English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

He's already playing the warhawk with Pakistan (while not even President yet) - isn't leading the country into war EXACTLY the problem many have with Republicans today? Or will race come into play here, with people thinking that he needs to be elected regardless, so that we can finally have our first black President?

2007-08-01 16:06:18 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Elections

17 answers

Nah.....

I am sitting back watching both Hillary and Obama blow their chances of living in the White House...

They have 16 months to do it...it's really fun to watch.

2007-08-01 16:08:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

People like yourself who is one demensional in their thinking is why people like bush, the klan and other groups who are partial to a persons ethnic identity have such great success in their quest for power and control. A question such as this has people like the racist rebel spewing his ignorance all over the internet my man. You are trying to sound intellectualy profound in your mixed statements and questions. You are a bafoon sir, and a arrogant one at that. The worst kind. Whether senator obama wins or not, this is not the issue here. The american people are making sure this time that they put the right person in the white house to do what is right for our country. Mr. bush has performed according to the agenda that was set into motion before he even became president. But you would not have an idea what the agenda was because you are to worried and fearful of a Black man or White woman becoming president arent you???? So go hang out with the racist rebel and hide your sorry faces behind the modern day white sheet of prejudice and treachery. Also do another survey with the country boy rebel and see how many white americans hate black people for the color of their skin. You will be shocked at the results.

2007-08-01 23:32:03 · answer #2 · answered by triple o.g. 3 · 0 2

Yes but will all of the liberals complain about him doing so, will they cry about each soldiers death. Hell no they won't this is one of their guys so it will be OK.

Regardless of which party wins the Presidency, the war will continue, if the war should end on the day after a democrat is elected and sworn in, the democrats will take the credit for ending the war.

I am not voting for Obama, but if he wins and if he deploys troops to Pakistan, I will support him.

2007-08-01 23:28:39 · answer #3 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 1 0

Impact hit it on the head, look at these statements:
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again.... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." - Obama

If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America."- Clinton

2007-08-02 02:44:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Frankly, I think anyone that thinks that minorities will vote for a candidate simply because he or she is also a minority doesn't have a clue.

That being said, doing a roll-call on the current candidates among the Democrats and the GOP cause one to question just which party at least attempts to represent the incredible diversity of the country. You can be cynical, but it's hard to argue with the basic facts.

2007-08-01 23:36:18 · answer #5 · answered by buzzfeedbrenny 5 · 0 1

His policies are no different from Hillarys, he will go after the ones who knocked down the towers and not stay bogged down in Iraq...The media has been very biased against Obama from the start and has been making it seem like he was going to attack Pakistan and thats isnt true..

I like Obama even more now that he will be focused on truely going after the terrorist and restoring our respect..

2007-08-02 00:52:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think he's making a tactical mistake. He came off looking bad at the debate when Sen. Clinton put him in his place concerning diplomacy and world leaders. He's been getting heat about it ever since so had to make a choice. Does he come out swinging and start talking about the exact moves he would make or does he ride the wave and wait for a while to let it die down. He chose the first option, and I'm not sure that was very smart. He sounds naive to me when he just blurts out statements like this. The first thing that comes to mind is Pakistan...nukes...political unrest...Musharraf...tread very lightly and make a decision what to do after careful examination of all the facts and pertinent information. NOT just say look, we're coming in like gangbusters like it or not. I think Obama's trying to look tough, but to me he sounds dangerously rash with the statement he made.

I cannot answer your question about race without being insulting to you, so I'll back off from that one.

2007-08-02 00:03:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

NO, you have missed what he said entirely. He said he would go into Pakistan to get the people who orchestrated the attack on us. If the Pakistani government cannot do anything about them and they have rebuilt their infrastructure then hell yes we need to go tear it down and get the terrorists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

He has always been a supporter of the war in Afghanistan, after all they provided a refuge and training grounds for those Saudis who attacked this nation.
He will not be attacking a sovereign nation but the elements which the same nation cannot control and is slowly squeezing the lifeblood out of said nation.. Musharraf is slipping big time and unless we go in there to get the terrorists before they destroy Musharraf and then put in their own puppet which would give them access to nukes, we will be in the deep end of it.
This was what Bush should have done in the first place, Stayed in Afghanistan and dealt with Al Qaeda and hunted in every cave for Bin Laden. Instead he took his eye off the ball and farmed out the search for Bin Laden to warlords who were loyal to him as if money would have been an incentive to them which it is not.

He should not be elected because of his race but because of what he espouses. Now they have restrengthen their ranks and rebuilt their infrastructure.

At least he is not Tom Tancredo whose grand idea is to bomb Islamic holy sites or threaten to blow them up as if that would be a deterrent. All that does it play right into Bin Laden's hands
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/1/171821.shtml?s=al&promo_code=37EA-1

2007-08-01 23:08:13 · answer #8 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 2 2

Look Obama is from the state with the highest gas prices in the nation and the state that shut down one of the largest oil refineries in the country. I could go on but that's enough to exclude him for me. I will vote for someone who has done something positive for his or her state or city.

2007-08-01 23:16:08 · answer #9 · answered by Billy M 4 · 2 0

Most Democrats are against the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. That was the biggest argument against the war in Iraq, that it would divert us from the war on those that attacked us on 9-11.

2007-08-02 00:18:43 · answer #10 · answered by ProLife Liberal 5 · 0 0

I like him more than ever. I read his entire speech on www.barackobama.com and it really made sense, but you had to hear/read the whole speech to get the message. The media will only focus on the Pakistan section which was just one proposal out of five.

2007-08-02 14:28:24 · answer #11 · answered by It is what it is 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers