Is Obama a weak hand on security?

[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.

 

[Farang]

If you blame Clinton for 9/11, nobody is going to convince you that Obama is tough on national security.

 

[ElFenix]

i think he's more hawkish than a lot of his supporters would like.

so, no, i don't think so.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Farang
If you blame Clinton for 9/11, nobody is going to convince you that Obama is tough on national security.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i think he's more hawkish than a lot of his supporters would like.

so, no, i don't think so.

these

 

[TallBill]

I guess we'll see, but it's really impossible to tell. No matter how tight or loose security shit can still happen or not happen if that makes sense.

Edit - And I wouldn't blame 9/11 on anyone except the bastards that planned or hijacked the planes.

 

[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.

 

[Farang]

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.

Nobody is going into Iran on the ground unless we changed the rules to allow Mississippi to elect our entire Congress.

 

[First]

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.

And if you're interested in maintaining the national security of the United States, knowingly voting for a candidate that you believe is more likely to send troops to Iran is the absolute worst thing you can do for our security.

 

[roblondon]

i know but clinton had, bin laden, a marked man in the sights of the CIA effectively for a number of years and let him go in the late 1990's. bin laden had already done the yemen and african attacks and it was clearly a matter of time for a follow up. the US got unlucky not catching the sept 11 attackers, just like the spanish and brits should have foiled their attacks, but some will always slip through. however before a threat goes from apparently latent to present there needs to be a willingness to act. clinton didnt have that willingness, but bush was all too willing and far too little prepared thanks to dumsfeld. given the risks to the gulf oil supply, it will all too easy for a dreamer to take the politically easy option if the alternative is high risk. thats what i think.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Farang

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.

Nobody is going into Iran on the ground....

The world is full of certainties and that just isn't one. I don't think that it'll happen, but 10 years ago I never expected to invade Afghanistan either.

 

[ElFenix]

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.

i doubt imadinnerjacket will survive the next election. his domestic policies have been an utter failure and he can't even buy social peace with petrodollars any more. and his confrontational foreign policy will probably be eviscerated by obama's election. he'll basically have nothing to offer. next presidential election is august of next year. ex-president khatami has already said that if fellow reformer karroubi registers to run, he won't register so as not to split the reformer vote (which happened last time and ended up having a rumored corrupt ex-president running against ahmadinejad).

now, the question is whether the clerics want to continue with the nuke program?

 

[RightIsWrong]

OP....how has the strong man Bush faired in getting UBL? He has had a full 7 years and the entire world has supported his efforts to hunt him down.

UBL was a relative unknown outside of intel services, government heads and political junkies during Clinton's time. Now, he has been public enemy #1 to the entire world and cannot be found.

I think you need a little lesson in something called perspective.

 

[Atheus]

Daily Mail much?

I'd like to say that 90% of people I talk to in London support Obama totally and the last thing they want is to get into a war with Iran.

 

[techs]

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.

You mean when Bush got the memo "Bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S." Or when Bin Laden successfully attacked the U.S. during Bushes Presidency? Or do you mean that on the very day of 9-11 the Bushes National Security Advisor was going to deliver a speech which called long range ballistic missiles the most immeditate threat to the U.S. Or do you mean that after Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. Bush invaded a country that had no Al-Qaeda presence and no involvement in the attack, and used precious troops that could have been used in Afghanistan to go after the real Al-Qaeda stronghold? Or do you mean the failure to destroy Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan so the could go over the border into Pakistan and destabilize it and possibly take control of a country with nukes?

Or are you trying to say Britain is fighting terrorism with a couple of thousand troops in Iraq and the U.S. should be doing more?

Just trying to understand.

 

[bctbct]

Britian should probably take the lead on this one, we will help though.

 

[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.

 

[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'.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: roblondon
i know but clinton had, bin laden, a marked man in the sights of the CIA effectively for a number of years and let him go in the late 1990's. bin laden had already done the yemen and african attacks and it was clearly a matter of time for a follow up. the US got unlucky not catching the sept 11 attackers, just like the spanish and brits should have foiled their attacks, but some will always slip through. however before a threat goes from apparently latent to present there needs to be a willingness to act. clinton didnt have that willingness, but bush was all too willing and far too little prepared thanks to dumsfeld. given the risks to the gulf oil supply, it will all too easy for a dreamer to take the politically easy option if the alternative is high risk. thats what i think.

