Hillary or Obama? Is the US ready for either?

[Noel]

I am new here and this is a big, BIG subject and if I was smart I would stay out of this conversation… But then again I have never been accused of that Soooo…. I am glad that Hillary and Obama are running… It kind of insures a Republican President… I hope…

[blackhawk45]

How about Condaleeza Rice, and Colin Powell

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by blackhawk45

How about Condaleeza Rice, and Colin Powell

Ya know that might well be a ticket I'd vote for. Gotta know where they stand on the Constitution in a bit more detail, but you might be onto something.............

Beats the S..... out of what we've got so far.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

Are you kidding?
It's pretty common knowledge that terror leaders watch American politics very closely. We know this because of documents and communications they had on them when captured.
Bin Laden refered to the vote of the swing state of Ohio in the last Presidential election in a speech he gave. He threatened people in that state if they voted for Bush, along with the rest of the country.
Why is this information bunk?
It may be old, and it may have played well for the Republicans in the past. You could argue a lot of aspects of how it was used, when and why. You can probably even argue that Bush caused a lot more terrorists to crop up. But I don't think you can argue what I wrote--it came right from Bin Laden's two lips.
I don't want to scare anyone. I want this nation to be safe. I see two big threats to our existence (external): China and Islamofascists. The latter is more overt about it, they want to wipe us off the map. They state it very clearly. Don't you see it the same way? Are they lying about their intentions?
I want truth to prevail. What about what I wrote is not true? I want people to make up their own minds, but do it with relevant facts in mind. I am not trying to motivate anyone to voting a certain way. I have no illusions that I'd have such power in a forum such as this--people in here are pretty set in their thinking. I'm just discussing things online...just a friendly conversation.
With that, if you were running a terrorist camp or planning a bombing somewhere on the globe, who would you want in power? The party with a track record of hunting them down and killing them, or one that looks at terrorism as a law enforcement issue?

Maybe, just maybe, Bin Laden threatened people if they voted for Bush because he WANTED them to vote for Bush? If he's as smart as most people believe, he certainly knew his threats would backfire.

Quite frankly, treating terrorism as a military problem, and trying to fight it by invading other countries, threatening and bullying hasn't worked so well. Just as the Soviets created Mujahedeen faster than they killed them in Afghanistan, so the invasion of Iraq has created terrorists faster than we've killed them. By blowing the country apart and destroying the fabric of life there, we've created radicalism in a whole lot of people who would have quietly gone about their business, otherwise.

Most of the time, terrorism properly handled IS a law enforcement problem. You don't fight small bands of lunatics, fanatics and criminals by mobilizing armies. You need that military for backup and special ops sometimes, but mostly it's a slow patient process of investigation, analysis, infiltration for intelligence purposes, finding and nurturing informants, arrests and convictions of key personnel, etc.

But no, that isn't dramatic enough for most people. They want to see bombs and explosions and whiz-bang firefights, and tanks rolling across the desert. They want it to LOOK like we're doing something.

I repeat: it's time to stop telling people the Islamo-fascist bogieman will get you if you vote for the Democrats. And somehow I doubt any terrorists anywhere in the world have suspended operations for a year or two just to maybe, possibly influence an election halfway around the world.

That strategy would be more than a little iffy because God Himself doesn't know who the next president will be, much less the makeup of the next Congress.

[Rave]

Originally Posted by blackhawk45

How about Condaleeza Rice, and Colin Powell

Ah,that we had a choice of Colin or Obama.
Colin had class,a lot more than any in office now,IMO.

Originally Posted by troy2000

Maybe, just maybe, Bin Laden threatened people if they voted for Bush because he WANTED them to vote for Bush? If he's as smart as most people believe, he certainly knew his threats would backfire.
Quite frankly, treating terrorism as a military problem, and trying to fight it by invading other countries, threatening and bullying hasn't worked so well. Just as the Soviets created Mujahedeen faster than they killed them in Afghanistan, so the invasion of Iraq has created terrorists faster than we've killed them. By blowing the country apart and destroying the fabric of life there, we've created radicalism in a whole lot of people who would have quietly gone about their business, otherwise.
Most of the time, terrorism properly handled IS a law enforcement problem. You don't fight small bands of lunatics, fanatics and criminals by mobilizing armies. You need that military for backup and special ops sometimes, but mostly it's a slow patient process of investigation, analysis, infiltration for intelligence purposes, finding and nurturing informants, arrests and convictions of key personnel, etc.
But no, that isn't dramatic enough for most people. They want to see bombs and explosions and whiz-bang firefights, and tanks rolling across the desert. They want it to LOOK like we're doing something.
I repeat: it's time to stop telling people the Islamo-fascist bogieman will get you if you vote for the Democrats. And somehow I doubt any terrorists anywhere in the world have suspended operations for a year or two just to maybe, possibly influence an election halfway around the world.
That strategy would be more than a little iffy because God Himself doesn't know who the next president will be, much less the makeup of the next Congress.

