Barack Obama

Sandok

What has the US done but overturn a dictator? I really find the question itself shows quite a bit of bias... The main reasons nobody helped in this war (well speaking from a European perspective)

Was it actually needed? You obviously think so but most of the world didn't.
Under what right were you allowed to invade a country? WMDs? Terrorism? Democracy? Oil?
You refused to heed the world's plea for more time for more diplomacy.

And now that you've made the country worse than when Saddam was in power, why aren't you trying to fix it quickly and efficently instead of trying to send more troops? Brute power has helped neither the US, nor the Iraqis.

And finally, if you actually think the world hates you guys because of what you wrote, then boy are you in for a rude awakening if you ever travel outside the US.

But yeah, enough of this... Back to Obama I'll stop my useless posting

Maddogg6

Ahh ha... thats the disagreement i think - what you refer to as 'fruits', others see as 'spoils of war' - IMO - NO ONE BUT iraqis should be enjoying the fruits of our 'liberating' them - it leaves things too wide open for abuse.
That un-accounted $8 B in iraqi assets as a for instance, thats just what the media was able to catch wind of, do you think its possible there are OTHER examples that never made it to the publics awareness? In other countries where we 'liberated' the people??

So, like I said before 'We'll free you, for a price' and its obvious to me that the collective world agrees - Iraq included - that price is not a fair price.

SFOSOK

Yes, so do you guys want him to win and if so do you think he will?

Why?

BlueMak

You are wrong on this one. US allies did help from the first hour of the attacks. AWACS were sent immediately, not just from the UK. Also allies did help with Afghanistan that Osama was hiding. Hell, even now there are soldiers there from many countries, including France I think.
What the allies said was that they don't want to take part in the Iraqi occupation because it had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the attack against the USA. Imagine say Spain, been attacked by Country A, her allies helping defend Spain and attack country A, then Spain saying, btw let's attack country B, and you should help because you are allies. The allies say, but country B has nothing to do with the attack of A. And Spain saying "what are you, cowards? we helped you in the past, you should help us now!" Basicaly asking for military support for an expansion (economic, territorial, whatever). Why should the allies help Spain just because Spains wants to attack another irrelevant to the attack on it, country?
The people of the USA might have been mislead, but the current president and his cabinet has done nothing but lie. The worst thing IMO is how many americans now believe that their government is always right, or that it has the moral high ground on everything, and that to question its decisions is non patriotic. Ironic consider the past of the USA and even its constitution. No people in any country truly trust their government, apart from totalitarian regimes, especialy in the past, look at Hitler, Stalin and today's North Korea.

Fear does that I guess. Keep bringing fear to the table, people believing whatever they are being told, giving in to pressure and giving more power to the government.
Osama and his buddies should be found, slowly tortured. Their supporters killed, forget about trials. Still, the greatest enemy the people of the USA have now is their current government. And they don't see it, cause they fear that anything against it might look like they are against their troops or the country. Which is so rediculous, almost like my spelling. Since when to love your country requires a prerequisite to trust blindly your government? Bush is not the USA. USA is not Bush.

Sandok

Well I don't live in the US or really follow american presidential voting this early... So I dunno but hell, I want anyone but a Bush sorta guy. Change is good imho!

cozumel

Can someone pls tell me why almost every topic on this (political & religious) forum ends up as the US v the world????

This is a serious question - I am actually interested know what you think the reason is...

Sandok

Because people like debating opposites? I dunno but tis just the complete difference in mentality, ideology and civilization that sorta starts these debates.

I love the US but honestly, it's utterly different from the other countries I've been to (and these other countries usually aren't too disamilar in a fundemental way).

cozumel

But its not really a debate of opposites. The average guy in New York, London, Paris, Bombay, Moscow, Beijing and most other places wants the same thing: to lead a happy, full life. For global poverty and war to end. To watch their children grow up. The politicians seem to hijack our ideals and replace it with a false sense of national pride. Why do we back our governments when they deliberately allow innocent women and children to die from malnutrition while our own are dying from obesity? Why do I have (national) pride in the country I was born when I feel shame for our invasion in Iraq? How do we allow ourselves to be sucked in by politicians who continually lie to us and are corrupt but back never-the-less even though we know it is wrong? We really must be the blind fools that the politicians take us for.....

BTW: BTW Obama would get my vote purely because I'm anti-war...to hell with national pride

Sandok

Well isn't that whole point of a politician? To rally people by saying what we "need" to hear? I dunno I've had my childhood spread out in 3 countries and I don't have this national pride feeling that many seem to live on.

Obama if I was in the US would also probably get my vote for the anti-war aspect... Well any democrat in that respect.

