Obama changes his mind about iraq, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 4-7-2008 @ 09:20 PM by InSpiteOf
reply to post by WhatTheory



Leftist practices are usually the result of the middle and poor class struggle. Its no surprise someone would claim leftist principals to gain votes from that sector, only to flipflop and move to the other side of the political spectrum. There are many forms of socialism, and not all of them resemble the horrors of communism (Mao or Stalin) If there is a powerful socialist movement, it is because the people demand such a thing. If Obama is a leftist (which he's not, hes just left of center) and he wins the election, it is because the people want the change in their countries leadership to represent their interests, and not the moneyed class. Of course, most Americans are in for a shock when they figure out Obama, McCain, makes no difference. They will still be in economic trouble. They will still be in Iraq. And they may be in Iran.


[edit on 4-7-2008 by InSpiteOf]



reply posted on 4-7-2008 @ 09:45 PM by InSpiteOf
Originally posted by aravoth
The left has never been for "peace". Bill clinton Starved over a million people to death in Iraq, and while they were starving he dropped 1600 bombs on them. Literally, starved to death, the UN said most of the people that died were children under the age of 5.


If you define the left by US leaders than yes, you are correct, the left is evil. But so is the center and the right. In fact i would go as far as to say, Mr. Clinton represented Centrist policies, even as far as right of center, seeing as he was a huge proponent of Globalization and big business.

Furthermore, Populist Revolutionary governments across the Middle East, South America, and Africa have for decades suffers brutal repression, assassinations, interventions and proxy/mercenary warfare at the hands of autocratic right wing forces supported by the West. Those governments supported leftist policies of land and wealth re-distribution, public works and ownership of production, universal health and dental care, etc. They came under fire not because they were undemocratic, far from it. All were the result of popular agitation and fair democratic elections against an entrenched owning class. They were targeted because they tried to re-organize their land, labour, resources, and markets in a way that would benefit the people rather than international corporate finance and multi-national business. People attempting to throw away the shackles of "client-state" "free-market" corporate capitalism were the targets of the most powerful military machine known on this planet.

Dont let the lines be blurred. True Leftist popular agitation wants nothing to do with Clinton and his 78 day bombing campaign against the democratic nation of Yugoslavia, Somilia, Angola, Mozambique, iraq, etc.

Clintons crimes are many and I wish he were brought up on war crimes charges. But he does not represent the left just because he sits in a democrats seat.

By the way, the left didnt start the Viet Nam war, the threat that communism posed to international capitalism did.


reply posted on 4-7-2008 @ 10:54 PM by OrangeAlarmClock
reply to post by o22a6ar



I agree, but at least McCain is honest with his intentions of more war in Iraq and is not pandering. I don't like what McCain stands for, but at least he's honest about being a war hawk. Obomba on the other hand slyly changes his plans every 5 minutes, you don't know what you're getting with him.


reply posted on 5-7-2008 @ 01:43 AM by NorthWolfe CND
reply to post by Truther



Obama, like every well informed person, knows that it will be impossible to "bring the troops home", whatever that means, with a click of is fingers. I am not an Obama supporter and think he, in the unlikely event of being elected, would do more harm then good to the USA; but I do consider him an intelligent person, with great advisers.
Following politics, like I do, you find out that what comes out of any politician's mouth when he is running to be elected is very different from what he truly believes, or, more accurately, from what he believes can be done.
Obama knows he can't just whistle the troops back home, because:
a) You can't just put 150000 troops, and their equipment, in a bunch of planes and fly off into the sun set. It has to be organized, well planed and executed, which, of course takes time. Who will protect the troops while they are being pulled out, do you leave a couple of companies to be massacred?
b) Pulling out the troops will create a vacuum of power in the whole region. We are talking about civil war (Kurds against Shiites against Sunnis and so on); all out wars can break out (like Turkey invading Iraqi Kurdistan, Syria claiming the territories on it's border with Iraq, Iran clamming the Iraq territories they fought about in the eighties, and so on). So a total pull out could ignite the whole region, maybe even the whole world (of the flow of oil is compromised, and it will be).

These are just some of the reasons I believe trouble Obama. Like any politician he resorts to double talk, when speaking to the people he tells them what they want to hear, in speaking to political analysts, or at political meetings, or to an educated audience he says what he thinks is possible to achieve.

I bare him no resentment for this, he is like all politicians, he is like all people, he doesn't have a magic wand (even if he says he does in order to get elected).
He may not like the occupation of Iraq but, as a leader, he has to live in the real world, as opposed to the "what if world" some Americans seem to think they live in.

Whoever becomes President is going to inherit this situation, and it will not go away because of wishful thinking or reading "The Secret". And it doesn't make any difference to the future President if we all repeat over and over that we should never have invaded Iraq. The truth is that Iraq was occupied and America is now responsible for the fate of it's people and the stability of the region. That is the task the new President will face, whether he likes it or not.


reply posted on 5-7-2008 @ 01:52 AM by SJE98
reply to post by iamcamouflage



“I will bring our troops out at a pace of one two brigades a month” which would mean the United States would be totally out of Iraq in 16 months.

Where does he get this logic from ? So otherwise he going to leave some other brigades high and dry with no support ? Does he know how many are in a brigade ? There is no way to pull two brigades a month. According to his logic it seems like he will leave the combat brigades with no support. Or the support brigades with no combat support. That is not how you pull out from a war. According to his plan in the final pull out two brigades could and will be easly be overrun. If your reading this Obama or any of your staff. BIG MISTAKE !!!

LTC . SJE98.
The LTC is not part of my user name it's a military rank


reply posted on 5-7-2008 @ 03:09 AM by burdman30ott6
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is he, though? Are you sure that's what's happening? I get that you suspect him, but are you sure?

If I say I'm going to go to college for 6 years and become a doctor... Then, as my college time approaches and I start applying to different schools and gathering data, I realize that if I take 7 years, I can go into a specialty that I've always wanted to... and so I refine my plan to include the extra schooling. I'm still going to go to school and become a doctor, but the plan I had for doing that was slightly refined... Do I give up all hope of having any integrity? Have I "changed my mind"?


Uh... did you just compare a man completely altering the cornerstone of his entire campaign drastically with someone changing their college major? Did you seriously do that? That might be the most assinine "comparison" I've ever heard of.

I really hate to be the one to break this news to people here, but politicians lie. It's what they do. You don't get to where Obama is at unless you're willing to play the politician game. I'm guessing what happened here is that since getting the actual nomination, the great and powerful Wizard of Oz as portrayed by Obama, discovered that the actual man behind the curtain who's running the whole show had determined maybe the war in Iraq was a good thing to keep going for a bit. Now that they've eliminated the other candidates who the anti-war voters might support, people would have little recourse come election day and, either way, the war continues.

Barrack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a giant green hologram with a booming megaphone voice who is the public persona and cover-up for some heavily moneyed, heavily influential (possibly Soros) liberal politico.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 17 hours ago, 119 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 13 hours ago, 99 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 11 hours ago, 65 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 7 hours ago, 60 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 15 hours ago, 50 replies