We is the United States.

Politics IS partisanship don't let anyone fool you differently.


Yes, consistently in our best interest.

Sounds like the old "if we cant' remove all evil dictators then we should remove none" argument. More folly.


It depends on what we hope to gain by doing so and whether the particular terrorist are to be trusted at all.

You seem to think ALL terrorist are the same, all the situations and circumstances surrounding them are the same and they can all be treated the same. A formula of the absurd.

ALL of them in one big bread basket.

What he said was we will deal with them with NO conditions AT ALL whether we see fit or not.

What is he going to offer them to get them to change their ways?

Yes WE are the United States and Obama is a citizan just like you and I.If he becomes POTUS it's up to HIM how he decides to deal with terrorisim and you will have to DEAL with THAT reality!

I'm not easily fooled,I am an Independent voter.Unlike you,my vote must be EARNED ! You are a garden variety partizan,highly influenced by party rhetoric and severely handicapped by your inability to think outside of party rhetoric. You have my sympathy.John Adams wrote about his concerns with the "party thang" and he was correct! Partisans typically love their party even "more" than their country and that is dangerous.


Exactly..and just what are our best interest's? Turn most of the world against us so they can form coalitions and make a preemptive strike like we did? We have set a precedent that others are at liberty to follow.Will our enemies take us out for the common good of the planet? You had better hope that they don't think like we do...time will tell.



That's not the argument I am making and you know it. I am arguing for a consistent policy towards dealing with terror. Your only requirement is that we deal with terror from a Republican administration and you would let them set policy any way they wish as long as a Republican is in power.I am far more demanding than you are. We should require a set policy no matter who is in power.You either deal with terrorists or you don't. The devil is in the details.I believe ground rules must be set and hostilities cease "before" we sit down to "negotiate" with the enemy! Obama does not agree with setting ground rules for "discussion". Mayhaps he really believes "discussion" does not mean appeasement.I tend to agree with him,the channels of dialog should never be closed.Now heres where I really do disagree with Obama.Sending Envoys to discuss our "differences" is one thing,the POTUS should never discuss differences with the enemy in person. That pays honor to the terrorist and detracts from his leverage in dealing with them.Obama does seem more than a little naive about this fact.One thing I've learned in following politics for almost 40 years is this. What the POTUS says and what he eventually does may vary wildly.One of the key virtues of a good POTUS is his leadership qualities and who he appoints to carry out the will of the people and who he turns to for advice in doing so.


In all cases we hope to end the tactics of terror one way or another.Again,dialog should always remain open.No terrorist should be "trusted",they violated any possible trust by killing "innocent" people! Trust is not a prerequisite for "dialog"..if it were,we could not talk to any terrorist. Dialog does not equal trust - Or - Appeasement!

I do? ..well..you are wrong again. Instead of "telling" me what I think it would be better for you to ask me what I think. I do not believe that they can all be dealt with the "same" way.They DO have one similarity..they all intentionally kill innocent people or they give aid to that activity.As long as they "persist" in taking innocent lives,they "remain" a target! Again..."discussion" does not equal appeasement and your refusal to understand or "admit" this fact is absurd and it demonstrates your partisan attitude. You're "locked" into a partisan mentality,a mentality that is capable of only supporting policy that flows from the RNC.You will forever support inconsistent policy towards terror as long as that policy is set by "your" party.



I believe there should be some ground rules for "negotiations" but only minimal rules for dialog! Still..I believe Obama would be wrong to honor the terorists with his presence at such a meeting.Discussion should be through envoys and not in person. If and when an agreement to end hostilities has been reached,negotiatons that would include the POTUS could then and only then..begin.



Time will tell...I would make them an offer they cannot refuse,I would offer them retention of their lives.If they refused the offer,they do so knowing our intentions.One could say that we have reached an understanding!

OK and??? If is a big word. But the discuss is what he will do as President not that we will all have to live with it, that is an unfortunate given.



