Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

is obama a biger war monger or bush

banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 6:49:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As iraq troops would long be home under bush we also hed a increase in troops against the taliban ..!

Now we will start with the other exis of evil guess who ? Yup korea...!! And as we see how calm we are vs iran, its just to hide the plans against korea
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Now I would say obama is bush on steroids..!!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:13:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm sure Bush would have had troops back home (despite his pledge and signature on a treaty which states troops would stay until 2011) while Obama would have them stay wayyyy past this date (despite his approval and support for said bill).
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:14:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:13:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'm sure Bush would have had troops back home (despite his pledge and signature on a treaty which states troops would stay until 2011) while Obama would have them stay wayyyy past this date (despite his approval and support for said bill).

Not to mention he sent more troops to Afghanistan AFTER winning the Nobel Peace Prize. That pissed me off.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:17:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:14:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/24/2010 7:13:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'm sure Bush would have had troops back home (despite his pledge and signature on a treaty which states troops would stay until 2011) while Obama would have them stay wayyyy past this date (despite his approval and support for said bill).

Not to mention he sent more troops to Afghanistan AFTER winning the Nobel Peace Prize. That pissed me off.

Letting terrorists fester in the mountains =/= peace

not that I love the war in Afghanistan or anything...

but somethings gotta give.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:17:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:14:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/24/2010 7:13:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'm sure Bush would have had troops back home (despite his pledge and signature on a treaty which states troops would stay until 2011) while Obama would have them stay wayyyy past this date (despite his approval and support for said bill).

Not to mention he sent more troops to Afghanistan AFTER winning the Nobel Peace Prize. That pissed me off.

Of course! America must make the world safe for democracy. What is more peaceful than that?
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:19:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:17:36 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Letting terrorists fester in the mountains =/= peace

not that I love the war in Afghanistan or anything...

but somethings gotta give.

Indeed.

Besides, not even Obama thought he deserved he prize.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:19:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:17:43 PM, Anarcho wrote:
At 5/24/2010 7:14:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/24/2010 7:13:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'm sure Bush would have had troops back home (despite his pledge and signature on a treaty which states troops would stay until 2011) while Obama would have them stay wayyyy past this date (despite his approval and support for said bill).

Not to mention he sent more troops to Afghanistan AFTER winning the Nobel Peace Prize. That pissed me off.

Of course! America must make the world safe for democracy. What is more peaceful than that?

Rabid squirrels and thunderbolts?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:30:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:17:36 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/24/2010 7:14:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/24/2010 7:13:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'm sure Bush would have had troops back home (despite his pledge and signature on a treaty which states troops would stay until 2011) while Obama would have them stay wayyyy past this date (despite his approval and support for said bill).

Not to mention he sent more troops to Afghanistan AFTER winning the Nobel Peace Prize. That pissed me off.

Letting terrorists fester in the mountains =/= peace

not that I love the war in Afghanistan or anything...

but somethings gotta give.

Don't get me wrong. I despise the Taliban, but sending more US troops into Afghanistan really won't do much.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:33:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:30:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I despise the Taliban, but sending more US troops into Afghanistan really won't do much.

Sure it will... It will kill more than a ton of people, and cost U.S. citizens lotsa money while making companies that distribute weapons a bunch of money (i.e. Dick Cheney's Halliburton LOLZ). The reason we're at was is so pathetically obvious it's not even funny.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:34:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:33:34 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 5/24/2010 7:30:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I despise the Taliban, but sending more US troops into Afghanistan really won't do much.

Sure it will... It will kill more than a ton of people, and cost U.S. citizens lotsa money while making companies that distribute weapons a bunch of money (i.e. Dick Cheney's Halliburton LOLZ). The reason we're at war is so pathetically obvious it's not even funny.

Typo edit.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:34:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:30:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I despise the Taliban, but sending more US troops into Afghanistan really won't do much.

How do you propose we put a foot on the Taliban?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:37:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:34:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/24/2010 7:30:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I despise the Taliban, but sending more US troops into Afghanistan really won't do much.

How do you propose we put a foot on the Taliban?

Special ops?
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:39:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:37:25 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Special ops?

They already do special ops. Besides, there are too many Taliban to take down with Navy SEAL teams. This isn't Socom.
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:40:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Its obvious something more is going on. Somthing we are not aware of..!

After it would be those ebil muslims doing 9/11.! Then we got N. Korea involved somehow.? Bush got them somehow in the exis of evil..!

Now bush is gone..! Is it ok? Iran is noisy obama acts so nice..! It looks ok..! "Looks" ok..!! Obama not madeling in iran..!! What a good movie how obama angers the war mongers and is a dove with iran..!!

Then a boad is destroyed..!! What a "coinsidence"
So many years and so many browls now the usa is ready for war..!!

Is the whole doveish iran policies and israel hoakishness a cover up and mind game.?
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:41:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:39:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/24/2010 7:37:25 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Special ops?

They already do special ops. Besides, there are too many Taliban to take down with Navy SEAL teams. This isn't Socom.

Is it more like COD to you, Volkov?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:41:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And as a response the OP, no, I don't think Obama is a bigger war-monger than Bush. Obama was against going to war while Bush pushed for it. Obama has been outspoken about wanting peace; the only reason he increased troops in Afghanistan that I could think of is to try and look bipartisan to prepare for the next election (he needed a little conservativism while he was trying to nationalize health care) and/or because he was bullied into it. Or maybe we just really are that close to accomplishing a goal (haha doubtful).
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:42:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:41:24 PM, Nags wrote:
Is it more like COD to you, Volkov?

