It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Side of Barack Obama

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
According to this article on Anti-War.com, Obama might want to change the spelling of his name to O-Bomb-a... Seems he's pretty much supporting the president's idea of "getting us out" of Iraq...

Is Obama More of the Same?

Quotes from Obama:


"In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinguish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home."
...
"This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency."

"At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism."


Uhhhh... We have had NO success whatsoever in stabilizing Iraq, avoiding a civil war, creating political stability, OR fighting the insurgency... And if Mr. Obama doesn't already know, let me tell him that Iraq is a haven for terrorism because of our presence. Continuing on the present course isn't going to change that...

After reading this article, my support for Obama is melting away like butter in July in Phoenix. I have to do some more research...

Kucinich, anyone???



[edit on 18-12-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
What you have prefered Barack to have said?

"I think we should get out of iraq as soon as possible...who care's what happens there...we made a mistake...there's no way to fix it...we may as well just give up."

something like that maybe?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by surrender_dorothy


"I think we should get out of iraq as soon as possible...who care's what happens there...we made a mistake...there's no way to fix it...we may as well just give up."

something like that maybe?


It would be better in the long run for the US and the world to do exactly that right now.

If we wait, someone's going to do it for us, one way or another.

Ending a dangerous war is not giving up, even though that's how our gov spins it.

It is changing course and doing the right thing.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Just a reminder... This is in the Candidate Advocacy forum, not a War forum. My purpose was to discuss Obama and his position on the issues (one being the war) and not to discuss the war itself.

And yes, surrender_dorothy, I would rather he said something like that. He was against the war in the beginning and now he has changed his position to something that sounds just like all the other politicians.

I supported Obama because he was DIFFERENT than what we already had in Washington, DC. If he's going to slide in with Hillary et al, I'll find someone else to support.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
After reading this article, my support for Obama is melting away like butter in July in Phoenix.


GLAD to hear it. The guy is not qualified. As you pointed out on another thread - he meets 'requirements', like proper age and he was born in America - but he's basically going for a job interview with the American people. He needs to be turned down as 'unqualified' for the position.

His resume stinks. His quotes, both political and spiritual, are pathetic.


I have to do some more research...


Have a bottle of tums ready and in close range for immediate relief. Seriously .. the more quotes I read from the guy the more Hillary looks good to me (and I don't like her!)

Dems will have Hillary. Republicans will have Guiliani or McCain. Libertarian? Dunno. That's one to watch!!



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
your opinion is understandable however I feel that there is a way to fix with support from our allies working together with the democratically elected government we could start to improve the state of Iraq and the lives of many of it's inhabitants. Developement is the key here. A mistake was made but there is always a way to fix things.

This could lead to more support from surrounding nations and decrease if not extinguish the current levels of insurgency.

however that's just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Barack Obama for President? Vice President? Why? Because he happens to be black? Because he happens to be articulate? Because, as some say, he has charisma? Are these the qualities that decide who should be President or, at least, "on the ticket"?

Hardly.

As for Obama's comments on Iraq. I would have to say that they were certainly conservative (and not conservative in a political sense). I would say that his comments were conservative in the sense that, at this point in time, to be anything but cautious and prudent in anything to do with Iraq is the right tact to follow.

If the present administration had shown caution and prudence at the very onset, we might not have found ourselves in Iraq to begin with. Now that we are there, I have to ask whether it would be prudent to simply leave Iraq? Yes, the troops in Iraq are an incitement to violence and terrorism but wouldn't the untimely "pullout" of troops be a catalyst for even more violence -- sectarian, tribal and inter-factional violence?

Personally, I would think that the U.S. is responsible for making certain that Iraq does not disintegrate into an all-out arena of violence. The U.S. is responsible to re-establish basic services to that country. The U.S. is responsible for, at least, providing that country with at least a semblance of order and the means to maintain order. The U.S. is responsible to help Iraq establish itself as a sovereign nation.

If the United States can do so from "afar" -- great. But until the U.S. can help put the lid back on the 'can of worms' that it has opened, the onus is on the U.S. to help maintain order.

Obamas' comments are certainly not out of order here. By agreeing with Bush, it does not make Obama a Republican or, for that matter, in league with Bush. In the same vein, these comments might demonstrate Obama's foray into international politics but, nevertheless, this certainly does not make Obama any more qualified to be President than Bush might have been.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Barack Obama for President? Vice President? Why? Because he happens to be black?


No. Certainly not. And not because he has charisma or is articulate (although those qualities would be a nice change...)



By agreeing with Bush, it does not make Obama a Republican or, for that matter, in league with Bush.


I don't mean to say that it does. I don't belong to a political party, so I couldn't care less if he's a Democrat or Republican or Tree-Hugger. The only reason I don't approve of him being "in league" with Bush is because I disagree with Bush. It's not about not liking Bush or him being Republican. I disagree with "staying the course" to disaster and more disaster.

