Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Kaw1000 on September 28, 2008, 10:46:51 AM
-
I don't know if you guys caught the part of the debate when Obama said
he would attack Pakistan. McCain reprimanded him and said"you don't say that kind
of thing in public" You could tell McCain was very upset by that comment.
Kinda like a father correcting his son for saying the wrong thing.
-
I don't know if you guys caught the part of the debate when Obama said
he would attack Pakistan. McCain reprimanded him and said"you don't say that kind
of thing in public" You could tell McCain was very upset by that comment.
Kinda like a father correcting his son for saying the wrong thing.
No McCain "claimed" Obama said he would attack Pakistan. However in case you haven't been watching the news, we are already attacking Pakistan under Bush.
What Obama said, was if we had reports on where say bin Laden was, and if Pakistan was unwilling or couldn't attack him, we would attack our selves. McCain tries to construe that as Obama saying he will go attack the Pakistan govt, which is nothing more than another BS claim by McCain.
Obama simply said he would do what Bush is doing now. He said he would willingly hit a target if it was identified even without corporation of Pakistan, which is exactly what we should do. Do you not remember all the flack you Republicans gave Clinton because he didn't take the opportunity to kill bin Laden by making a strike inside another country? Are you now saying what he did was right?
Even Palin seems to agree with Obama & Bush on this.. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/27/politics/fromtheroad/entry4483110.shtml
This is another point where McCain is full of it. McCain also said he would stop giving money to country's that don't like us.. Yet he turns around and still wants to give Pakistan aid money while they are shooting at our troops and not working with us on these groups that are crossing the boarder and attacking us.
-
like when Don Corleone told his son, "you don't talk family business in front of strangers"
-
like when Don Corleone told his son, "you don't talk family business in front of strangers"
It's nothing that hasn't been said or done in the past. It's just McCain trying to make a issue of something that has already and is still happening. We are already doing attacks inside Pakistan and we should have been doing them the min Pakistan started showing they werent working with us.
-
Obama simply said he would do what Bush is doing now.
obama would never ever say he would do what bush is doing, bush is the devil doncha know, and obama is the savior of the world.
-
obama would never ever say he would do what bush is doing, bush is the devil doncha know, and obama is the savior of the world.
No Bush has fumbled both wars and mismanaged them from the start, he didn't actually start doing things right until this last year. In fact Bush fired most of the Generals who told him what he should have been doing from the start, because it didn't fit his agenda. It's quite ironic, that he's now doing what he was told to do at the start and gee guess what it seems to be working.
It's just too bad we had to wait 5 years for Bush to figure out what his Generals at the start already knew. Hell maybe it really could have been Mission Accomplished a few years ago had he done what they suggested.
-
what are you saying, McCain was right about the surge in Iraq, and obama was wrong?
-
No McCain "claimed" Obama said he would attack Pakistan. However in case you haven't been watching the news, we are already attacking Pakistan under Bush.
What Obama said, was if we had reports on where say bin Laden was, and if Pakistan was unwilling or couldn't attack him, we would attack our selves. McCain tries to construe that as Obama saying he will go attack the Pakistan govt, which is nothing more than another BS claim by McCain.
Obama simply said he would do what Bush is doing now. He said he would willingly hit a target if it was identified even without corporation of Pakistan, which is exactly what we should do. Do you not remember all the flack you Republicans gave Clinton because he didn't take the opportunity to kill bin Laden by making a strike inside another country? Are you now saying what he did was right?
Even Palin seems to agree with Obama & Bush on this.. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/27/politics/fromtheroad/entry4483110.shtml
This is another point where McCain is full of it. McCain also said he would stop giving money to country's that don't like us.. Yet he turns around and still wants to give Pakistan aid money while they are shooting at our troops and not working with us on these groups that are crossing the boarder and attacking us.
Crockett,
You are spinning this to defend Obama's ignorance. Let's go back to what was said by Obama:
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
8/1/2007
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801
Even if you think something like that, you just do not say that on national television where everyone gets a chance to see it. He flat out told a people in Pakistan that we have no respect for your national sovereignty and we will attack you if we see fit.
