Barack Obama

Sandok

The Serbs have had a tough time... And okay, even if we concede that the Serbs prefer Bush than Clinton, 90% of the world still doesn't

Maddogg6

I wonder what the consensus of bush is among the Iraqi civilians??
Do they feel 'free' now - or missing Sadam??

Even if we don't ask the loved ones of the est. 60K - 600K casualties?? (this is how old now too !!??)

'Interesting' - in an sick a twisted way - we hear detailed, and presumably accurate #'s of American loss almost on a daily , but I never hear ANYTHING about iraqi loss totals - the ones we are 'liberating'. Extremely suspicious IMHO

temeteus82

I think they not feel free since coalition troops are there.. And they hate Saddam and Bush...

BlueMak

I am sure that makes it easier for.... Serbs?

Dowaco

So was Bush.

From my perspective, he is doing the dirty work the world needs done but does not want to get their hands dirty doing. The UN is a joke. All our supposed allies save a select few turned their heads away when asked to help solve one of the biggest problems in the world today. I can't even count the number of guys who won the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in the Middle East, yet the region continues to be the most volitile area of the world.
Bush has actually tried to make a lasting difference using a new strategy. In the process, he is keeping a promise to the people who elected him that he would track down the killers of 9/11. His tenacity is admirable and he is doing what he said he would do without the help of the rest of the world, who benefit as much or more than we in the US.
So if Canadians and French and Germans and Norwegians don't like him then thats fine. What bothers me is the large number of Americans who have forgotten what happened in 2001. People don't know how to appreciate a leader who does not compromise for his own political benefit.

Sorry for the off topic rant.

Obama, Hillary, Edwards. I do not see anything here that will be good for the country. Maybe a moderate Republican like Guliani can bring together the middle ground. I don't care if the far right or far left is not happy.

cozumel

That could be debated!!!

Maddogg6

Since when is any military operation 'new' strategy in foreign policy?????

Oh I have NOT forgotten and resent that remark thank you. Was it Iraq? I thought it was Osama???? Seems you/BUSH forgot who did what in 2001.

What bothers me is I AM CONVINCED desert storm instigated 9/11. And that being his dad - known to have oil interests - is not too hard to find out if his son is in the same business.

Additionally what bothers me is to think the US is capable of creating a peaceful environment over, knowing that US presence there alone is something they don't like to begin with.

I hear about 'US Civilian Contractors' over there in the news - WHO do you suppose is signing their paychecks? Iraqi corporations or those based other countries??
Which *should* lead to the question. Why? Its obvious to me its all liberating NOT iraqi citizens but Iraqi oil interests.

Back OT... yeah I heard some of Obamas speech at some university just recently and also see the allure to Obama - but, I also know 'charm' alone does not make a leader thats GOOD FOR THE US. I wont vote for him or 'Billery'.

Dowaco

The strategy I was refering to is not military action per se, but that of trying Democracy in the Middle East instead of Theocracies. It is different than having "talks" that lead nowhere.

No need for resentment. I was not referring to you specifically.
Osama is part of a bigger organization called al qaeda which is not a country but is supported by several countries including but not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Saddam started this war by not complying with UN inspections. The UN did not have the backbone to back up its demands with force so the US shouldered most of the load.

BlueMak

Since all the evidense showed that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaida, nothing, how can anyone still believe that the reason for going into Iraq was 9/11 or terrorism in general? Not to forget all the talks (read lies) about Iraq having nukes. This reminds me of a couple where (just for example) the woman is sleeping around with other men, even infront of her guy who when asks her she says, much she is in love with him and she can't live without him and he believes her, then she goes on a date with some other dude.
Wake up!

The people behind 9/11 are still free and the current US government is not even trying all that hard to find them. How can you accept this shit?

Customgamer1

I could not vote for either. I would be so pissed I would think about moving. Well maybe not move but I would be so pissed I don't know what I would do.

Me being such a hard core republican I would go hide since America would be done for by 2009.

I tell you what will happen when they get in office.

1. They pull out of Iraq the US WILL be bombed again and lots more because they will see that as the USA being week and they should act now since the American people would not want to go to war again. It's plane and simple people just forgot what happened on Sep 11, 2001

2. The middle class taxes will go sky high. Maybe not the taxes but the fees of everything you can buy. Maybe only the republicans can see this but I for one am not dumb. Saying they are not going to raise taxes is one thing and really doing it is another. I agree for the most part they don't raise taxes but on the other hand they will raise every other tax in the USA to get their money. I live in Wisconsin and the governor is Doyle and he said he would not raise taxes but he raised the fees on everything sold. Smoking, license, car registering and so on.

3. I am not for killing people. I may like to watch it in movies but I think everyone should be able to live for any reason but murder. Abortion is so wrong in any way you try and put it. I am sure you would have had a different option if your mom killed you before you had a choice. I am 100% for live and not death!

4. Why should the poor get everything they want? The government should not help them as much as they are at the moment. The poor pull so many tricks to get as much money savings as they can it's not even funny and the people who are paying for that is the middle and rich class people. It's so wrong!

5. Big business and rich people are not hurting the USA and why should they be taxed anymore than the poor? We worked extra hard to get where we are! It should be left up to us if we want to give any of our money away. If it were up to me I would tax everyone the same since I don't see why you should be treated any different on the amount of money you make!

This is why I am a republican and no matter who it is it is always better than the democrat!!

SFOSOK

I support action after talk

Talking without action gives that persons words no meaning



Most polititians talk and do little. I'm at least glad to have had a few presidents that are willing to act.

I will not be voting this year either.

Sandok

That mentality is so flawed...