Well then you are easily fooled since I am an independent too just like you.

You should never stereotype people based on your prejudices.



That depends on a lot of things including whom we are dealing with. Foriegn relations is like a big chess board and is very fluid.

What on earth are you talking about.

I'm sorry buy the precedent that if you invade another country in order to take over that countries wealth and land and make it's peoples subservient to you, that it's allies will come to it's rescue and defeat you and you will then come under whatever agreement you can negotiate afterwards has LONG been in existence.

Originally Posted by Stinger View Post
Sounds like the old "if we cant' remove all evil dictators then we should remove none" argument. More folly.

Yeah we treat them all the same no matter what.....folly.

Is we defeat them.

OK let's set it to the Bush policy and if Obama or Hillary win they have to follow it and they can't change it.

Sounds good to me.

All in one lump sum, if you are going to deal with one you have to deal with them all, if you are going to remove one you have to remove them all.

What folly.


OH then they'll stop............

And what are you going to offer them all? Remember you have to be consistent with them all.

Well when you can reconcile the two above statements you made let me know.


That is exactly what he promised he will do.


Well that is what we having been trying to do, perhaps it would have been better everyone jumped on board.

What is the discussion to be had with OBL and alQaeda?

So how do you negotiate and come to agreement with someone you should never trust?

Which is their goal, do we agree to let them just kill fewer than they want to?

Like you did with me above................?

I'm sorry but your argument is totally conflicted, you say one thing and then another and I have no idea how to keep up with it. You say we have to deal with them all the same, one uniform policy and then you say they can't all be dealt with the same way.

The fact is we deal with them through strength and on our terms. Obama doesn't understand that and will place us in more danger because of it.

No..you keep ignoring what I wrote to suit your own purpose.I say..we need a "consistent" policy,we really don't have that now do we? Discussion does not = appeasement. We should remain consistently "open" to discussion but before "negotiations" can begin,hostilities must cease.You deal with them through the weakness of FEAR not strength.Yes..it takes courage to be open to dialog! You "claim" to be an "Independent"..do you exercise your so called Independence by voting for only conservative presidential candidates? Name one liberal "presidential" candidate you voted for in the last 25 years.

No you keep making conflicting statements.

Then you say we need to treat them differently as the situation dictates.

What's the point of discussion and negoitation if you are not willing to give something to the otherside?


The Bush position not Obama's. That's even what McCain has stated.

So how is Obama going to get OBL and al Qaeda to cease hostilities so he can then go and appease them?

No you deal with them through a position of strrength and resolve, not weakness like Obama wants to do.


It takes no courage at all to open a dialog. That's what those who have no courage and resolve do when they are threatened.

Depends.

First of all being an independent has nothing to do with political philosophy it has to do with polticial party affiliation. There are liberal independents there are conservative independents. Where did you get the idea that independents were all liberal?

Jimmy Carter, the Reagan twice, Bush1 twice, then libertarian twice, most likely Republican this time, but are you under the impression that the only election we ever vote in is the Presidential?

The fact that you can't fathom that is a demonstration of why people like you shouldn't be president.
Proven even more myopic by the fact that we, on this board, "discuss" things all the time.
Do we always have to "give something to the other side"?


Since Obama has already said he will not talk to terrorists, it is ridiculous to continue that line of argument.
All you're doing is spewing out sound-bites, ignoring the reality of the situation.

It's one of the reasons why Bush's popularity is in the toilet.
And McCain has a SERIOUS problem with people questioning the relationship between him and Bush...


You've got access to Obama's voting record, right?
What has he actually voted that shows "weakness"?

Did he support attacking al Qaeda?

For some reason, you have it stuck in your head we can't talk to these people, WHILE we carry a big stick.


ROFLMAO!
Just saying that Obama is willing to talk to other nations took TREMENDOUS courage.
He has been scorned and ridiculed by people who obviously can't comprehend the concept. And it took courage to accept that.

