Who Will You Be Voting For?

**kid_ebony** · 03-30-2008 02:04 PM

Does anyone know who this character is and what tribe she is from???

please let me know!

thanks

**Aizmov** · 03-30-2008 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by kid_ebony

Does anyone know who this character is and what tribe she is from???

please let me know!

thanks

Wrong thread

**Midnight Rambler** · 03-30-2008 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Aizmov

If you agree with Ron Paul why are you voting for Obama? Obama keeps talking about "change" and I have no idea what that "change" supposed to be, to me Obama is another candidate out of the candidate creating machine.

Actually, if Ron Paul were the GOP candidate, I would at least consider him. I like McCain on a personal level but since he has handcuffed himself to some of the worst policies of the Bush Administration, I can't even consider voting for him now (though I might have back in 2000, had he won the nomination).

Any Democrat who is elected President will, indeed, bring "Change". They'll move back towards fiscal responsibility rather than the massive deficit spending which has made our currency worthless. They'll also likely speed up the removal of American forces from Iraq, since Republicans have made it clear they intend on maintaing a military presence in Iraq forever. And illegal government surveillance of US citizens will certainly cease. Those reasons alone are enough for me to vote for Obama (or Hillary, if she's the candidate) in November.

Ironically, Ron Paul also holds all these same policy stances but to an even stronger degree than the Democrats, which is why I would consider voting for him had he won the nomination. Ron Paul is actually a Libertarian (He even ran for President as a Libertarian in the past) and is a Republican in name only...

**Aizmov** · 03-30-2008 05:42 PM

Too bad Obama is pulling the troops out of Iraq only to send them to Pakistan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...32206420070801
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-fly-over.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...27/535827.aspx

**Midnight Rambler** · 03-30-2008 06:00 PM

Obama wants to be able to strike at Al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, not station 140,000 troops there! The Republicans obviously agree with this strategy since they've been doing the same thing, at least with regards to Pakistan. Obama's strategy in dealing with Al-Qaeda is in fact much more in line with traditional US Foreign Policy which (until Bush 43 came along) was to hit enemy targets hard and then get out, with a ground component usually not needed. This is similar to what Reagan did in Libya, Bush 41 did in Panama, Clinton did in Haiti and the Balkans, etc.etc...

From one of your links:

"I find it amusing," said Obama, "that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism." ...

**Aizmov** · 03-30-2008 06:14 PM

How about pulling the troops and not waste tax money on war? I doubt attacking some random targets in Pakistan will do anything towards the War on Terror.

Obama's strategy in dealing with Al-Qaeda is in fact much more in line with traditional US Foreign Policy which (until Bush 43 came along) was to hit enemy targets hard and then get out

The Korean war and Vietnam disagree.

**Midnight Rambler** · 03-30-2008 06:47 PM

So you don't think attacking terrorist targets in Pakistan will do any good even though all sides agree that this is THE safe haven for Al-Qaeda? But allowing 140,000 troops to stand around and get blown up by IED's in Iraq will solve something? I don't follow your logic.

The Korean War and the Vietnam War were in no way similar to the war in Iraq. In Korea the North Koreans with backing from Communist China launched an illegal invasion of South Korea. Basically our allies were attacked by foreign invaders, the classic reason any nation should get involved in a war. In fact a large number of US troops were stationed in South Korea at the time so it was a direct assault on the US and its allies no matter how you slice it...

Vietnam was very different and is much more like the situation in Iraq today. Basically we propped up an illegitimate government in South Vietnam in order to prevent the Communists from taking over the county. We agreed (In the 1954 Treaty of Paris) to an election in 1957 in Vietnam (after the French had pulled out and the country was temporarily split) to unify Vietnam under one government. Then, realizing that the Communists were more popular and would almost certainly win, we broke our word and used our influence to prevent the election from happening. And that was just the beginning...

Getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations is almost always a disaster, especially when you are trying to steer the country in an unpopular direction. In fact, the whole Vietnam War was supposed to be a lesson about the limits of what military force can achieve. But now we see some of the same things happening in Iraq.

We easily "won" the war in May 2003, but then we decided we had to find Saddam. And after we found Saddam we had install an entirely new government, military, police force, etc. because we foolishly dismantled the entire system after our victory. Then, after installing a new "democracy" in a nation that wanted an Islamist government similar to Iran's and had no experience with any form of government other than dictatorship, we then decided we needed to stay even longer in order to "stabilize" the nation (As if stationing 140,000 troops of the 2nd most hated nation in the entire Middle East was somehow going to bring "stability") and reduce the violence. Then, when the violence eased in the last 6 months or so we decided we needed to continue to stay and act as "Peacekeepers".

And on and on it will go as long as the Republicans are calling the shots. After all, to pull out now and watch the government collapse would be an explicit admission of failure. And remember, these are the exact same people who think we should've never given up in Vietnam and should still be fighting there...

**omniking3** · 03-30-2008 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Pengin-san

Ahahahaha... oh my god stop it... I can't breath! Did you honestly believe at AF we all... I'm sorry AF for mentioning this word, agree with each other? Wow, it'd one boring place if we all agreed with each other. Just stop, you're not helping your case anymore. You're just watching too much MTV, or whatever channel says Obama is a Muslim. While some of us really look into the candidates we vote for.

It's called debating. We're arguing our point, you argue yours. That's why we have different opinions. It might not change one's opinion, but it sure opens your mind to the different. But obviously that's just too intense for you.

Let's see... how about you do research on the one of the world's biggest Christian church? That way you can prove that you're not an "idiotic retard".

BTW, I am so off-topic. Terribly sorry everyone! I'll stop posting now. I just couldn't resist.

I agree thoroughly, debating is what makes this forum so good. There are SO MANY kinds of people. You can find liberals, democrats, republicans, mac people, pc people, red necks, high society people, preps, goths, emos, and more. There is a such a vibrant spectrum of PEOPLE here. This is what makes for such great debates; the fact that you can find someone for EVERY possible side of an argument.