WHATEVER happens in Iraq, to make our way to a DIFFERENT outcome, we have to do something different than what we're doing.

You know what they say about doing the same thing and expecting different results... And I think the current situation and staying the course (while expecting things to get better) is quite insane.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   


posted by benevolent tyrant

Barack Obama for President? Vice President? Why? Because he happens to be black? Hardly. As for Obama's comments on Iraq. I would say they were conservative (not conservative in a political sense). If the present administration had shown caution and prudence at the very onset, we might not have found ourselves in Iraq to begin with. Now that we are there, I have to ask whether it would be prudent to simply leave Iraq?

I think the U.S. is responsible for making certain that Iraq does not disintegrate. The U.S. is responsible to re-establish basic services. The U.S. is responsible for providing that country with at least a semblance of order and the means to maintain order. The U.S. is responsible to help Iraq establish itself as a sovereign nation. If the United States can do so from "afar" - great. But until the U.S. can help put the lid back on the 'can of worms' it has opened, the onus is on the U.S. to help maintain order.

Obama's comments are not out of order here. By agreeing with Bush, it does not make Obama a Republican or, for that matter, in league with Bush. In the same vein, these comments might demonstrate Obama's foray into international politics but this does not make Osama any more qualified to be President than Bush might have been. [Edited by Don W]



1) The American public has lost its confidence in the War. This is in equal parts because it become apparent the Bush43 Administration lied to us and its obvious the Iraqi Civil War is beyond our capability to quell. This ruined LBJ in 1968. The Tet Offensive proved he was lying. There has been no such singular event in Iraq, but the gap in what Bush43 was telling the public and what they were seeing on the tv screen every night was too wide. And, if B43 had not banned showing the bodies coming home at Dover AFB - and the mass media accepted the ban - B43 would have lost support for the War in 2004. He barely won the pivotal state of Ohio, by 118,000 votes. Close.

Maxim. Most Americans have no moral qualms about a war if we are wining, but we do not like nor will we support any war we are losing.

2) Obama was speaking responsibly. Even I who hate B43 and the War, know it is not fair to walk away. Johns Hopkins published a survey in The Lancet, saying that 600,000 Iraqi have died since March 18, 2003, due to the War. We have destroyed 30% of the buildings in Iraq. Us or those who are against us. My primary concern is that we will not stay to finish any job and therefore, every day we stay is a waste. The 109th GOP Congress has cut the VA budget. If we won’t pay the VA, we are very unlikely to pay Iraq.

3) We are spending $1.2 b. - the cost overruns have not yet come in - on a fortified embassy compound large enough to house a full USMC brigade, about 3,000 men. I'll betcha there is a fuhrer-bunker under it, too. There are offices for ExxonMobil and CitiBank, too. China’s Forbidden City pales in comparison.

4) I cannot fathom B43. The ISG Report gave him a golden parachute. He could have endorsed the Report, shared the fall-out with the Dems, and salvaged something of his legacy. He fired Rumsfled but failed to consult with the Dems on a replacement. He let Bolton wither on the vine, but has not consulted on a replacement. He has tried to c0-opt Mrs. Pelosi at the WH luncheon, but she did not rise to his bait. Bush43 is not normal.


[edit on 12/18/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
BH,

Obama is worse than Bush.

My antennas pick up a bunch of white noise when i try to tune him in.

He will lead us straight to the road of damnation, as if we already werent headed there.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   


posted by dgtempe

Obama is worse than Bush. My antennas pick up a bunch of white noise when I try to tune him in. He will lead us straight to the road of damnation, as if we already weren’t headed there . . barf . . [Edited by Don W]



The second Mayor Daley is about to announce his support for Barack Hussein Obama for prez. This is not unexpected, but it is a big boost for Barack. Big time pols do not usually go public so early in the race. Even moreso for one who has to be a long shot in Vegas.

As for where he or any prez will “lead” us, it is very unlikely a person so well attuned to the public’s pulse as to win the presidency will try to go where the people do not want to go. I think Bush43 is a perfect demonstration of that principle at work. See ISG Report.

Many critics say “leaders” have a hard time keeping up with the public. For me, the interesting things to conjecture about is what will Obama say in New Hampshire and Iowa to convince people to vote for him and not to vote for Hillary?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Kucinich, anyone???

[edit on 18-12-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

You're kidding, weren't you, BH? Say you weren't serious.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
After reading this article, my support for Obama is melting away like butter in July in Phoenix.


GLAD to hear it. The guy is not qualified. As you pointed out on another thread - he meets 'requirements', like proper age and he was born in America - but he's basically going for a job interview with the American people.


Well he's going for a job interview just like any other candidate. Everyone has a different style during the interview. So what?

As to qualifications... Bush has done this country a lot of harm and it is obvious he was not qualified, looking at the results. So I defer my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join