Is Obama a weak hand on security?

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: roblondon
I havent paid too much attecntion but it appears he is going to win. Last time a democrat was in office (Clinton) Bin Laden got away with his life and AlQaida infiltrated the US to perpetrate the worst terror act in the country's history.

I suggested to a friend that Obama was a liberal dreamer or at least thats how he comes across to me. I am not too familiar with his policies, but what I am familiar with is that he is a soft touch on iran and he is in for tax and spend politics.

Well, he's hard on Pakistan where McCain wants to cultivate their friendship even though they have made peace deals with our enemies soooooo, maybe he's just a shitload more informed, you, perhaps he has listened to every General (and others of lesser ranks, everyone but that twat Petreus) that has stated that Afghanistan is going to be a lost cause soon if we don't do anything about it.

You are embarrasing me as a Brit and i'm sorry that i have to tell you that, i know uninformed bullsheit is flying all over this place but the other Brits here keep their mouths fucking shut until they have at least some knowledge on the matter.

I don't know what the hell tax and spend politics has to do with the UK though, haven't we got enough of that shit with Brown?

You want spending? How about Blair and his butt buddy Bush?

 

[Vic]

Don't do drugs, kids.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: bctbct
Britian should probably take the lead on this one, we will help though.

Task Force Black has taken the lead in pretty much any situation the US and the UK has been involved in together.

It'll be a joint effort if it happens, we don't turn our backs to our brothers like McCain has done to the Spaniards that are fighting east of us.

 

[Lvcoyote]

I wonder how much of this would really matter if the US was 100% energy independent. Would it not be a wonderful thing if we could pick up the phone tomorrow morning and tell all the oil producing countries we no longer need any oil from them?? I wonder how their attitudes would change?? Both candidates have said energy independence is key to long term security, lets see if the winner can make it happen. T. Boone Pickens for Energy Secretary!!!.... LOL

 

[roblondon]

going hard on pakistan is idiotic and shows how little obama knows about foreign policy. pakistan is far from a write off but outside the main centres its basically a failed state with an insurgency. the us need to show the upside to working with them not pressurising a leadership that is willing to work with the us, having said that they did just elect a gangster, but thats par for the course in that area of the world.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: roblondon
going hard on pakistan is idiotic and shows how little obama knows about foreign policy. pakistan is far from a write off but outside the main centres its basically a failed state with an insurgency. the us need to show the upside to working with them not pressurising a leadership that is willing to work with the us, having said that they did just elect a gangster, but thats par for the course in that area of the world.

You might not be aware of this, but JohnOfSheffield is an SAS captain on the ground in Afghanistan. So I'm gonna take his word on the situation before I take yours.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: roblondon
going hard on pakistan is idiotic and shows how little obama knows about foreign policy. pakistan is far from a write off but outside the main centres its basically a failed state with an insurgency. the us need to show the upside to working with them not pressurising a leadership that is willing to work with the us, having said that they did just elect a gangster, but thats par for the course in that area of the world.

For those who have read what i have posted before and read the news stories about how the Taliban attacks Afghanistan and retreats into Pakistan this isn't a problem to understand.

Thing is, WERE ALREADY IN PAKISTAN, we just don't have a leadership that puts any pressure on them yet and so we have very little backup.

Stop being a fecking wanker and go read up before you open your stupid trap again you twat.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: roblondon
going hard on pakistan is idiotic and shows how little obama knows about foreign policy. pakistan is far from a write off but outside the main centres its basically a failed state with an insurgency. the us need to show the upside to working with them not pressurising a leadership that is willing to work with the us, having said that they did just elect a gangster, but thats par for the course in that area of the world.

You might not be aware of this, but JohnOfSheffield is an SAS captain on the ground in Afghanistan. So I'm gonna take his word on the situation before I take yours.