I challenge you to show me where Obama has REFUSED action as a response to an ACTUAL threat.
You can't do it.
And you're just going to run yourself in circles refusing to realize that we CAN talk to other nations, and it won't hurt us.


Backing up a moment,...
Are you even a citizen of the U.S. eligible to vote?


Really?
There is an "independent" party that you affiliate yourself with?

SC has a point.
If you claim "independent", but only support Republicans, you're just assuming a title you don't deserve.

So answer the question...
Name one liberal "presidential" candidate you voted for in the last 25 years.

The fact that you have no response shows the fallacy of your position.

What are we going to discuss with OBL and alQaeda and to what end?


He said we should be willing to talk to everyone, has he changed his tune again?


His record of voting "present" rather than taking positions.

In Iraq? No.

Talk about what? What do they want to talk about?

Originally Posted by Stinger
It takes no courage at all to open a dialog. That's what those who have no courage and resolve do when they are threatened.

it didn't take a nano amount of courage.


I challenge you to show where he has proposed it.

Notice how you restate it as just 'talking to other nations".

We're not talking just other nations. We can talk to friendly nations all day long and should. It's the ones that want us destroyed and are engaged in activities to that end that we should not have our President trotting over during his first year with no preconditions to supply them witht he propaganda they can create from the prestige it would give them.

And THAT's what he said he would do.


yes why do you ask?

Are you just being obtuse now?

and that is an outright lie on your point.


Since when does being an independent require you to vote for a liberal Presidential candidate? You seem ignorant as to what an independent voter is and believe that it only applies to Presidential elections.

I gave you the list of the past Presidential candidates I have voted for, from liberal to conservative. Independent of party.

So what Republicans have you voted for for President in the last 25 years?

You have this boring tactic of saying "no response" when one WAS given.
Sticking your head in the sand and saying "no response", "no response" again just removes your credibility.

And to say it again, since Obama has already stated no discussions with terrorists, your repeated questions regarding "OBL and alQaeda" just show you haven't a clue what you're complaining about.
Your complaint is not real.


He said he would be willing to talk to countries.
He has also said he will not talk to terrorists.

That is what he ACTUALLY said.


What did he vote "present" on rather than take a position?
You're talking out your arse, as he had the courage to vote "no" on Iraq.

Quit making stupid crap up.


al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded, so your assessment is once again false...


You obviously have no imagination, and no concept of international diplomacy.
For one, we can talk about how much it will hurt to get whacked by this stick, and what it will take to not get whacked by the stick.
We can openly discuss the situation with them.


Again, all you're doing is repeating what you said, cowardly avoiding even commenting on what I said.


Predictably, you again cower from a simple challenge.
You make a claim, and then refuse to substantiate it.

And what's truly stupid about your reply is it is so easy for me to shoot you down.
The Raw Story | Obama warns he would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan

"Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama warned Wednesday that if elected president he would be prepared to order military strikes against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, even if Islamabad objects."

So I just proved my point, while you still can't offer proof of your claims.


Cause that is what Obama has ACTUALLY SAID.


You think the U.S. president paying a visit to say "knock it off" gives the country prestige?

I'm talking to you, and that sure as heck doesn't give YOU any credibility, does it?


Nothing.
Just saving a quote for later when you get busted...


Link me to the national independent party web-site...


How is what I said a "lie"?

Is this similar to that nonsense where if somebody uses the word "you", then it's an attack?
Cause I think that position of yours would be more of a "lie" than what I actually said...


< yawn >
If a voter supports only Republicans, how is that "independent"?


You did? Where?
And "independent of party"?
That's like buying only Ford throughout your life, and then insisting you're not partial.


Amusingly enough, Gore was the first non-Republican I voted for.
Furthermore, since I never claimed to be an independent, your question is pointless.

You noticed that also? This is a ridiculous way to debate. You can have this guy.

Plus, trying to read or make any sense of these long ass posts is making me dizzy,