That's the type of rhetoric that gets Al Quaida there recruits.
That's the type of rhetoric that gets Pakistan controlled by a Islamo-facist group like Iran. Guess what, Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Ya know an even funnier thing, even your girl Hillary agreed with Senator McCain's and my statement.
"You can think big but remember you shouldn't always say everything you think when you're running for president because it could have consequences across the world and we don't need that right now," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
8/7/2007
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html
Furthermore, what is happening under Bush is irrelevant. We are choosing a candidate to replace him, and hopefully that candidate will do a better job and understand the implications of opening their mouth and saying the wrong thing.
You need to get your facts straight. Obama said something stupid. McCain called him on it and was right.
-
what are you saying, McCain was right about the surge in Iraq, and obama was wrong?
I've never said more troops weren't the answer in Iraq, we have needed more troops there from the start just like we did in the past. However myself and just like Obama's position I would never support more troops under the Bush admin's past mismanagement since that war started. Up until that point the war had been totally mismanaged and I don't blame Obama one bit for not supporting the surge. Obama made the right decision based on the past Actions of the Bush admin.
Bush and Co hadn't shown that they would accomplish anything with the surge from their past actions. So how could anyone support tossing more American lives into a war that was mismanaged? I'd also go as far as to say while the surge has worked it's also been a lot to do with the fact we are paying off the insurgents. Had we not started paying them off then I'm quite sure the surge would have had a much tougher time.
That also brings up a point of what happens when we stop spreading the green around? Surge or no surge I'm quite certain they will go back to fighting unless significant progress is made.
I have no issues with saying Bush finally got his act together in Iraq and "seems" to be pulling his head out of his arus in Afghanistan as well. It's just too bad it took him 5 years and many American soldier's lives to do it. It is quite ironic that he only managed to get with the program as a last ditch attempt to right his past mistakes before he leaves office.
Are you going to say Bush is wrong for doing cross boarder attacks in Afghanistan, being Pakistan has shown they weren't willing to do it? Do you think McCain is wrong for wanting to still give Pakistan military aid money when they have dropped the ball and won't do what they agreed to do? Are you going to say that Obama shouldn't take a shot at high level terrorist if we have intel on where they are at, even if it's with in Pakistan?
-
Crockett,
You are spinning this to defend Obama's ignorance. Let's go back to what was said by Obama:
8/1/2007
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801
Even if you think something like that, you just do not say that on national television where everyone gets a chance to see it. He flat out told a people in Pakistan that we have no respect for your national sovereignty and we will attack you if we see fit.
That's the type of rhetoric that gets Al Quaida there recruits.
That's the type of rhetoric that gets Pakistan controlled by a Islamo-facist group like Iran. Guess what, Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Ya know an even funnier thing, even your girl Hillary agreed with Senator McCain's and my statement.
8/7/2007
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sparks-fly-over.html
Furthermore, what is happening under Bush is irrelevant. We are choosing a candidate to replace him, and hopefully that candidate will do a better job and understand the implications of opening their mouth and saying the wrong thing.
You need to get your facts straight. Obama said something stupid. McCain called him on it and was right.
Dude, they already know we will do it. We already have done it.. Saying it on TV makes little to no difference, we have already acted on and done exactly what Obama has said he would continue to do. They already know we will do it, Obama just made it perfectly clear that he would continue to do so if the situation called for it.
You support what he said, but you are complaining because he said it in public? lol that's almost silly TBH. What facts don't I have straight? Obama said what I said he did. He didn't say anything about attacking Pakistan Govt as McCain tries to elude too. He said he would hit terrorist targets if the need arises.
Again you are crying that he said something in public that about continuing actions that have already been plastered all over the news. Why don't you go cry to CNN or Fox news about reporting on US troops doing cross boarder attacks? You are really grasping at straws with this one and you should really be thinking of McCain line of thought which seems to be allow them to cross the boarder and attack us then run away to the safety line with the security of not being attacked across the boarder.
Oh and Hillary has never been "my girl' I dunno where you pulled that one from.
