Senator Obama VS Senator Clinton

[Hardball]

Obama and Clinton Debate tonight at 9pm on msnbc

[FitnessRubber]

ralph nader is a really intelligent man - and yet it just seems like there's so much that he doesn't get...

[Hardball]

Ralph Nader has entered the race. That will help McCain.

[FitnessRubber]

The Presidency is not an office sought or won on race, nor gender. I can say honestly and with a clear conscience that I would vote for a person who was well qualified regardless of gender or ethnic background. I would have no problem - none, whatsoever - casting a vote for President Gonzales, President Li, President Rubenstein, President Mumba, or anyone else given the right credentials, right attitude, right experience, and right qualifications for the job. I think most of America probably feels that way, no matter what people want to believe. We'd rather have a qualified, solid president in office because he or she is qualified than an unqualified person who's white. Hell, I can see myself voting for Obama - in four or eight years. I just don't think he has the time or experience on the job to lead us out of the hole we're in. Give him some more time to build his experience and his understanding of what the country needs (as opposed to just what it wants), and I think he's got the tools.

very well put

[Ghost]

Did your course cover the importance of choosing candidates based on the racial preferences of foreigners?

Im sure if they studied Nelson Mandella they would has some idea of the significance of race when it comes to presidents.

I cant believe this even needs to be explained to be honest.
When the US comes to a point it can elect a black president it has reached a turning point, not only that but it sends a signal to the rest of the world.
I can go into more detail but you only have to read the news or watch the tv to understand it. Its really that simple.

[Ghost]

But we haven't been talking about military realities. We've been talking about political realities. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for blowing those bastards up wherever we can find them. But what Obama was talking about wasn't some "wink, wink, nudge nudge" operation. He put himself in a position that could be in opposition to Musharaf, and he did it publicly to win votes. Factors:

• Musharaf is not well liked, and his government is seen as corrupt. He took power in a coup and suspended the constitution of Pakistan, and he's known to be pretty brutal when his people get all uppity and start demanding things like basic rights.
• Pakistan is a nation with (literally) 20 different political parties, all vying for their share. With that many players and that kind of majority impossibility, divisiveness among them is worse than here in the US, which is saying something. Everyone is looking for a unifying issue that will win everyone else over.
• The Pakistani population is not only largely Muslim, but they are pretty anti-US. We're blamed for much of the B.S. that's going on there, we're disliked because of our support of India, and we're seen as the major force propping up a not-very-well-liked military dictator who's made the military more powerful than the clergy.
• Musharaf has admitted that he allowed the U.S. to threaten him into capitulation, which makes him a puppet in the eyes of most Pakistani Muslims. They see their leader as a man who bowed to the U.S. under threats of violence instead of as a strong Muslim who took a stand.
• Pakistani Muslims are nearly 80% Sunni. While most see al Qaeda for what it is, there's a reason al Qaeda operatives have been able to move and function inside Pakistan for so long without being caught, and it's NOT because the Pakistanis are eager and willing to turn them in.

Add those things together, and you have a government that's hanging on by pure military might and will, a populace that doesn't like it and sees the US as the reason for problems on both sides, and a US President that's willing to drop bombs even if the government says no?

The political reality is a double-edged sword. It would either make Musharaf look even more like an incompetent puppet, which takes away much of the value he currently has as an ally, or it would give him a reason to build some popularity with his people and condemn us, which takes away much of his value as an ally.

What Obama really should have done was keep his inexperienced mouth shut and wait until he has access to military commanders, intelligence professionals, and poicy advisors to help him make good decisions.

I personally dont like the idea of starting yet another war. Yet if its going to happen this is the way it will happen. Much the same as what Turkey is doing right now in Iraq.
They are attacking terrorist units in the north and not attacking iraq.
I hope that you can see my point using that as a perfect illustration of what Obama is talking about. It does not constitute an attack on the country as such. Yet the government will threaten and moan as if it were

[Hardball]

So Hardball/Fitness:
Is there any doubt that McCain is going to be the guy we're going to be looking at on the November ticket?

And is there really any doubt that Obama is going to beat Hillary?

Just curious. It seems like what we're talking about are the qualifications of the people involved, which is entirely relevant.

Hilliary still has a good chance because of Texas and Ohio. Texas has an enromous amount of delegates. Obama hasn't been doing that well with the Latino vote and Texas has a very large latino population.

McCain is in, no doubt but they are starting the mud slingging already.

[jubaji]

I once failed poly sci, but even I know you have to pick the candidates in the primary before the general election in november.

Did your course cover the importance of choosing candidates based on the racial preferences of foreigners?

[Hardball]

sigh... all this and the election isn't even until november...

I once failed poly sci, but even I know you have to pick the candidates in the primary before the general election in november.

[FitnessRubber]

sigh... all this and the election isn't even until november...