That's pretty much what the 911 commission report said.

[The_Patriot]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Maybe, just maybe, Bin Laden threatened people if they voted for Bush because he WANTED them to vote for Bush? If he's as smart as most people believe, he certainly knew his threats would backfire.

Quite frankly, treating terrorism as a military problem, and trying to fight it by invading other countries, threatening and bullying hasn't worked so well. Just as the Soviets created Mujahedeen faster than they killed them in Afghanistan, so the invasion of Iraq has created terrorists faster than we've killed them. By blowing the country apart and destroying the fabric of life there, we've created radicalism in a whole lot of people who would have quietly gone about their business, otherwise.

Most of the time, terrorism properly handled IS a law enforcement problem. You don't fight small bands of lunatics, fanatics and criminals by mobilizing armies. You need that military for backup and special ops sometimes, but mostly it's a slow patient process of investigation, analysis, infiltration for intelligence purposes, finding and nurturing informants, arrests and convictions of key personnel, etc.

But no, that isn't dramatic enough for most people. They want to see bombs and explosions and whiz-bang firefights, and tanks rolling across the desert. They want it to LOOK like we're doing something.

I repeat: it's time to stop telling people the Islamo-fascist bogieman will get you if you vote for the Democrats. And somehow I doubt any terrorists anywhere in the world have suspended operations for a year or two just to maybe, possibly influence an election halfway around the world.

That strategy would be more than a little iffy because God Himself doesn't know who the next president will be, much less the makeup of the next Congress.

I made a decision last night to not spend so much time on politics on the gun site, but I'll quickly respond to your points.

1) Why would Bin Laden want a strong anti-terror leader in the White House? So his organizations and sister organizations would be under constant assault? And who ever said Bin Laden was a smart guy? I think he's a strategic and operational idiot. Just because some goat herders have been able to protect him, doesn't make him a genius.

2) I do agree that fighting terrorism isn't strictly a military problem. But I don't think it's strictly a law enforcement problem, either. It would be better for specialized military or para-military groups to fight fire with fire--on their turf, with heir language, etc. The answer, I always felt, fell somewhere in the middle (as do most answers to debates). Regardless of how you fight it, you need someone in the White House that wants to fight it. Read that book I suggested earlier, Dereliction of Duty, and tell me if Clinton was devoted to fighting terrorism. There were a number of other good books as well.

3) I never tried to scare anyone; facts are facts--Bin Laden, et al, do follow our politics VERY closely and have tried to influence them in the past. Obviously, they did that for a reason.

4) You still didn't answer my question, if YOU were a terrorist, planning or training bombings/operations (anywhere on the globe), who would YOU want in the White House? Why? If you were that terrorist, you woulnd't feel better about accomplishing your mission with one group over another in today's environment?

Just some friendly points...nothing to lose sleep over.

[tlarkin]

Some statistics say over 1 million Iraqi people dead. No one thinks that will honestly stop terrorism will it? I think it fuels it to be honest.

Also, Colin Powell, not a bad guy except for how he flopped on the war on terror. At first he was against the invasion of Iraq, and said countless times there is no evidence of WMDs. Then I think he was forced to change in opinion, which well, doesn't sit well with me. If you go back and look at his stance before the invasion he was against it, and look at it right before it happened he all of the sudden changed his stance. I think he is very level headed and sensible, and I think he had the right stance to begin with, but he just didn't stick with it.

[The_Patriot]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Some statistics say over 1 million Iraqi people dead. No one thinks that will honestly stop terrorism will it? I think it fuels it to be honest.

