Nostra'Obama'us

[jreeves]

Obama calls Iraq war a 'dangerous distraction' - CNN.com
Sen. Barack Obama called the war in Iraq a "dangerous distraction" Tuesday and said more emphasis must be placed on the battle in Afghanistan.

"As should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. [John] McCain, the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was," Obama said in what his campaign called a major policy address on Iraq, Afghanistan and national security.

Obama said that part of his new strategy will be "taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Shortly after Obama's speech, McCain attacked the Illinois senator's opposition to the surge policy in Iraq and highlighted his own proposal for victory in Afghanistan. Read what McCain says about Obama's plan

"Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to Gen. [David] Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time," McCain said.

"In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First, you assess the facts on the ground; then you present a new strategy."

Not only does Obama speak well, he can see into the future. With his telepathic abilities he was able to ascertain exactly what he will find in Iraq and Afgan. then he promptly laid out his Iraq and Afgan. plan.

 

[Chris]

Obama calls Iraq war a 'dangerous distraction' - CNN.com
Sen. Barack Obama called the war in Iraq a "dangerous distraction" Tuesday and said more emphasis must be placed on the battle in Afghanistan.

"As should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. [John] McCain, the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was," Obama said in what his campaign called a major policy address on Iraq, Afghanistan and national security.

Obama said that part of his new strategy will be "taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Shortly after Obama's speech, McCain attacked the Illinois senator's opposition to the surge policy in Iraq and highlighted his own proposal for victory in Afghanistan. Read what McCain says about Obama's plan

"Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to Gen. [David] Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time," McCain said.

"In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First, you assess the facts on the ground; then you present a new strategy."

Not only does Obama speak well, he can see into the future. With his telepathic abilities he was able to ascertain exactly what he will find in Iraq and Afgan. then he promptly laid out his Iraq and Afgan. plan.

Obama understated the case. He's too nice.

The invasion of Iraq is the second biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.

4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded and $700 billion dollars wasted in order to set up a Shia government allied with Iran.

 

[jreeves]

Obama calls Iraq war a 'dangerous distraction' - CNN.com
Sen. Barack Obama called the war in Iraq a "dangerous distraction" Tuesday and said more emphasis must be placed on the battle in Afghanistan.

"As should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. [John] McCain, the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was," Obama said in what his campaign called a major policy address on Iraq, Afghanistan and national security.

Obama said that part of his new strategy will be "taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Shortly after Obama's speech, McCain attacked the Illinois senator's opposition to the surge policy in Iraq and highlighted his own proposal for victory in Afghanistan. Read what McCain says about Obama's plan

"Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to Gen. [David] Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time," McCain said.

"In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First, you assess the facts on the ground; then you present a new strategy."

Not only does Obama speak well, he can see into the future. With his telepathic abilities he was able to ascertain exactly what he will find in Iraq and Afgan. then he promptly laid out his Iraq and Afgan. plan.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urU04hlHJYU]YouTube - Obama on Iraq[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY7wapoOzMw]YouTube - Obama on Iraq[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRcZzr5pBVY]YouTube - Obama on Iraq Troop Withdrawal[/ame]


Wee, can you guess what I am really going to do....Obama

 

[jreeves]

Obama understated the case. He's too nice.

The invasion of Iraq is the second biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.

4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded and $700 billion dollars wasted in order to set up a Shia government allied with Iran.

But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, warned the consequences of American defeat in Iraq would be terrible and long-lasting.

"There is in some corners a belief that we can simply turn the page in Iraq, come home, and move on to other things. This is dangerously wrong. If we surrender in Iraq, we will be back," he said.

McCain then asked Petraeus to confirm reports that he said Iraq was the central front in the war on terror.

"Is that a correct quote?" McCain asked.

"That is correct, sir," Petraeus replied, saying his view was based on his conversations with the director of the CIA and other officials.

Iraq is now the central front on the war on terror, general says - CNN.com


Whether or not it was wrong to go into Iraq won't change what would happen if we withdraw troops prematurely.


But that does seem to be Obama's Iraq war plan, we should have never went in the first place. Question to Obama, What will happen if we withdraw troops before Iraq is able to shoulder all of it's own security? Obama answers well should've never went in the first place.