[Ghost]

What you have to see though is that there is an area in the north of pakistan that the pakistani army are trying to control and cant control. The are terrorist forces there that control entire areas and they want to overthrow the Pakistani government. They have enough combat experience to stop the Pakistani troops.

The US has already considered attacking this area as this is the heaviest concentration of terrorist forces anywhere i believe.

The problem for Pakistan, who would probably be more than willing to allow the americans to help, is that the public wont go for it simply because it means american troops/planes on their soil which outweighs the fact that the americans will win.

So in my opinion what would happen is that the americans will ask Pakistan to sort it out, Pakistan will say it cant, the US will go in without consent, but Pakistan wont do anything about it because they dont want to and the US presence would actually help them regain lost territory/remove the threat from these terrorist groups.

What will happen is that Pakistan will go to the UN and moan be publicly very critical in order to keeps its own public happy that they are doing something and seen to be against the US troops being on their soil.

The reality is that an american assault on the affected area would be very useful to the Pakistani leadership.
Remember we arent talking about some general assault on Pakistan here. The problem is in very specific areas which are under Taleban rule now.Pakistani forces cannot enter these regions. So its not like the Americans will be attacking Pakistan in the traditional sense of an attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6409089.stm

here is a map and you can see the brown area which is part of pakistan officially but is out of their control now. Specifically the are around TANK, thats a city lol not an actual single tank just sat there.

[jubaji]

.......................................

[bigboywasim]

A lot of Americans are fed up. We are wasting our money on other countries while our poor population is rising, we have a crappy health care system, and our education system needs more money pumped into it. Our boarder is not secure. Our military is stretched thin.

I think for now most America is tiered of Republicans. A lot of Republicans do not even like their candidates. Bush has basically killed the party for now.

Anyone taking over will have a lot of work to do. A lot of mess to clean up.

Clinton has been going downhill. States with 95% White population are voting for Obama. I wish he had more experience but I like him better than Hilary. There is no way I voting red. We need a fresh face, not a Bush/Clinton dynasty.

I am Pakistani and I do not agree with what Obama said before about Pakistan. Going in Pakistan is worse than Afghanistan. The population on the boarder is well armed. I think it wiill just cause more problems. Trying to secure the Pakistani/Afghan boarder will be a better option.

I agree with pull troops out of Iraq. Staying their for 100 years? Some people are simply insane.

The 40 million people in our country without Healthcare need it. I am all for the government providing healthcare for them. I believe it is everyone's right.

I do not fully support universal healthcare but I do think the government needs to support heathcare more. Kind of like how we have public and private schools.

I think the federal government needs to supports schools more. There is only so much the sates can do. I believe teachers need to get pain more especially k-12 teachers. College and universities also need more money and people who want to get a higher education should be able to get it even if they cannot afford it. At the end it will help the government when they make more money and pay more taxes.

Something needs to get done with the boarder.

If we stopped wasting money on wars and billions in aid to Israel, Egypt and the like maybe we can get some things done.

[Ghost]

The pakistan situation is different though, if it happened in the UK we would just sort it out ourselves, Pakistan cant allow US troops onto its soil easily.

It would cause chaos due to widespread disapproval.
From what i understood from the news it would be a case of Pakistan not being in a position where it could authorize american troops to attack terrorists within Pakistan but it also would do nothing to stop it.
The idea was that if any leader in Pakistan allowed such an action they would be toppled pretty quickly destabilizing the country and then we have that worry with their nukes again, so the idea is to do it without official approval.
Though the Pakistani military would do nothing to stop it.
So essentially it would be allowed unofficially but not officially.

[Ghost]

I'll ignore the part about twisting it to suit my argument and just quote the man himself: (from the Reuter's article I mentioned)



From the Washington Post:



I don't believe that qualifies as twisting anything, Ghost. What it does qualify as, however, is foreign policy insanity when combined with a complete withdrawal of forces from Iraq.

The man is either incapable of understanding the situation, or incapable of keeping his mouth shut on strategic matters. Neither of those ideas is particularly reassuring in a President.

Your insinuation that attacking targets inside Pakistan without Pakistani approval would be construed as anything but an attack on Pakistan itself is equally insane. We are not attacking Iraq, for example, but the terrorists and insurgents who operate there. Does that in any way positively impact Iraqi opinion as to what we're doing? Does that fact make a damned bit of difference in how they see or react to the war?

Hes talking about attacking terrorists in pakistan, not attacking pakistan.

There is a massive difference.
The problem for pakistan is that they wont get approval of the public to allow US troops into the country. Therefore the US would have to do this without approval.
Mate this has been on the news for weeks.
This almost happened in different way a few weeks ago anyway with the nukes. remember that?

There is a clear difference between attacking pakistan itself and engaging their military, which isnt what they are talking about, and attacking terrorists within pakistan without pakistans approval.