Is Obama a racist, could a white guy do this?

[dreydin]

jfc

[billbrasky]

Originally Posted by ZenMachine

In reality what has any senator really done? Obama has done nothing conrete in his short time in the senate. I am basing my decision on what the candidates say they will do in the future. McCain has said we should stay in Iraq for a hundred if we have to. As I stated in earlier posts I think that focusing our resources on Iraq is a strategic mistake that is allowing Osama bin Laden to reconstitute his forces and prepare for another attack against us. Given the fact that the Taliban has retaken parts of Afghanistan I think that it would be wise to use our resources there to prevent that state from slipping back to where it was.

In reality none of the candidates have any real national security credentials to speak of. Sure McCain has authored some bills and been in the senate a long time, but since the main responsibility for the nation's security lies with the president and he makes all major decisions regarding the use of force, we cannot really evaluate their ability to function in a position they have never been in before. We must base it on what they say they will do and who they will use as advisers.

Honestly I think that right now Colin Powell is the best person for the job and would do an excellent job of protecting America. He argued against invading Iraq at the time on the grounds that there was no viable exit strategy as well as the fact that taking out Saddam would "lebanize" Iraq. The same advice he gave to Bush Sr. I think he would make an excellent candidate. After him I think Wesley Clark would be decent.

I do not doubt McCain's integrity, bravery or service to the country, only his strategic vision to win the "war on terror." He has hitched his wagon to "victory" in Iraq. Obama has pledged to withdraw from Iraq in a safe and timely manner and pursue al-qaeda whever they may be. Now I know some people will ask, what about al-qaeda in Iraq? I think that AQ in Iraq is fading. They have lost the support of much of the Sunni population as seen in the "awakening councils" and never had any from the Shia population. Once we leave I do not think that either side will allow them to exist and terrorize the next power group. Most members of AQ in Iraq are foreigners who are only tolerated because they are attacking a common enemy (us) and when that unifying factor leaves who will support them?

So that is why I think he is the best candidate on national security grounds. I think that a lot of people on this forum are allowing their religious and social preferences to weigh on issues of national security. If people think that gay marriage, abortion and what not are more important than national security then what can I say? As far as gun rights go, I do not think Obama is like Bill Clinton and will attempt something like the Brady Bill. I think that many democrats have learned their lessons are far as the foolishness of gun control laws from the bitch slapping they got in the 90s.

As to religion, I think many so-called "Christians" really believe more in the old testament than the new. To advocate violence like in the OT does not seem Christian to me, it seems more like the views of Judaism.

What a surprise you take a worst case scenario perspective. We foolishly walk around in the desert playing war games, I guess sun tanning, playing kick the can in the desert cause we are dumb, all the while that clever Osama right under our noses assembles another army, and we don’t know it, until he unleashes what? Hundreds of thousands of warriors on us? No where in what McCain said, did he even allude to the fact he would remain in Iraq out of spite, or in the face of clear evidence that the war has moved to another front. McCain doesn’t love fighting in Iraq for the pure romance of it. I don’t know how someone who thinks they are so smart can be so focused on leftist crap, everything you say is so processed and filtered though a leftist machine that its worthless drivel. Nothing you are suggesting is anything McCain has said. You’re simply assuming or wishing this to be, so you can project your brilliance. Look I am smarter than the republican presidential candidate, and from this we can all assume .... YOU should be president if we would only recognize your genius!

Christianity is BOTH testaments, you don’t get to pick and choose and tell other Christians what they have to believe, you might know the Christian god is very forgiving and Jesus died for our sins. I can go fight who ever the hell I want, for what ever reason I want and still get into heaven. Your half azz', slanted and maybe even bigoted opinion of Christianity shows how shallow you are, and where you allegiance is. It’s with the non Christians ...... who virtually all preach peace and love also, but fight, BUT DONT DRAW your thinly veiled criticisms. What’s wrong with Judaism? Jesus was a Jew ? Jesus was a pacifist, I am not sure where you are going with this or what the point is other than we are all "fake Christians" if we fight back, and we should just give up and get trounced by foreign invaders who want to kill us in the name of their "peaceful" religion ..... And that they get a free pass from you because they aren’t white Christians, that’s the most important detail.

there was a video on here also I think in this same thread where obama basically wants to concede space to the Russians and Chinese, and take down our satellites and missle defense system, give up on missiles, on star wars etc. You can look it up, its here somewhere the last 2 months, but what am I telling you for, you already know everything about obama !!!! .... Anyways obama is a traitor, and a socialist, a gun hater, a racist, an empty suit, a media darling simply because he is black and liberal, and he is in collusion with communists to give them space. YOU somehow think he is anything to do with national security. He is all about spending on social programs. He is all about giving up in Iraq and emboldening the terrorists. He doesn’t even like America, much less love it. He wants to change it as much as possible from what it is, to what it was never intended to be.