What should we do in the future in Iraq, Obama? Obama answers, we should have never went in the first place.....Lol

 

[Jon]

Obama's view on Iraq is fucked, just like his view on everything else.

I promise you, if I had been a Senator at the time of the vote for military action against Iraq, I would have voted in favor of it, just like practically every politician did. Yes, it would have been a mistake, a mistake based on false information. But, they didn't know the information was false. They trusted the experts. Shit happens. Now fix it.

But Obama can't fix it, and he doesn't know how to fix it. All he can say is he wouldn't have made that mistake. Well, personally, that's one more reason I don't want him in office. If advisors told him that Iraq had nuclear capabilities and he did nothing about it, he's a fucked up President to begin with.

 

[Gunny]

Obama's view on Iraq is fucked, just like his view on everything else.

I promise you, if I had been a Senator at the time of the vote for military action against Iraq, I would have voted in favor of it, just like practically every politician did. Yes, it would have been a mistake, a mistake based on false information. But, they didn't know the information was false. They trusted the experts. Shit happens. Now fix it.

But Obama can't fix it, and he doesn't know how to fix it. All he can say is he wouldn't have made that mistake. Well, personally, that's one more reason I don't want him in office. If advisors told him that Iraq had nuclear capabilities and he did nothing about it, he's a fucked up President to begin with.

On this we disagree. Whether or not Saddam had nuclear capabilities is irrelevent. The reason was WMDs -- nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. We KNOW FOR A FACT he had the latter two.

From a strategic POV, removing Saddam Hussein from power was the wrong decision. He was the joker in the deck that sat between Sunni Arabs and Shia Persians and kept the ME off balance.

People who were actually educated on the topic knew that in 1991. It's why we didn't get to chase his ass all the way to Baghdad; which, at the time, I was more than willing personally to do.

Opening a second front prior to securing completely the first front without it being an absolute necessity is also piss-poor strategy.

I'm not saying the justification did not exist to take Saddam out. Obviously, despite all attempts to make it look like the justification didn't exist, it did. However, big-picture-wise, from a strategic POV, I think invading was the wrong decision.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

On this we disagree. Whether or not Saddam had nuclear capabilities is irrelevent. The reason was WMDs -- nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. We KNOW FOR A FACT he had the latter two.

From a strategic POV, removing Saddam Hussein from power was the wrong decision. He was the joker in the deck that sat between Sunni Arabs and Shia Persians and kept the ME off balance.

People who were actually educated on the topic knew that in 1991. It's why we didn't get to chase his ass all the way to Baghdad; which, at the time, I was more than willing personally to do.

Opening a second front prior to securing completely the first front without it being an absolute necessity is also piss-poor strategy.

I'm not saying the justification did not exist to take Saddam out. Obviously, despite all attempts to make it look like the justification didn't exist, it did. However, big-picture-wise, from a strategic POV, I think invading was the wrong decision.

And all that is POINTLESS. We DID invade, we can not change that, we can not undo it, we can not wish it away. Once we went the argument about whether we should have or not became moot.

We can not just pack up and leave or it will be worse very quickly and we WILL be back doing it all again or we will be losing our way of life as the oil stops flowing. Not just in Iraq but the entire Middle East. What do you think happens if Iran has control of all the oil in the Middle East?

If the Iraqis can take control 100 percent by the end of year this will be moot also, BUT until they successfully do that, talk of pulling out has to be based off that goal.

 

[Gunny]

And all that is POINTLESS. We DID invade, we can not change that, we can not undo it, we can not wish it away. Once we went the argument about whether we should have or not became moot.

We can not just pack up and leave or it will be worse very quickly and we WILL be back doing it all again or we will be losing our way of life as the oil stops flowing. Not just in Iraq but the entire Middle East. What do you think happens if Iran has control of all the oil in the Middle East?

If the Iraqis can take control 100 percent by the end of year this will be moot also, BUT until they successfully do that, talk of pulling out has to be based off that goal.