Smart men make good choices.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: roblondon
going hard on pakistan is idiotic and shows how little obama knows about foreign policy. pakistan is far from a write off but outside the main centres its basically a failed state with an insurgency. the us need to show the upside to working with them not pressurising a leadership that is willing to work with the us, having said that they did just elect a gangster, but thats par for the course in that area of the world.

For those who have read what i have posted before and read the news stories about how the Taliban attacks Afghanistan and retreats into Pakistan this isn't a problem to understand.

Thing is, WERE ALREADY IN PAKISTAN, we just don't have a leadership that puts any pressure on them yet and so we have very little backup.

Stop being a fecking wanker and go read up before you open your stupid trap again you twat.

Man.. I have a feeling when you go to McDonalds at 10:59 and ask for a Big Mac and they tell you they're only serving breakfast you really blow up.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: roblondon
going hard on pakistan is idiotic and shows how little obama knows about foreign policy. pakistan is far from a write off but outside the main centres its basically a failed state with an insurgency. the us need to show the upside to working with them not pressurising a leadership that is willing to work with the us, having said that they did just elect a gangster, but thats par for the course in that area of the world.

For those who have read what i have posted before and read the news stories about how the Taliban attacks Afghanistan and retreats into Pakistan this isn't a problem to understand.

Thing is, WERE ALREADY IN PAKISTAN, we just don't have a leadership that puts any pressure on them yet and so we have very little backup.

Stop being a fecking wanker and go read up before you open your stupid trap again you twat.

Man.. I have a feeling when you go to McDonalds at 10:59 and ask for a Big Mac and they tell you they're only serving breakfast you really blow up.

What the fuck does this have to do with this thread?

Ask your mother to think for you, she's upstairs preparing your warm chocolate tea.

 

[chess9]

Obama is a centrist. He's closer to Clinton than to Dennis Kucenich. The Republicans have tried to paint him as a Marxist, but most liberals aren't buying it. Obama will have more trouble from his left wing than from the right wing after his first 100 days in office. Nader has already accused him of not having any 'nuts', despite his two kids. True Marxists would probably rather have a right winger in the Oval Office than Obama.

You get a lot of nonsense over there about our elections. Between the Times of London, The Spectator, and The Telegraph, I wonder if they aren't all reporting from pubs after the 8th pint. I've probably ready 20+ reports and none of them were close to accurate. Your country is going down the dumper faster than ours, I fear, and I love England.

-Robert

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: chess9
Obama is a centrist. He's closer to Clinton than to Dennis Kucenich. The Republicans have tried to paint him as a Marxist, but most liberals aren't buying it. Obama will have more trouble from his left wing than from the right wing after his first 100 days in office. Nader has already accused him of not having any 'nuts', despite his two kids. True Marxists would probably rather have a right winger in the Oval Office than Obama.

You get a lot of nonsense over there about our elections. Between the Times of London, The Spectator, and The Telegraph, I wonder if they aren't all reporting from pubs after the 8th pint. I've probably ready 20+ reports and none of them were close to accurate. Your country is going down the dumper faster than ours, I fear, and I love England.

-Robert

I'd say it's about 50-50 positive-negative McCain and 50-50 positive negative Obama on what i have read, now i don't really have all that much time to read so i scout for meaningful (rather than sensational) headlines from the major media and i find that pretty fair and sometimes i have more information than Americans posting because of it.

I suggest you take this twat with a grain of salt, he's obviously very young and very daft.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: roblondon
well iran has a neclear programme and their elected president, who is clearly mad, has vowed to wipe israel off the face of the earth, iei use the nukes when he has developed them. what response does obama have for that, and for that matter what is mccain's stance? i seriously doubt obama would go in on the ground if it comes down to it where as the reps are usually more willing to be unilateralist in their security actions.

Why would you expect any American president to go up against another nuclear power for the sake of Israel unless nukes were actually raining down on Israel? It isn't in America's interests to fight preemptive wars for Israel.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: roblondon
I havent paid too much attecntion but it appears he is going to win. Last time a democrat was in office (Clinton) Bin Laden got away with his life and AlQaida infiltrated the US to perpetrate the worst terror act in the country's history.

