Question for Obama Supporters (not really political)

From his website:

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

16 months, not 6 sorry.

Awesome the sooner the better.

[spartan]

That still does not address that when he is President he will either not be so fervent in getting the troops out of Iraq or he lied to the Iraqi Foreign Minister. Sounds a bit like the Dems election promises last year. This raises no questions?

[ufojoe]

That still does not address that when he is President he will either not be so fervent in getting the troops out of Iraq or he lied to the Iraqi Foreign Minister. Sounds a bit like the Dems election promises last year. This raises no questions?

It's politics. Nothing is different.

Any time somebody on here disagrees with a Bush policy, you chalk it up to hatred of Bush. And yet, I have yet
to see you go after McCain as you go after Obama or any Ds. Seems like you're doing the same thing that you
accuse others of doing. Not out of hatred but out of allegiance to the party that you support.

I have seen others on this board go after both sides (R & D) because they realize both sides are corrupt and the
system is broken. You seem to cling to the "R is better" delusion. Show me that I'm wrong. Show me your tough
criticism of McCain or any strong positive, statements you've made about Obama.

It's very possible that I just missed it.

[spartan]

Maybe, but this is a thread about Obama is it not? No reason to go off on McCain.

I am not going to search through hundreds of posts, a quick search only showed that I voted against McCain in the Primary. Therefore I will go on record here and now with my thoughts on him.

I quite like him as a person from what I have seen. He is OK as a politician. I do not like his involvement in the likes of Immigration reform or McCain/Finegold. I like his bee about pork spending and I think he would be tough against Islamic terrorists. I don't think he would be my first, second or 3rd choice for candidate but I will pinch my noise and vote for him because IMO he is a far better than the alternative, which really isn't much of a recommendation.

[ufojoe]

Then vote for Barr!

Barr is not my favorite either but he is better than these two, IMO. And if enough people just said, "Screw it,
we're not voting for the two party guys," Barr would win.

But we all know it's not going to happen. I've given up hope for 2008.

Then vote for Barr!

Barr is not my favorite either but he is better than these two, IMO. And if enough people just said, "Screw it,
we're not voting for the two party guys," Barr would win.

But we all know it's not going to happen. I've given up hope for 2008.

I've given up hope since 01.

[spartan]

Bob Barr's major failing is that he would wait until America is attacked before responding in any kind. Fine in theory but when NY goes 'poof' it's a bit late to start having a policy review.

[alldaway]

Bob Barr's major failing is that he would wait until America is attacked before responding in any kind. Fine in theory but when NY goes 'poof' it's a bit late to start having a policy review.

America won WWII did it not?

America won the first Gulf War no?

Did America win Vietnam?  How about the Gulf War II aka Iraq war?

Afghanistan is a question mark.

Leave the pre-emptive strikes to the CIA not to the U.S. military.

[spartan]

Bob Barr's major failing is that he would wait until America is attacked before responding in any kind. Fine in theory but when NY goes 'poof' it's a bit late to start having a policy review.

America won WWII did it not?

America won the first Gulf War no?

Did America win Vietnam?  How about the Gulf War II aka Iraq war?

Afghanistan is a question mark.

Leave the pre-emptive strikes to the CIA not to the U.S. military.

Not equitable, I'm, sorry. It was a sad day that 2,388 died on Pearl Harbor that dragged the USA into WWII, but that pales into comparison to how many would die if a Nuclear device would be set off in New York, Washington DC etf. You can accuse me of paranoia if you must, but you have, for example, an inherently unstable country like Pakistan, who has nuclear weapons, Harbors Bin Laden and tell me that it is not possible? We know Al Qaeda would love to do it if they could, so it is not really a case of if, but when.

[BucsBullsBolts]

Bob Barr's major failing is that he would wait until America is attacked before responding in any kind. Fine in theory but when NY goes 'poof' it's a bit late to start having a policy review.

America won WWII did it not?

America won the first Gulf War no?

Did America win Vietnam?  How about the Gulf War II aka Iraq war?

Afghanistan is a question mark.

Leave the pre-emptive strikes to the CIA not to the U.S. military.

Not equitable, I'm, sorry. It was a sad day that 2,388 died on Pearl Harbor that dragged the USA into WWII, but that pales into comparison to how many would die if a Nuclear device would be set off in New York, Washington DC etf. You can accuse me of paranoia if you must, but you have, for example, an inherently unstable country like Pakistan, who has nuclear weapons, Harbors Bin Laden and tell me that it is not possible? We know Al Qaeda would love to do it if they could, so it is not really a case of if, but when.

So, you're saying we should pre-emptively attack Pakistan?

[alldaway]

Bob Barr's major failing is that he would wait until America is attacked before responding in any kind. Fine in theory but when NY goes 'poof' it's a bit late to start having a policy review.

America won WWII did it not?

America won the first Gulf War no?

Did America win Vietnam?  How about the Gulf War II aka Iraq war?

Afghanistan is a question mark.

Leave the pre-emptive strikes to the CIA not to the U.S. military.

Not equitable, I'm, sorry. It was a sad day that 2,388 died on Pearl Harbor that dragged the USA into WWII, but that pales into comparison to how many would die if a Nuclear device would be set off in New York, Washington DC etf. You can accuse me of paranoia if you must, but you have, for example, an inherently unstable country like Pakistan, who has nuclear weapons, Harbors Bin Laden and tell me that it is not possible? We know Al Qaeda would love to do it if they could, so it is not really a case of if, but when.

So, you're saying we should pre-emptively attack Pakistan?

I did not realize Spartan was an Obama fan.

Nukes from rogue nations have been floating around for a long time (It has been nearly 20 years since the fall of U.S.S.R.)  Why hasn't the U.S. been nuked up to this point?  Thank the CIA not the US military for that reality becuase ultimately human intelligence trumps invading a country and then having to put boots on the ground when it comes to detering rogue nukes.  Ironically the poor human intelligence is what led us on a wild goose chase in Iraq looking for those WMD's.

Without the CIA the U.S. would have been nuked by now but unfortunately many want to fault them for the debacle the past few years.

Pre-emptive military strikes simply forces you often times to devote more resources than necessary and on your own often times without the aid of your allies.