^ Extremely uninformed post.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Their elected president is a powerless puppet for the religious leaders and has no say as to if and when they use their nukes. It doesn't matter what he thinks.

Neither McCain nor Obama will commence a ground invasion of Iran because we simply don't have the troops or resources to do that and the potential geopolitical/economic catastrophe that could be caused by an invasion.

 

[Moonbeam]

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'.

Ah geez it's just so sad. He's like a gauze pad that's been used to soak up the puss from an oozing boil. He fell asleep on the road and never had a chance.

 

[roblondon]

I wouldnt say attcking uss cole and the two embassies wasnt a warning there was more to come, a few other spectaculars had failed, all during clinton's years, yet clinton let him go. after 9/11 bin laden has been on the run in lawless pakistan and neitherthe US, British or local intelligence agencies have caught either him or Mullah Omar, however its not that surprising, its a very big and remote area and coalition forces dont control it.

Fact is london isnt going to be Iran's primary target if they do have nukes, it will be the US or Israel. The most likely outcome is they dont preemtively use them and merely retain them as a threat then they can start destabilising the GCC where the US is dependent on its oil from. Then what will the US do? You cant stockade a country with nukes.

As for the person speculating on the Iranian election outcome, that is letting the enemy decide US policy for it. That is a stupidly casual stance. Its one thing letting Chavex run venezuela into a hole, but Iran is a much more important threat.

 

[roblondon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Their elected president is a powerless puppet for the religious leaders and has no say as to if and when they use their nukes. It doesn't matter what he thinks.

Neither McCain nor Obama will commence a ground invasion of Iran because we simply don't have the troops or resources to do that and the potential geopolitical/economic catastrophe that could be caused by an invasion.

yeah but you can trigger a response from the iranians first.

 

[Moonbeam]

bamacre has assured me Obama is going to bomb Iran. Don't worry and relax. Have a bath and soak in some nice hot water.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: roblondon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Their elected president is a powerless puppet for the religious leaders and has no say as to if and when they use their nukes. It doesn't matter what he thinks.

Neither McCain nor Obama will commence a ground invasion of Iran because we simply don't have the troops or resources to do that and the potential geopolitical/economic catastrophe that could be caused by an invasion.

yeah but you can trigger a response from the iranians first.

Why would we trigger a response we were unwilling and unable to meet effectively? Avoiding armed conflict with Iran will be a large priority of any future US administration, particularly in this current atmosphere of global economic weakness. At this time the world simply can't afford $400 a barrel oil, and that's just what we'd get with the closure of the straights of hormuz.

As for Clinton's response to Bin Laden's attacks, I think they were totally rational and appropriate. Clinton authorized the CIA to assassinate Bin Laden if they got the chance. So far as his failure to do so is concerned, well that's a strike against the incompetance of his administration, but not his will to do so. I mean the guy reversed decades of precedent by issuing an executive order to assassinate Bin Laden, he launched cruise missiles at the guy, etc. You aren't going to go invade a country in southeast Asia due to some small scale attacks.

 

[Butterbean]

Clinton was more concerned with threats from militias (Waco assault etc) and ignored the Islamic threats and people who worked FBI will tell you that.

Obama is a radical who will be much more concerned with forcing "change" on the middle class. You can see his comments about how we need a "civilian Security force" as large and weLl funded as the miltitary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s


To see how the media covered for him you can see the transcripts printed in papers edited the comment out

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...as-remarks-on-service/


To fill out the picture, this week the tape came out with Obama explaining how the court was hard to make change with and he had other ways he would enact "distributive change"

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn?t that radical. It didn?t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution ? at least as it?s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can?t do to you, says what the federal government can?t do to you, but it doesn?t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.


"And that hasn?t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that."

So we see Obama wants a large civilian force - and he also think the courts are relics and he wants 'community organizing" and coalitions of power" to enact his "redistributive change"


Obama is a Marxist

If you want to see what some of his "community service" groups would look like to start out you can check put Public Allies run by the Obama's


Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...spx?id=305420655186700



Obama is also more sympathetic to the Muslims than to US

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Dream From My Father