Clinton/Obama Debate.....LMAO!!!

[Psycho4Bud]

- Just because the people elect a more conservative government that's more Pro-US (most of our allies ARE ... duh) doesn't mean that people around the world see America in a better light than pre-Iraq. That's like saying that because America voted Bush president twice ... we all agreed with the Iraq war. The country was divided (and still is). There is more to someone getting elected than their stance on international alliances.

True but I'm sure it was a big issue. What about our "world image" when we're the first on on the scene after disasters? LOL...let someone like Ron Paul get in and you'll see how unpopular we can get when all aid, assistance, etc. is shut off.

- My point being ... if Al Queda is not gaining strength in Afghanistan like you claim, then WHY do we require more military assistance in the area? Why are officials going on tv talking about this problem? If Afghanistan is Al Quedas "last line of defense" like you just said ... then one would think that Afghanistan is Al Queda's stronghold ...

Being a stronghold and gaining strength are two different things. After all, at the end of WW2 the Nazi's could have called Berlin their stronghold. More troops doesn't always equate to battle. There is also the issue of training Afghan forces, rebuilding, etc.....not to mention sharing the responsibility.

- In a perfect world ... all countries deserve the respect of the international community and for them to acknowledge their sovereignty. My meaning being... America should always extend its hand at the table of diplomacy to nations who have not yet posed an emanate threat to our people. Turning a blind eye to these countries and pretending "we're above it" does nothing more than anger these government even more. And perhaps worse, these nation's citizens don't seek a war with America.

P.S. As far as I've ever read ... there isn't any proof that Saddam was planning to attack the US. There WAS a document suggesting that Bin Laden would however.

Here's the article: CNN.com - Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam' - Jun 18, 2004

- Just because America has not been attacked since 9-11 doesn't mean that we are safer. How long had it been since US soil had been attacked BEFORE 9-11? I guess we all are allowed to have our own opinion. But I think most people share the same view as I. A view that if we maintain this course of international diplomacy, America will become more and more threatened. (Hence, less secure)

Sure, current legislation has helped spoil terrorist attacks ... I can buy it. But do you HONESTLY believe America wasn't a target prior to 9-11? Both assassination and terrorist attacks have been spoiled LONG before the Patriot Act. (HINT ... that's why we have agencies like the CIA and NSA)

Your two statements contradict each other. If current legislation has spoiled attacks then I say that we are safer now than before. We were a target, are a target.....the difference is that now we are harder to get to due to current legislation and that they are way to busy dodging "bullets" for lack of better terms. As it's been said, "Better to fight them there than here".

By the way, it's been a pleasure debating this with ya. Debating politics can get very heated and due to site policy personal attacks aren't allowed. You've kept it real and to the point without that.....much respect!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 03-04-2008. Clinton/Obama Debate.....LMAO!!! MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, I want you to respond to not holding oversight for your subcommittee. But also, do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war? SEN. OBAMA: Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Rating: 5