I suggested to a friend that Obama was a liberal dreamer or at least thats how he comes across to me. I am not too familiar with his policies, but what I am familiar with is that he is a soft touch on iran and he is in for tax and spend politics.

Republican propaganda has made you a screaming idiot.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think our British cousins use the term 'blithering idiot'.

I prefer 'wanker'

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: roblondon
well iran has a neclear programme and their elected president, who is clearly mad, has vowed to wipe israel off the face of the earth, iei use the nukes when he has developed them. what response does obama have for that, and for that matter what is mccain's stance? i seriously doubt obama would go in on the ground if it comes down to it where as the reps are usually more willing to be unilateralist in their security actions.

Why would you expect any American president to go up against another nuclear power for the sake of Israel unless nukes were actually raining down on Israel? It isn't in America's interests to fight preemptive wars for Israel.

You really don't have to, the EU stepped up where you failed, you have two nuclear nations right there.

The point he is making is that it is in the best of US interests to be involved in this process.

Despite what you think, the world doesn't stop when you stay out of business, they get handled anyway, it's just that you are out of the equation.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: roblondon
I havent paid too much attecntion but it appears he is going to win. Last time a democrat was in office (Clinton) Bin Laden got away with his life and AlQaida infiltrated the US to perpetrate the worst terror act in the country's history.

I suggested to a friend that Obama was a liberal dreamer or at least thats how he comes across to me. I am not too familiar with his policies, but what I am familiar with is that he is a soft touch on iran and he is in for tax and spend politics.

Republican propaganda has made you a screaming idiot.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think our British cousins use the term 'blithering idiot'.

I prefer 'wanker'

Shut up wanker.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know security is not the job of the president, their 1st job is to uphold the constitution and other people are in charge of the countries security.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: roblondon
going hard on pakistan is idiotic and shows how little obama knows about foreign policy. pakistan is far from a write off but outside the main centres its basically a failed state with an insurgency. the us need to show the upside to working with them not pressurising a leadership that is willing to work with the us, having said that they did just elect a gangster, but thats par for the course in that area of the world.

For those who have read what i have posted before and read the news stories about how the Taliban attacks Afghanistan and retreats into Pakistan this isn't a problem to understand.

Thing is, WERE ALREADY IN PAKISTAN, we just don't have a leadership that puts any pressure on them yet and so we have very little backup.

Stop being a fecking wanker and go read up before you open your stupid trap again you twat.

I think you've got a very good point, but you're arguing with someone who is basically bashing Obama for generic, stereotypical Democratic traits. While I think your knowledge from being on the ground is worth listening to, you hardly have to be on the pointy end of the stick to have more information and a more specific argument than roblondon.

 

[seemingly random]

Where's Budmanton and his detective capabilities? The op could be from the mccain campaign infiltrating this forum and attempting to spread uncertainty and dissension.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: roblondon
going hard on pakistan is idiotic and shows how little obama knows about foreign policy. pakistan is far from a write off but outside the main centres its basically a failed state with an insurgency. the us need to show the upside to working with them not pressurising a leadership that is willing to work with the us, having said that they did just elect a gangster, but thats par for the course in that area of the world.

For those who have read what i have posted before and read the news stories about how the Taliban attacks Afghanistan and retreats into Pakistan this isn't a problem to understand.

Thing is, WERE ALREADY IN PAKISTAN, we just don't have a leadership that puts any pressure on them yet and so we have very little backup.

Stop being a fecking wanker and go read up before you open your stupid trap again you twat.

Man.. I have a feeling when you go to McDonalds at 10:59 and ask for a Big Mac and they tell you they're only serving breakfast you really blow up.

What the fuck does this have to do with this thread?

Ask your mother to think for you, she's upstairs preparing your warm chocolate tea.