Maddogg6

Naw - its 'complacency' - 'as long as we have our SUV's, IPOD, Internet - things must not be too bad'. America has a track record of ONLY acting in absolute, zero hour, desperation. We (collectively) are obviously not 'desperate' enough to demand change for the better.

Im not anti-war. Im anti 'frivolous' anything. The Iraq war falls in that category. Im also anti 'tax wasting' - anti -'publicly lying' - anti 'omission of facts' - anti -'skewing of facts' etc etc.

IMO - if wer'e to pull out of Iraq today - we'll have spent $B's for naught. Not to mention that they will be left for likely 'unfair est people' to rule their land (the best offense - in terms of winning a goal, is to use 'dirty tricks' it seems - not necessarily the 'best' leader wins), and STILL bite us in the ass 10-20 years from now because of it.
We do need to finish what was wrongfully started - and I don't think Obama would handle the situation that we can see is only getting worse. He has not convinced me he has a plan to repair the damage done, but Im not sure any ONE can either

- We will need someone with a TEAM - who will have a firm but compassionate foreign policy the whole whitehouse can endorse and follow through on.

Before we can possibly know what Obama is 'capable' of, we would need to know who he intends to appoint and to what - not just his what his 'views' are - that, btw, *could* be 100% bull crap lies he thinks America *wants* to hear.

AND - I like hearing from other countries political heads on potential leaders. I can get a sense of weather they are lying or not, based on these others experiences that *may get muted otherwise from local media.

For instance - if I hear the Kin-Jong (or who ever the N Korean guys name is) endorse someone - well maybe thats not a good choice...

cozumel

Billions of dollars have been spent for nothing already and I cannot see any positive outcome except for unconditional US (allied) withdrawal.

I really don't know what the stats are as I haven't checked. But off the top of my head I would say that 50 Iraqis and 5 Americans die every day because of the war. If the only way to stop this slaughter (I choose the word slaughter as most Iraqi deaths are innocents blown up in markets or mosques etc) is to get the hell out of there then so be it.

On the election side of things I tend to agree with Sandoks sentiment; The Democrats are are opposing most pro-war politics (budgets etc) which means that any vote for the Democrats is a de facto referendum for the electorate on the Iraq war. A vote for Republican means more bloodshed and war.

Hilary is heavily tainted with sleaze which is why I lean towards Obama.

Maddogg6

Well we did get Sadam... so - the first few Billion shows *some* return... but since - has been a complete waste - UNLESS - a fair leader gets things under control there - but I don't see that happening on their own either.

Dowaco

Make no mistake, Democrats are antiwar only because we are in a war and they need to represent change to be elected. You will hear nothing but anti-war rhetoric from all the candidates but when one gets elected, he or she will do what needs to be done. Just like they all claim to want lower taxes then raise them once elected.

The US senate recently was transformed from a Republican rubber stamp to a Democrat majority mainly because people wanted change and the Democrats promised that. What has changed? We are sending more troops.

ronnn

Personally I think it is because there are many here - that think the world revolves around america. Really it revolves around the sun. America is losing right now, but the sun is getting hotter.

IamLakota

My thoughts on the political side of this are this,A democrat named Slick Willy (bill clinton) had the chance to get Osama bin camel fuc*** and didnt.
Had he the balls to get the job done back then instead of wasting his time sneaking around with miss Blowinsky,9/11 might have been avoided.As for our troops in Iraq,I fully support them,but if the rest of the world thinks we should not be there,well lets bring them all home,close every US base in every country and bring them ALL Home,LOCK our boarders and see who comes begging for help first.As far as North Korea goes yes we screwed that up during the Korean War,MacArthur had a plan and was ready to push all the way to the Chineese boarder but a Democrat(Harry Truman) stopped him
seems the same thing happened during WWII a fellow named George Patton
had the foresight to want to go to the russian boarder with our troops and was stoppped,now if he had been given the go ahead,the USSR wouldnt have been so big.The only war we should not have undertaken was the Vietman War,why because we didnt learn a damn thing from the french who were there before us.Each election year here in the US is just a time to vote in the lesser of two evils,all politicans lie,and we just vote in the one who lies the best.

Sandok

Let's see, who needs the US military might... Wow not many countries come to think of it... And as for locking your borders, that would hurt your oil and given that the US is one of the rare countries that IMPORTS more than they EXPORT, it'd destroy your economy. Smart move if you ask me

The US will do what it deems necessary, you don't have to listen to other countries, but they don't have to help you guys. The UK is announcing today that it's going to pull out all their troops from Iraq by Summer 07, does that make them traitors? I dunno this war is what everyone is playing on.

Democrats (Hilary Obama) wanna bring back the troops from a lost war...

Repbulicans want to finish their successful war...