I am well-aware we did invade. You have not once seen any post from me advocating we just quit before the job is finished. I've bitched about excutiatingly slow the wheels of the Iraq government turn in assuming the role and responsibility for the security of the their own nation.

My previous comment solely concerned the decision to invade.

I disagree, however, that it is pointless. Errors in judgement were made. we're repeating a mistake from our not so distant past. One we thought we learned our lesson from.

I'd say recognizing THAT is not pointless.

 

[Jeepers]

OUch.. Me thinks your onto something...Nostra'Obama'us indeed...

Against Going to War with Iraq (2002)by Barack Obama

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

 

[Wow]

OUch.. Me thinks your onto something...Nostra'Obama'us indeed...

Against Going to War with Iraq (2002)by Barack Obama

Considering the fact the UN occupied Iraq for 12 years and killed 500,000 Iraqis, I understand why the Iraqis are thankful for Bush removing the UN/Al Qaida.

Clearly, Obama wanted to promote the Clinton/UN oil for food scam and the killing of the Iraqi people.

Obama is either one dumb moron or he is a killer.

 

[Jeepers]

Considering the fact the UN occupied Iraq for 12 years and killed 500,000 Iraqis, I understand why the Iraqis are thankful for Bush removing the UN/Al Qaida.

Clearly, Obama wanted to promote the Clinton/UN oil for food scam and the killing of the Iraqi people.

Obama is either one dumb moron or he is a killer.

You forgot to link Obama to the Lindberg baby kidnapping... run along and play now little one...

 

[Wow]

You forgot to link Obama to the Lindberg baby kidnapping... run along and play now little one...

So, you admit Obama is an international moron!

The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986)[1] and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military.

The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. The sanctions were discontinued on November 21, 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the humanitarian functions turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority
While Benon Sevan was in charge of the programme, he stonewalled efforts to review and investigate the programme. [4] He ordered his staff that complaints about illegal payoffs should be formally filed with the whistleblower's country, making them public and allowing Iraq to bar any whistleblowers. In 2000, Dileep Nair, the UN corruption watchdog, wanted to determine the programme's level of vulnerability. Sevan, along with UN Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette, rejected any such investigation, claiming that it would be too expensive to be worthwhile. Sevan ordered the shredding of years' worth of documents concerning the programme.
In response to these criticisms, and to evidence acquired after the United States invasion of Iraq, UN Secretary-General ] accusations were made that skimmed profits were being used to buy influence at the UN and with Kofi Annan himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme

 

[Jeepers]

What does that have to do with Obama again.. remind me please there Nancy...

 

[jreeves]

OUch.. Me thinks your onto something...Nostra'Obama'us indeed...

Against Going to War with Iraq (2002)by Barack Obama

Yep and that's his Iraq plan right.....

We should have never gone in the first place. Well that answer won't stop serious consquences to our national interests if Obama withdraws troops in 16 months regardless of what is going on in Iraq....

 

[Chris]

Yep and that's his Iraq plan right.....

We should have never gone in the first place. Well that answer won't stop serious consquences to our national interests if Obama withdraws troops in 16 months regardless of what is going on in Iraq....

I can hardly wait till we withdraw.

I don't see how setting up a Shia government allied with Iran is in our "national interest."

 

[jreeves]

Yep and that's his Iraq plan right.....

We should have never gone in the first place. Well that answer won't stop serious consquences to our national interests if Obama withdraws troops in 16 months regardless of what is going on in Iraq....

A Barack Iraq documentary.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM&feature=user]YouTube - The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand[/ame]

 

[jreeves]

I can hardly wait till we withdraw.

I don't see how setting up a Shia government allied with Iran is in our "national interest."

I suppose you see a civil war as benefical to our national interests, in the powderkeg that is the Middle East....

 

[Charles_Main]

I forgot had Barrack even been to Iraq yet.

Freaking pathetic.

 

[Chris]

I forgot had Barrack even been to Iraq yet.

Freaking pathetic.

I forgot had Barrack even been to Iraq yet?

Have you had your morning coffee yet?

 

[Chris]

I suppose you see a civil war as benefical to our national interests, in the powderkeg that is the Middle East....

Who cares?

It's not our country. If we leave it will be Iran's problem.