CoD is too arrogant for the things that go on in Afghanistan.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:45:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:41:38 PM, theLwerd wrote:
And as a response the OP, no, I don't think Obama is a bigger war-monger than Bush. Obama was against going to war while Bush pushed for it. Obama has been outspoken about wanting peace; the only reason he increased troops in Afghanistan that I could think of is to try and look bipartisan to prepare for the next election (he needed a little conservativism while he was trying to nationalize health care) and/or because he was bullied into it. Or maybe we just really are that close to accomplishing a goal (haha doubtful).

More like: All talk, no game. He talks the peaceful talk, but then wreaks havoc across the Middle East. His words are entirely irrelevant at this point.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:48:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
When did "across the Middle East" become two countries, with one that isn't even considered apart of the Middle East (at least not in the classical sense)?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:52:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:39:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/24/2010 7:37:25 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Special ops?

They already do special ops. Besides, there are too many Taliban to take down with Navy SEAL teams. This isn't Socom.

Haha oh? And exactly how many Taliban members are there? Not to mention that we have certain weapons - like drone missiles - that can kill dozens (if not more) at a time. Considering the bin Laden family is noted to be very intimately connected with the royal Saudi family, and Osama BL is the friggin leader of the Taliban, I think it's pretty obvious that this is just a political thing. We could find Osama and end this whole thing if we really wanted to. But, even if that's wishful thinking, there are still the drones :p They have already been used to take out many al Qaeda leaders. Take out the leaders and the thing pretty much crumbles. I'm also not opposed to bribery and other incentives regarding the Afghan government.
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:56:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:48:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
When did "across the Middle East" become two countries, with one that isn't even considered apart of the Middle East (at least not in the classical sense)?

Mhm. Fighting only counts as fighting if the fighting zones have official wars named after them?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:58:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:52:09 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Haha oh? And exactly how many Taliban members are there? Not to mention that we have certain weapons - like drone missiles - that can kill dozens (if not more) at a time.

How many times do you think recruitment multiplies when one Taliban soldier dies? Now multiply that multiple by dozens. Then you have sons, nephews, cousins, neighbors, friends, and a whole assortment of new recruits for the Taliban; willing to fight because you killed someone close to them.

They have already been used to take out many al Qaeda leaders. Take out the leaders and the thing pretty much crumbles.

Nope. Take out the leaders and new leaders step up.

I'm also not opposed to bribery and other incentives regarding the Afghan government.

That's kinda what's been going on since the Cold War era. Doesn't work.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 7:59:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:52:09 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Haha oh? And exactly how many Taliban members are there?

Possibly 25,000-30,000.

Not to mention that we have certain weapons - like drone missiles - that can kill dozens (if not more) at a time.

That hasn't worked out so well, considering all the civilian casualties. It's an obvious option, of course, but it still requires there be a presence in Afghanistan of some sort. Besides, the military operations step beyond the usual scope - they're also reconstruction, training and policing teams. These are needed if you want to first clear out most of the enemy force, but then build up the local forces enough to counteract any resurgence.

Considering the bin Laden family is noted to be very intimately connected with the royal Saudi family, and Osama BL is the friggin leader of the Taliban, I think it's pretty obvious that this is just a political thing. We could find Osama and end this whole thing if we really wanted to. But, even if that's wishful thinking, there are still the drones :p They have already been used to take out many al Qaeda leaders. Take out the leaders and the thing pretty much crumbles. I'm also not opposed to bribery and other incentives regarding the Afghan government.

Bin Laden isn't the leader of the Taliban, but I get the point. The problem ends up being that these leaders take shelter in Pakistan, and only limited operations can be done there. So then you need to try and beef up the Pakistani Army and persuade them to not focus on bloody India for more than a few seconds and secure their western frontier. Then you need to train them and give them the tools they need to get these leaders and hope they don't screw you around and maintain a better grip on their own country.

And, of course, this is everything that's currently going on.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 8:01:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:56:00 PM, Nags wrote:
Mhm. Fighting only counts as fighting if the fighting zones have official wars named after them?

Um, so like, where are the military operations, official and unofficial, in Syria, Iran, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Bahrain, and other Middle Eastern countries?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 8:02:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 7:59:50 PM, Volkov wrote:
Besides, the military operations step beyond the usual scope - they're also reconstruction, training and policing teams. These are needed if you want to first clear out most of the enemy force, but then build up the local forces enough to counteract any resurgence.

The US has tried building up Pro-US regimes in the Middle East since the 1950s. It doesn't work. It only makes things much worse.

Bin Laden isn't the leader of the Taliban, but I get the point. The problem ends up being that these leaders take shelter in Pakistan, and only limited operations can be done there. So then you need to try and beef up the Pakistani Army and persuade them to not focus on bloody India for more than a few seconds and secure their western frontier. Then you need to train them and give them the tools they need to get these leaders and hope they don't screw you around and maintain a better grip on their own country.

I don't even know why this crap is relevant. Who cares?

And, of course, this is everything that's currently going on.

Doesn't work.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 8:05:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 8:01:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
Um, so like, where are the military operations, official and unofficial, in Syria, Iran, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Bahrain, and other Middle Eastern countries?

Syria-idk
Iran-CIA most definitely.
Qatar-A few hundred troops.
Oman-Probably some troops.
Jordan-idk
Bahrain-Over 1k troops.
Kuwait-Over 10k troops.
UAE-Some troops.

CIA is probably all over this the Middle East.