Also, Colin Powell, not a bad guy except for how he flopped on the war on terror. At first he was against the invasion of Iraq, and said countless times there is no evidence of WMDs. Then I think he was forced to change in opinion, which well, doesn't sit well with me. If you go back and look at his stance before the invasion he was against it, and look at it right before it happened he all of the sudden changed his stance. I think he is very level headed and sensible, and I think he had the right stance to begin with, but he just didn't stick with it.

No, what we've done won't stop it. I would agree that Iraq was a real bad idea in execution (and cost). We should have fought it a different, cheaper way.

I agree with you on Powell...I thought for a long time he was much more honorable than he turned out to be. I don't know what happened to him, but he changed as a result of something.

[mym1a]

I don't take much stock in what the 9/11 commission says!their was some on that pannel that should of recused them selves do to a conflict of interest!!

[Rave]

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

No, what we've done won't stop it. I would agree that Iraq was a real bad idea in execution (and cost). We should have fought it a different, cheaper way.
I agree with you on Powell...I thought for a long time he was much more honorable than he turned out to be. I don't know what happened to him, but he changed as a result of something.

He began styfiling as a result of getting his butt kicked a few times by Bush for not being a team player.
IMO he was the only one that spoke the truth,the truth that is now buried under so much BS that it may never be uncovered.
But I remember what he said,and it has been proven to be the truth by repeated admission by the root.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by Rave

He began styfiling as a result of getting his butt kicked a few times by Bush for not being a team player.
IMO he was the only one that spoke the truth,the truth that is now buried under so much BS that it may never be uncovered.
But I remember what he said,and it has been proven to be the truth by repeated admission by the root.

But hey, Mission Accomplished!

[mym1a]

just heard on the news Romney is dropping out or to be more correct, suspending his campaign????

[two-70]

I will not vote for a clinton, we seen what Bill did and im not ready for the second half, Obama i am not sure, i dont think a lot of people are ready for him either, I am not ashamed to say i voted for Huckabee, and McCain will get my vote as the republican nominee since its pretty clear he is gonna be the the Republican nominee

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by two-70

I will not vote for a clinton, we seen what Bill did and im not ready for the second half, Obama i am not sure, i dont think a lot of people are ready for him either, I am not ashamed to say i voted for Huckabee, and McCain will get my vote as the republican nominee since its pretty clear he is gonna be the the Republican nominee

An interesting side note, Ann Coulter (who I hate btw) said that if McCain was the Republican nominee she would support Clinton instead. I just found that interesting.

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

An interesting side note, Ann Coulter (who I hate btw) said that if McCain was the Republican nominee she would support Clinton instead. I just found that interesting.

I think you might consider her logic behind that:first off she stated 4 years with billary would be 4 years of hell,McCain would be bring 20 years of socializm!by voting McCain you are accepting a water downed republican party and setting a precedent for liberalizm as the norm! I think it would be better to let billary do there thing,no doubt the public would tire of their BS and vote republican in the house and senate, also i think the turn coat repubic's need to recieve a message, you want to act and vote like a dem then join their party cause we aren't voting for you!!!!! and thats my humble opinion

[tlarkin]

well Ann Coulter is just a huge liar to begin with so anything she says is completely invalid in my mind, I just found that funny is all.

[The_Patriot]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

well Ann Coulter is just a huge liar to begin with so anything she says is completely invalid in my mind, I just found that funny is all.

I don't like statements like this because one could infer you are suggesting that others don't lie.

You think people/hosts/pundits on the left don't lie? On the right? In the middle?

As I see it, EVERYONE in and around politics twists the truth to fit their own agendas. They all lie.

That's why, at the end of the day, I'll vote for the person whose VOTING RECORD is more in line with my personal beliefs and values. I could care less what any of them say, you can't trust them anyway; it's only important what they've done (with hopes they'll continue doing the same).

[TXplt]

Ms. Coulter is just saying that.....

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

well Ann Coulter is just a huge liar to begin with so anything she says is completely invalid in my mind, I just found that funny is all.

what did she lie about ????just her view of things???

[tlarkin]

I've actually read her books and in one of them she actually says that there has never been an act of terrorism by a non muslim in the USA. It is that kind of blatant fear mongering and lying which I cannot stand at all.

Obviously, she has never heard of Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber.

That is my justification and I will stand by it for as long as I live.