-
He flat out told a people in Pakistan that we have no respect for your national sovereignty and we will attack you if we see fit.
Oh, the irony! :P
-
Dude, they already know we will do it. We already have done it.. Saying it on TV makes little to no difference, we have already acted on and done exactly what Obama has said he would continue to do. They already know we will do it, Obama just made it perfectly clear that he would continue to do so if the situation called for it.
You support what he said, but you are complaining because he said it in public? lol that's almost silly TBH. What facts don't I have straight? Obama said what I said he did. He didn't say anything about attacking Pakistan Govt as McCain tries to elude too. He said he would hit terrorist targets if the need arises.
Again you are crying that he said something in public that about continuing actions that have already been plastered all over the news. Why don't you go cry to CNN or Fox news about reporting on US troops doing cross boarder attacks? You are really grasping at straws with this one and you should really be thinking of McCain line of thought which seems to be allow them to cross the boarder and attack us then run away to the safety line with the security of not being attacked across the boarder.
Oh and Hillary has never been "my girl' I dunno where you pulled that one from.
In the past when Musharraf was President of Pakistan, we had permission to operate inside Pakistan. Since his removal from office, we now are faced with a President of Pakistan that is no longer friendly towards us, because he is naive. Naive in that he does not understand the level at which his own military is infiltrated by terrorists.
What you say and how you say it on the world stage means an awful lot.
I have never heard McCain say we were going to attack Pakistan whenever we felt like it was prudent. I did hear Obama say that. The world watches what is going on in these debates and past. Obama's lack of thought in an attempt to get votes WILL cost cooperation and lives in the future.
Grasping for straws you say? Look in the mirror.
-
Oh, the irony! :P
Again, voting for a new President. Anything useful to contribute with?
-
To take this one step further McCain's idea of say one thing in public and do another behind the scenes is exactly what has gotten this country into the problems with these religious fanatics. It wasn't so long ago that even George Bush Jr, had the Taliban in Texas for a visit while he was Govoner trying to set the deal up for Unicol and the gas line in Afghan.
I think it's good to see a leader like Obama say that his will do something if it needs to be done, rather than claiming he won't in public but then doing it anyway. Everyone knows they will done it anyway, so might as well tell the truth, rather than treat the US public like Unicorns and tooth fairies really exist.
-
In the past when Musharraf was President of Pakistan, we had permission to operate inside Pakistan. Since his removal from office, we now are faced with a President of Pakistan that is no longer friendly towards us, because he is naive. Naive in that he does not understand the level at which his own military is infiltrated by terrorists.
What you say and how you say it on the world stage means an awful lot.
I have never heard McCain say we were going to attack Pakistan whenever we felt like it was prudent. I did hear Obama say that. The world watches what is going on in these debates and past. Obama's lack of thought in an attempt to get votes WILL cost cooperation and lives in the future.
Grasping for straws you say? Look in the mirror.
Yet knowing Pakistan is now unfriendly too us, McCain still supports giving them military aid money that they are currently spending to build up their military to confront India rather than fight the insurgent like how it was agreed to be used. Supporting that and believing in the Unicorns that McCain rides are what is naive.
It's amazing how fast the right wing Republicans shy away from the terrorist threat when it's not their guy whom wants to fight it.
-
To take this one step further McCain's idea of say one thing in public and do another behind the scenes is exactly what has gotten this country into the problems with these religious fanatics. It wasn't so long ago that even George Bush Jr, had the Taliban in Texas for a visit while he was Govoner trying to set the deal up for Unicol and the gas line in Afghan.
I think it's good to see a leader like Obama say that his will do something if it needs to be done, rather than claiming he won't in public but then doing it anyway. Everyone knows they will done it anyway, so might as well tell the truth, rather than treat the US public like Unicorns and tooth fairies really exist.
What you fail to realize is that when a Presidential Hopeful becomes President, what he/she said along the way is remembered. You would be very naive to believe that Al Quaida will not take Obama's public statement that he will attack whenever he feels prudent, and use it to help sway their cause.
That's the problem with saying stuff in public.
