is about FOREIGN POLICY, I don't think the economy really comes into play.

If Obama focuses any attention on Palin, he'll simply prove the fact that he's better suited for running against the Republican's VP candidate and not their Presidential candidate - one of the many reasons they chose Palin.

While I don't think she realized that, the economy IS important to foreign policy, considering we owe a LOT of money to foreign banks and governments.

 

[KittenKoder]

You're the thread police now?

This WAS the topic, genius.

Now, please... go whine again.

Allie does that when faced with fact ....