It has to do with you having an amusingly sever anger problem that is entertaining to exploit.

edit: you fucking wanker twat oi oi oi tea and crumpets biscuits and chips and the Queen

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: roblondon
going hard on pakistan is idiotic and shows how little obama knows about foreign policy. pakistan is far from a write off but outside the main centres its basically a failed state with an insurgency. the us need to show the upside to working with them not pressurising a leadership that is willing to work with the us, having said that they did just elect a gangster, but thats par for the course in that area of the world.

For those who have read what i have posted before and read the news stories about how the Taliban attacks Afghanistan and retreats into Pakistan this isn't a problem to understand.

Thing is, WERE ALREADY IN PAKISTAN, we just don't have a leadership that puts any pressure on them yet and so we have very little backup.

Stop being a fecking wanker and go read up before you open your stupid trap again you twat.

Man.. I have a feeling when you go to McDonalds at 10:59 and ask for a Big Mac and they tell you they're only serving breakfast you really blow up.

What the fuck does this have to do with this thread?

Ask your mother to think for you, she's upstairs preparing your warm chocolate tea.

It has to do with you having an amusingly sever anger problem that is entertaining to exploit.

Do you think you could do that in relevant threads (or PM) instead of trolling?

Or is that too much to ask of your ignorant arse?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield


Do you think you could do that in relevant threads (or PM) instead of trolling?

Or is that too much to ask of your ignorant arse?

...say the guy(?) that calls someone a "fecking wanker" and a "twat".

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: roblondon
well iran has a neclear programme and their elected president, who is clearly mad, has vowed to wipe israel off the face of the earth, iei use the nukes when he has developed them. what response does obama have for that, and for that matter what is mccain's stance? i seriously doubt obama would go in on the ground if it comes down to it where as the reps are usually more willing to be unilateralist in their security actions.

Why would you expect any American president to go up against another nuclear power for the sake of Israel unless nukes were actually raining down on Israel? It isn't in America's interests to fight preemptive wars for Israel.

You really don't have to, the EU stepped up where you failed, you have two nuclear nations right there.

The point he is making is that it is in the best of US interests to be involved in this process.

Despite what you think, the world doesn't stop when you stay out of business, they get handled anyway, it's just that you are out of the equation.

So do you believe that fighting preemptive wars on behalf of Israel is in the UK's interest? Why?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: roblondon
I havent paid too much attecntion but it appears he is going to win. Last time a democrat was in office (Clinton) Bin Laden got away with his life and AlQaida infiltrated the US to perpetrate the worst terror act in the country's history.

I suggested to a friend that Obama was a liberal dreamer or at least thats how he comes across to me. I am not too familiar with his policies, but what I am familiar with is that he is a soft touch on iran and he is in for tax and spend politics.

I don't believe that he will get tired of swatting flies.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: roblondon
well iran has a neclear programme and their elected president, who is clearly mad, has vowed to wipe israel off the face of the earth, iei use the nukes when he has developed them. what response does obama have for that, and for that matter what is mccain's stance? i seriously doubt obama would go in on the ground if it comes down to it where as the reps are usually more willing to be unilateralist in their security actions.

Why would you expect any American president to go up against another nuclear power for the sake of Israel unless nukes were actually raining down on Israel? It isn't in America's interests to fight preemptive wars for Israel.

You really don't have to, the EU stepped up where you failed, you have two nuclear nations right there.

The point he is making is that it is in the best of US interests to be involved in this process.

Despite what you think, the world doesn't stop when you stay out of business, they get handled anyway, it's just that you are out of the equation.

So do you believe that fighting preemptive wars on behalf of Israel is in the UK's interest? Why?

It's just that we have a stranglehold on Russia...

Location, location, location.

We have two nuclear nations within their reach, they would not fuck with a EU nation any more than they would fuck with a NATO nation, NATO is getting old and the US really don't give a shit about it anymore.

Personally, i think it should be scrapped all together and then we can cooperate when it suits the EU.

That is the future you're looking at if you don't shape the fuck up.