By you logic, perhaps the President's plans with his chiefs of staff to develop strategy to combat terrorists should be discussed in public, eh?
-
Yet knowing Pakistan is now unfriendly too us, McCain still supports giving them military aid money that they are currently spending to build up their military to confront India rather than fight the insurgent like how it was agreed to be used. Supporting that and believing in the Unicorns that McCain rides are what is naive.
It's amazing how fast the right wing Republicans shy away from the terrorist threat when it's not their guy whom wants to fight it.
A large portion of Pakistan still supports us, especially their military. Unfortunately as I said before, they are heavily infiltrated by terrorists and are controlled by a President that is naive in foreign affairs and the true state of his country. He won't sit long.
We need to prevent the Islamic Facists from gaining a firm hold of the country, but not announce how we are going to do it and further give the Islamic Facists more power.
-
What you fail to realize is that when a Presidential Hopeful becomes President, what he/she said along the way is remembered. You would be very naive to believe that Al Quaida will not take Obama's public statement that he will attack whenever he feels prudent, and use it to help sway their cause.
That's the problem with saying stuff in public.
By you logic, perhaps the President's plans with his chiefs of staff to develop strategy to combat terrorists should be discussed in public, eh?
Maybe you should need this.. it's from almost a year ago..
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/05/world/fg-uspakistan5
-
What you fail to realize is that when a Presidential Hopeful becomes President, what he/she said along the way is remembered. You would be very naive to believe that Al Quaida will not take Obama's public statement that he will attack whenever he feels prudent, and use it to help sway their cause.
That's the problem with saying stuff in public.
By you logic, perhaps the President's plans with his chiefs of staff to develop strategy to combat terrorists should be discussed in public, eh?
Oh I guess you missed the part where Bush said that military action against Iran was not out of the question. Oh but wait.. what was it McCain said about Iran..
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9688222
Humm I guess by your logic McCain is quite naive in talking about military tactics in public and openly saying military action aginst another country is not out of the question.
oh but here is maybe a news source you can't call evil liberals..
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep18/0,4670,USIran,00.html
Republican candidate John McCain's approach is similar. He emphasizes retaining the military option. Democratic candidate Barack Obama would consider unconditional talks with Iran. He has not ruled out a military option.
Oh my, is McCain not doing exactly what you just complained about Obama doing?
Somehow I bet this is "diffrent" though.. :rofl
-
Maybe you should need this.. it's from almost a year ago..
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/05/world/fg-uspakistan5
Perhaps when that article cites sources, I might consider it with more than a grain of salt.
-
Oh I guess you missed the part where Bush said that military action against Iran was not out of the question. Oh but wait.. what was it McCain said about Iran..
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9688222
Humm I guess by your logic McCain is quite naive in talking about military tactics in public and openly saying military action aginst another country is not out of the question.
oh but here is maybe a news source you can't call evil liberals..
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep18/0,4670,USIran,00.html
Republican candidate John McCain's approach is similar. He emphasizes retaining the military option. Democratic candidate Barack Obama would consider unconditional talks with Iran. He has not ruled out a military option.
Oh my, is McCain not doing exactly what you just complained about Obama doing?
McCain should not have joked with the "Bomb Iran". It was wrong as well.
The likely hood of us ever having to deal militarily with Iran is fairly low. There are other countries that will deal with that when the time comes.
Pakistan we are dealing with, and Obama was wrong for saying what he did. It further shows his inept abilities when it comes to dealing with the terrorist threat.
-
Perhaps when that article cites sources, I might consider it with more than a grain of salt.
Their sources were the US govt and a security report that was publiclly released. Even says so in the article.. go dig it up if you don't believe it.
-
Do you not remember all the flack you Republicans gave Clinton because he didn't take the opportunity to kill bin Laden by making a strike inside another country? Are you now saying what he did was right?
This statement hasn't been addressed yet that I can see.
Folks on this board didn't give Clinton flack for not striking bin Laden inside another country, we gave Clinton flack for repeatedly failing to take action against bin Laden when the chances were there. Clinton had reasons for not taking action (at least one of them valid imo) and those reasons are subject to debate.