Dowaco

The reason the US is in Iraq is that Saddam did not allow UN inspectors to verify that he did or did not have WMDs. He made the mistake of playing chicken whether he had a nuke program or not. Its easy to look back now and say "gee, there were no nukes, why did the US invade?". But at the time the whole world thought there might be WMDs and Saddam did nothing to dissuade that. Its like a punk pointing a black squirt gun at a cop. 9 times out of ten he is going to get shot.

The claim that Iraq was just some innocent bystander nation and is being raped for its oil is ridiculous.

Sandok

What that's just WRONG my friend... Iraq may have played chicken but UN inspectors were allowed into the country to look and found no trace of anything remotely called a WMD. The entire world said that Iraq had nothing yet the US kept on persisting saying, "There have weapons of mass distruction, we must go!"

Hell America didn't get approval from the UN for the invasion (in other words, the world's other superpowers didn't agree with it) and proof of that is that the US was alone in the initial war. Only when Bush announced that you guys won did other powers come as "peace keepers". What a mistake that was.

I forget all the reasons you guys went to Iraq... First for Terrorism, then WMDs, then Oil and now for democracy. Changes a lot.

SFOSOK

Actually your statement is true and untrue. Saddam restricted them to certains areas and did not let them go to most of the locations they thought he had them.

Also I wouldn't say they didn't have them considering what happened with the Kurds. In fact if it wasn't for world politics and the US being too nice we could have easily collapsed the government from within through assasination and instating a leader who is fit to run the country.

We instead warned them repeatedly and told them exactly when we were going to attack. By the time the US actually attacked Saddam could have well shipped any chemical weapons to Syria, Iran, or just buried them.



Again, if there was no such thing as world politics the better solution would have been assisination of top political and governemnt leaders who were directly part of any torturing or inhumane treatement of citizens and the destruction of all millitary assest.

Sandok

Wow you really don't like world politics do ya?

Maddogg6

No one ever said Sadam was a 'nice' guy, and yes - he needed to be removed - and HE HAS been, for how long now? - so WHY aren't the Iraqis happy and moving on????????????????????????

But, your right - it wasn't JUST about oil - its about billions in rebuilding contracts too (Cheyney/Haliburton needed a piece of the $multi-billion pie too) and strategic military location.

Have you ever wondered WHY we have military bases all around the world, yet NOT A SINGLE foreign military base in the US? -
did you ever wonder how this is viewed by the world? - 'protectors' of freedom - or capitolistic pigs who kill for profit, - ask the 60K-600K dead (since we invaded Iraq) Iraqis families/survivors.

But alas - the 9/11 perpetrator - Osama - IS STILL ON THE LOOSE. The worlds most technologically advanced military power cant find a single civilian, but we could find Sadam hidden in some cramped bunker?? doesn't this make you ask 'how is this possible?'.. ??

Is our military THAT incompetent? I think not, and I put responsibility on their superiors anyway.

Why was focus removed from Osama? - And, only recently was Afghanistan brought back into media focus. But NOT Osama.

Are we not getting the cooperation of our allies? - how come?

Why haven't you asked why?

I see it like this:
'Sure, we'll remove a tyrant leader for ya, but it'll cost ya' and Iraq isn't known for anything but oil and strategic military location / presence.
Strategy for what, oh crap, whats next - oh yeah - Iran!!!

Yup, and... remember those ridiculous 'artist renditions' of mobile bio-labs - I can't believe ANYONE actually took those serious as 'proof' of ANYTHING. When we have all those satellites, stealth recon crafts, highly skilled rangers - etc etc - instead we get 'drawings' *not actual pictures*??

ronnn

Back to Obama - can he win? He gets good press in Canada, but so does Bill Clinton.

SFOSOK

When it hinders military efficiency because it wants the world to play nice therefore killing more people than necessary, then yes of course.

My stand on that is if military action is determined necessary then it should not be hindered in any way in order to save the most amount of lives possible.

More steps and precautions should be taken and all things considered before the use of force.



Edit: About him, I don't think he will win and if he or Clinton does then they will probably be shot. He looks like the best of all of them but I don't think he would make it to office.

Also, Canada's opinion on the US and its politicians doesn't mean too much.

Maddogg6

Alot can happen between now and elections..
edit: in othr words - nows NOT the time to decide a leader, but to learn as much as possible about the ones declaring they are running. Elections are the time to choose.

But, the reality IS, world politics DO affect military operations, so, we should interpret your post as 'you don't like reality'.. ???

cozumel

You've stumbled back onto the main policy problem in the Middle East - lack of consistency.

Israel successfully and bravely fought off an attack by allied arab forces and went on to occupy a good deal of sovereign foreign territory which they subsequently and unilaterally annexed. There have been many UN resolutions passed requiring Israel to return to pre-1967 borders. All have been flouted and Israel continued its illegal occupation.

To keep policicy consistent; Does that mean that that UN does "not have the backbone to back up its demands" and should the US have "shouldered most of the load".

To say that the occupation is acceptable on military grounds to protect Israeli borders is not a valid argument for annexation. I accept that a state of war still technically exists. But Israel should accept the need fo a declaration of peace and the unconditional right of Israel to exist as pre-conditions for the withdrawal of their troops and all claims to foreign sovereign territory. Unfortunately Israel does not believe in full withdrawal but wants to make its (illegal) annexation permanent in many areas.

This whole situation makes a mockery of International Law and is a cause of great animosity (understatement) between arab nations and the US or West in general. 'Double Standards' is a phrase that pops into mind.

Edit: I think that any global citizen has the right to comment on their preferences for President in US. As the major global Superpower, US policy directly effects the lives of every single person around the world (especially in the Middle East!! LOL)

Pompey

I feel I should say something in defence of the UN.

Whenever something with teeth gets proposed Russia, China or the US veto's it.