[ZenMachine]

Bill, would you consider Colin Powell a tool for the leftist machine? The strategy that I have been advancing is not coming out of left field but was in fact the very same strategy that Powell advocated to President Bush between 9/11 and March 2003. People such as Powell and Richard Clark (counter-terrorism expert under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and GW Bush) who I think are above the reproach of being said to spout leftist drivel are simply putting forward a different strategy to the one of President Bush's administration. This strategy happens to be one that I consider to be the most effective in combating al-qaeda. These men and others that hold this view are professionals in the field of national security and have spent their lives serving the country. Much of what you say about a US withdrawal emboldening our enemies by pulling out is similar to what was said about withdrawal from Vietnam, the domino effect etc. The last time I looked communism has pretty much died out on the planet. If we leave Iraq the Sunni and Shia are going to be so busy fighting each other for control they are not going to have much else on their minds like trying to mount an attack against us. What is actually emboldening our enemies is that the primary man responsible for funding, organizing and executing 9/11 is still at large, most likely in a country that we count as an "ally." If we cannot bring the largest mass-murderer of American citizens to justice then it doesn't say much for our ability to implement more grandiose ideas in the world.

As to the culpability of the CIA in the "intelligence failure" that resulted in the Bush administration claiming to "know" there were WMDs in Iraq the fault does not lie with analysts in the CIA but with political appointees such as director Tenent who assumed the previously unprecedented role as Bush's daily briefer. Basically career analysts at the CIA did not have access to Bush to give their views as all the information passed on to him went through Tenent who is not a career intelligence officer but an appointee. Combined with the office of special plans set up at the Pentagon by Rumsfeld to "cherry pick" information from the thousands of intelligence documents in the federal governments possession. A telling piece of info that shows the lack of professional analysis by the administration officials is their claim to "know" that Saddam possessed WMDs. Intelligence analysis simply does not work that way. Thousands of pieces of information are always coming in and analysts must rate them in terms of credibility etc. The admin's case for war was built on a few very thin intel sources such as that of "curveball" an agent working with Ahmed Chalabi. His testimony to have seen firsthand WMD facilities within the last two years was taken as gospel by members of the admin, Tenent, and Rumsfeld's people even though German and British intel agencies had classified him as both an alcoholic and a "fabricator" (someone who sells lies to intel agencies). Had the case that the Bush admin made to congress, the UN, been opened to review by career analysts at the agency they would have shot it full of holes which is what they subsequently when the information became to known to the public after the fact. Then the admin had the gall to turn around and blame the CIA for the mistake when in reality the only members of agency involved in the collection of information for the admin were members of director Tenent's personal staff, not career analysts.

As to your scorn of bin Laden's ability, I think this is very dangerous stance to take. As I stated earlier, you should read the book "Through our Enemies Eyes" by Michael Scheuer, probably the most knowledgeable person in our country on the topic of bin Laden, headed the bin Laden unit at the CIA for years and hardly a liberal propagandist. The thesis of the book is how dangerous it is to underestimate a man like bin Laden. The powers that be did before and look what happened, the greatest attack on our nation since pearl harbor. Bin Laden is smart, rich, capable of waiting years to mount another attack, and completely committed to ending our presence in muslim nations...You disregard smacks of an arrogance that has already cost us dearly and I do not wish to see carried into the white house for another term or two. It is easy for you to dismiss my arguments as leftist or whatever although they are not rather than actually respond to the substance of what I am saying. I care deeply about the safety of my family and of this country. It is for that reason that I want to elect a leader who shares a strategic vision for protecting this country with me and the nat. security professionals I respect.

On Christianity. So what did Jesus mean when he told people to turn the other cheek? Take vengeance? I think not. What about when he intervened to stop a woman from being stoned to death for adultery? Was that not a repudiation of the laws of the old testament? Is Christianity really both the old and new testaments? If Jesus agreed with old testament why did he make statements against the harsh laws of the old testament? In my humble opinion a follower of Christ gives more credence to the teachings of the man that the faith is named after but hey, that is just me. Please educate me what parts of the old testament Christians are supposed to believe in? The taking of multiple wives? Sacrificing children to God like Isaac? Again I am not a Christian. I just happened to have read both testaments and find some flaws in the logic of modern Christians. I for one do not believe we should turn the other cheek to 9/11. I think we should bring down an old testament style wrath on those responsible, unfortunately they are in western Pakistan and not in Iraq.

[retired]

ZenMachine, with the exception of your last statement; "Any more questions," which seems a bit sarcastic, thanks for the rest of your reply to my post. Yes to both of your questions as far as I know. To be honest, I do not practice my religion, but I would tend to agree.

Would you please address your last statement. Is it sarcastic, because what with the vagaries of the internet, it can be interpreted that way and I want to know how you meant it.

[ZenMachine]

No it was not meant to be sarcastic, I only wanted to know if I had managed to make my stance clear. Also, to know if you had any more questions regarding the topic. I can see how it would be perceived as sarcastic though.

[retired]

Thanks for clearing that up ZenMachine.