-
Oh and Hillary has never been "my girl' I dunno where you pulled that one from.
Oh come on, you two are dating in secret. It's ok, you can admit it, we won't give you to much grief. :devil
-
I've never said more troops weren't the answer in Iraq, we have needed more troops there from the start just like we did in the past. However myself and just like Obama's position I would never support more troops under the Bush admin's past mismanagement since that war started.
I really think that the failed strategies in the Iraq war early on were due to decisions and advise that Rumsfeld was responsible for. (I don't have proof of this, just my opinion.) Since Rumsfeld was replaced as Secretary of Defense things have gradually gotten better in Iraq. Granted, it has taken some time to reverse the mistakes that were made. To Bush's credit he realized the deficiencies Rumsfeld was bringing to the table concerning the Iraq war and replaced him.
For the life of me, I have never understood why we completely dismantled both the Iraqi Army and Police. I also don't understand why it is taking so long to retrain a new Army and Police force.
-
i wonder if that statement will hurt obama's approval rating in Pakistan?
-
There are other countries that will deal with that when the time comes.
Again some beautiful rhetoric BS.
Have you actually served in military, even in peacetime ?
You should volunteer to be in the first wave of infantry who is doing the "dealing".
Oh these brave internet warriors. :rofl
-
For the life of me, I have never understood why we completely dismantled both the Iraqi Army and Police. I also don't understand why it is taking so long to retrain a new Army and Police force.
That might be due to screening out everyone that isn't loyal to the new regime; And it might have been one of the reasons' that the old force was disbanded, as well...The old army might have simply just waited for us to leave, and staged a 'coup'. This might have been what Rumsfeld was afraid of. And it's taking a long time getting a new force together for the same reasons. We want to leave an Army that will protect what we've sacrificed so much for.
That's just my theory; And I don't normally support Donald Rumsfeld, but this would make sense to me. Iraq might be pretty difficult to keep politically stable.
-
Again some beautiful rhetoric BS.
Other countries will deal with Iran. I can give you a guess as to who will be first to roll in. The fact of the matter is that people like you would whine to high heaven were we to actually have done something about it already.
Go troll somewhere else.
-
Again some beautiful rhetoric BS.
Have you actually served in military, even in peacetime ?
You should volunteer to be in the first wave of infantry who is doing the "dealing".
Oh these brave internet warriors. :rofl
-
To take this one step further McCain's idea of say one thing in public and do another behind the scenes is exactly what has gotten this country into the problems with these religious fanatics. It wasn't so long ago that even George Bush Jr, had the Taliban in Texas for a visit while he was Govoner trying to set the deal up for Unicol and the gas line in Afghan.
I think it's good to see a leader like Obama say that his will do something if it needs to be done, rather than claiming he won't in public but then doing it anyway. Everyone knows they will done it anyway, so might as well tell the truth, rather than treat the US public like Unicorns and tooth fairies really exist.
We along with many other nations do this dailey. You dont become the big kid on the block by playing by all the rules, you bend them.
But to say this openly is a mistake, the biggest problem in some of the events where we have had strikes inside another country that were intended for Hi vis targets was that by informing / waiting for approval from a goverment to conduct these strikes, information would be leaked to the target and by the time approval was given the target was long gone. They have had strikes since, and will continue to do so, however the waiting process usually comes after the strike or at the moment of the strike. This way there is no kissing and telling.
-
Dude, they already know we will do it. We already have done it.. Saying it on TV makes little to no difference,
You support what he said, but you are complaining because he said it in public? lol that's almost silly
i guess we should have told the germans we were going to attack on d-day, at Normandy?
-
John has a long mustache..
-
no i don't , i keep it trimmed short.
-
LOL.. ok. Damn, this is a tuff crowd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePzwg0LyYL0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePzwg0LyYL0)
-
lol :aok :rofl :rofl
-
John has a long mustache..
The chair is against the wall. The chair is against the wall.
;)
Long time since I've seen that movie.