I dunno but to each his own. I don't mind either way, it's not my countries credibility, international reputation or military that's being damaged.

Maddogg6

1) Iraq is a 2 time failure for 2 republican presidents. So its not just them 'damn dems' fault as you seem to be alluding to.
2) there are other tickets on the ballot other than dem or republican - so there ARE more choices than 'just 2 evils'.

A vote for one of one those independents will at the very least send a message to the big parties 'were tired of choosing the lesser of 2 evils' - and get those incumbents in congress to reconsider their ways.

But, its easier to vote in 'their parties' candidate or their incumbent fat cats than it is to research ALL the candidates background, and assume them 'independents are all 'commies' ' or something.
Too many only want to believe what the media tells them and refuse to face the fact that; its no longer a 'free press' feeding them info, but huge corporations they now base much of their votes on.

Too few seem to care they are being manipulated to vote the way the media would like them to vote. (this IS accomplished just as Obama truthfully admitted; 'name recognition means everything come election day' statement. - UNFORTUNATELY he is right regarding those who don't vote solely on a 'party' like I see all too often as well.)

But *will* admit the media LOVES conflict and knows its what sells most.
Its easier to let the media do all that boring research and have their choices made for them by the media, their church, their employer, social clubs etc..

AND IF THEY do realize some of the above - Its easier to quietly admit 'Its too much work to change it' but use words like; 'what can 1 person do?', so too few Americans even try.

cozumel

I feel the need to address a couple of points:

IMO the return on removing Saddam is negative. With Saddam in power; Did the Al Qaida trail lead to Iraq? Are America or the nations bordering Iraq safer from WMD? Did 9/11 plotters come from Iraq? Were families safe in Iraq with the knowledge that they were protected by the rule of law and a judicial system? How many Iraqi citizens were victims of terrorism monthly? Were children able to get an education and were people able to access satisfactory levels of healthcare? I can't see any positives.




Democracy is about representing the majority. The vast majority of World opinion was against the military option as there was no evidence that could be corroborated. More time was requested by the UN to allow a full and detailed investigation into any potential Iraqi threat to World or regional peace. America and its allies began illegal operations regardless.



Conclusion:

• Iraq is now worse off. Infrastructure destroyed. Terrorism and fundamentalism established. Families decimated. State of civil war now exists. The generation who survive will be psychologically scarred for life.
• America had a level of trust and support from people around the world (including the Middle East) during conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and first Gulf War. After 9/11 the invasion of Afghanistan was fully understood. All that goodwill has now been destroyed by Bush Administrations illegal and indefinite imprisonment without any trial of foreign nationals in Guantanamo and compounded further by the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. The shocking US policy that torture is acceptable in certain situations does not warrant any further comment by myself.

Maddogg6

From my understanding, if you were to ask what few Kurds there are left in the world... they might give you your answer why sadam needed ousting.... does it 100% justify his ousting - not if you go by past political policy. So - its also a matter of 'agenda' too.

We can't sit in another country and pretend to understand the situation in its entirety either, which is why 'policy' is a better solution to war - policy can be changed easy enough - but, dead people cant be brought back to life if we end up finding out we were 'tricked' or mistaken.

cozumel

It appears to me that most of you that have posted on this thread agree that politicians routinely lie, deliberately mislead us and are corrupt. If our democracy is based on lies, corruption and ignorance of the electorate then what sort of message does it send out.

This cynicism demonstrates the massive obstacles that we face in our battle to lead fulfilled lives. Since we live in democracies yet feel this way, how can we tell others that this is the best ideological road to take. Is this 'gift' worth 'liberating' others for?

If the art of lying effectively is a skill that is learnt over time then maybe Obama should be given a chance as his skills will not be too polished as yet. He is yet to sit a class on corruption and how to screw your own.

Just my humble opinion....

Pompey

Going into Iraq was a mistake and it has been poorly done. That doesn’t change the fact that the US is there now. Withdrawing probably wont "fix" Iraq, the violence is sectarian - the vast majority of civilians are not killed directly by US actions. If anything, it will probably make it worse imo.

These extra troops should have been in there from the beginning along with many more, or better yet no troops should have entered Iraq at all. It may be too late for these troops to have any impact, we'll have to wait and see.

While Americans bitch about a couple of US troops being killed thousands of Iraqi civilians are being slaughtered. All the focus should be on what’s best for Iraq now, not the few inevitable casualties from war. Its a war you dumb f*cks, as much as each death is a tragedy some soldiers will die (this was not directed at any DH members).

I dont know what (if anything) will fix Iraq, which is why im willing to give the troop surge a chance. I think Bushs "my way or the highway" attitude in diplomacy is doing a lot damage to the future prospects of Iraq.

Meh....

/rant