-
i guess we should have told the germans we were going to attack on d-day, at Normandy?
So what do you have to say about McCain openly stating he supports military action in Iran? That's the same thing and hell he even openly joked and sang a song about bombing Iran. Where is the outrage about that? If it's so secretive and vital to national defense then why would he say virtually the same thing about Iran as Obama said about Pakistan?
Yet there was one difference.. Obama said he would attack a terrorist threat such as al Qaeda not the govt of Pakistan. McCain openly supported and joked about attacking Iran as a country. So if you are really outraged about what Obama said then why aren't you guys calling out McCain for doing the "exact" same thing?
Also where is the outrage against Palin because she openly stated the same thing and claimed she supported doing what ever is necessary in Pakistan?
-
Where is the outrage about that? If it's so secretive and vital to national defense then why would he say virtually the same thing about Iran as Obama said about Pakistan?
Because Pakistan is an ally? Just a guess...
-
So what do you have to say about McCain openly stating he supports military action in Iran? That's the same thing and hell he even openly joked and sang a song about bombing Iran. Where is the outrage about that? If it's so secretive and vital to national defense then why would he say virtually the same thing about Iran as Obama said about Pakistan?
Yet there was one difference.. Obama said he would attack a terrorist threat such as al Qaeda not the govt of Pakistan. McCain openly supported and joked about attacking Iran as a country. So if you are really outraged about what Obama said then why aren't you guys calling out McCain for doing the "exact" same thing?
Also where is the outrage against Palin because she openly stated the same thing and claimed she supported doing what ever is necessary in Pakistan?
because the threat of force is a tool we use against our "enemies" , not the action itself, nor do we use the threat of force against friendly nations, unless we don't want to be friends with them anymore!
behind closed doors we might make a deal with the gov. of Pakistan to go in and do what we must, but not in public, so we can alienate the people of that country and or put there people at risk of reprisal by a common enemy! that's why you don't say what Oboma said, he puts the people of Pakistan in a very unsafe position if he says we will go there! he also puts the responsibility on the heads of the people of Pakistan
if they do not oppose this type of action!
have you ever heard that its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission? we do what we must were they are concerned, but we don't go around bragging about it before it happens!
i guess you have not ever had a security clearance, or ever understood why someone would!
-
Crockett,
We all know you are blinded by the aura surrounding Obamassiah, but please this in mind.
There is a huge difference between telling an adversary you will bomb them if they continue an activity you disapprove of and telling an ally you will bomb their country whenever you see fit.
-
Because Pakistan is an ally? Just a guess...
Pakistan hasn't been a ally too us in months and they have never done what they agreed to do. They happily take out money and then snub us. Isn't that the type of countries that McCain claims he was going to stop giving money too? Yet he still wants to give them money. Sounds like more "what ever your heart's desire" talk from McCain.
-
Obama the Holy warrior saying he'd attack Pakistan reminds me of that one mope the Democrats came up with once. What was his name? The guy driving around in the tank? Dukakis? :lol
I could just see Obama leading the charge of the light brigade against the Pakistanis. :rofl
-
Pakistan hasn't been a ally too us in months and they have never done what they agreed to do. They happily take out money and then snub us. Isn't that the type of countries that McCain claims he was going to stop giving money too? Yet he still wants to give them money. Sounds like more "what ever your heart's desire" talk from McCain.
There's a big difference between militants and terrorist infiltrated units attacking our forces vs. the country openly attacking us.
Sounds more like Obama pandering for votes and not thinking out his statements.
-
There's a big difference between militants and terrorist infiltrated units attacking our forces vs. the country openly attacking us.
Sounds more like Obama pandering for votes and not thinking out his statements.
Yes there is I'm glad you can understand the difference. So why is it, that you keep claiming Obama said he would attack Pakistan, when he said nothing of the sort. He said he would attack high level terrorist operations such as bin Laden or al Qaeda. However of course we really know the only "real" difference that matters too you.. The fact that Obama said it.
-
crack me up... the "war on terrorism" is an oxymoron... the neocon make work project in the middle east is a testimony to that.